Does the PM deserve uncharitable remarks?
THE BDR mutiny caught us unawares. The prime minister led from the front as she was expected to do. Her astute handling of the crisis saved the lives of so many military and civil hostages inside the BDR compound. With that ended the first phase of the crisis.
Enquiries have begun since. Some have made random comments on the PM's approach to the crisis. Perhaps she does not deserve much of it. To realise what is what, why do we not look back into the sequence of developments up to now?
The rebels did not give any inkling of the grisly murders committed. Shrewdly, they suppressed everything all through until arms surrender upon the prime minister's stern warning to lay down arms.
At those critical hours, the prime concern was to secure release of the army officers and their wives and children under custody of the mutineers. That objective must have impelled her to a political resolution.
The mutineers in statements to TV channels blamed the army officers in command for severe maltreatment towards them. They attributed the act to their pent up resentment for redressing some long pending grievances. It was but natural to think that the rebelling troops might have held the officers captive as bargaining chips for meeting their demands. It occurred to no one that they might have brutally killed so many officers in the meantime. Even the media did not try to elicit information about the officers' fate at that time.
In that stage, the prime minister, after consultation with her cabinet, AL presidium members, mahajote leaders, and the armed forces chiefs, decided to neutralise the armed rebels through negotiations rather than armed intervention that many reckon could have certainly caused unimaginable military and civilian casualties both within and outside the compound.
It was not until the 33-hour nightmare ended and the surviving officers came out that we could learn about the mass killings. The massacre, survivors said, was finished swiftly within 2 hours on the morning of February 25. The rebels ensured that nobody could even guess anything about it from outside. Way too late it became clear that it had been all over before "negotiations" began.
What does it imply? It is clearly understandable that the rebels completed their hellish mission before noon on the day and that an armed attack against the rebelling forces even at the noon would have resulted in a bigger bloodshed. That is what validates the prime minister's way of tackling the crisis. She had no way to know about the horrendous massacre already wrought.
Now about a fortnight into the tragedy, separate army and civil enquiries are underway, and we hope for thorough investigations bringing up everything about the killers and their backers/instigators. All relevant agencies ought to assist in the probe. All quarters, from the media to the political arena, need to show solidarity in facing up to this national crisis.
What is as much important is rock solid national unity rising above partisan thinking. To our utter disappointment, some are raising belated questions about the ways the government dealt with the crisis, albeit people believe PM's patient responses under the circumstances were reasonably appropriate.
For argument's sake, if there were any lapse in the whole process, is it possible to undo the same now? Why play a divisive, rancorous role that may only confuse people? We understand the critics could have stood beside the government with suggestions, if any. That could be a pro-active role at the right time.
But all the post-facto surmises as to what could have been done and what avoided, and what would have yielded what kind of better results are of little value now in terms of helping the government do all it takes to conclude the sad episode. Such wild guessing of possibilities will never end. What use is it all?
Some quarters' demand for the home minister's resignation and prime minister's apology has raised a few eyebrows. It can be pointed out that the opposition leadership while in power did not institute proper investigation and trial of many killings including the August 21, 2004 grenade attack on AL meeting. Now it does not befit them to raise such demands that might contribute negatively to the ongoing enquires at this critical time. They ought to refrain from uncharitable comments that would only make matters worse.
However, the opposition leadership may have points to keep the government on its toes. But in larger national interest, it had better come forward to help close the tragic episode convincingly. They might begin by responding to the prime minister's open-hearted call to hand over all evidence they reportedly claim they have to the enquiry committees.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments