Editorial

Dhaka University violence probe report

Make it public
The Judicial Probe Commission report related to the August DU violence has been submitted to the government. We would like to echo the view of Justice Khan, head of the one-man commission, entrusted with the task to probe into the matter, that the report be made public. To our knowledge, many inquiry reports are lying with the government, and the people and the media, remain unaware of the findings. Admittedly, many of these reports dealt with sensitive matters, but leaving such reports entirety out of public domain leads to much speculation on the matter apart from defeating the very purpose for which the commission was instituted in the first place. Although the DU violence has an element of sensitivity, and has to, in part, do with how we address civil-military relations in future, it is only fair that the public, and those involved with the incident, are made aware why the matter took such an unfortunate turn. We are not as yet privy to the details of the findings and recommendations except for those points that emerged from the commission head during his press conference following handing over of the report to the CA, and from his occasional comments to the media during the course of the probe. He suggests that the matter developed in several phases. We would hope that the commission has been able to pinpoint why after the first phase, when assurance to remove the army camp immediately was given by no other than the CGS of the army, did the second phase of violence occur, and who fuelled it. This is imperative if we are to prevent recurrence of such incidents. From what we have been able to cull so far, the commission has made some very substantive recommendations which we believe are worth serious consideration of the government. We believe that some of the recommendations ought to be implemented if we want to make the premier university of the country a congenial place of learning. And since some of the recommendations have to do with the existing government regulations related to public universities like the University Ordinance of 1973, we suggest that these could be put up for public debate as well for consultations amongst the relevant agencies and institutions before implementing these recommendations. We would also like to echo Justice Khan's suggestion to the CA that he consider the matter of the university teachers and students now in custody with sympathy, although the issue is sub judice.