Our worst fears are coming true
From whom? For whom? By whom? Photo: STAR
THE matter of the Chittagong arms haul is in the headlines once again. And what is appearing in the media must be a matter of discomfiture for all. Although the issue is still under investigation what agitates one's mind is that apprehensions regarding various possibilities of collusion and linkages, which were based on rational assessment, are proving true. News reports indicate that state agencies, or to be precise, several operatives of a state agency, have been a party to the shoddy business of illegal arms transfer. And this is the cause for concern. There has perhaps never been a more earnest desire to be proved wrong in one's assessment of a matter of great security implication for the nation than this one. Regrettably, our evaluation of the issue is being proved true from what has come to light recently about the operation through the statements of two high profile accused. The Chittagong arms haul has been perhaps the largest confiscation of illegally transacted weapons. According to the list appearing in newspapers there were 1,290 sub-machine guns of different varieties, almost 1,200 pieces of short-range locket launchers, 400 pieces of semi-automatic rifles and more than a million rounds of ammunitions, apart from other things. The lot was enough to arm several infantry brigades. The assertions of some government functionaries at that time, who tried to have us believe that these weapons were meant for indigenous clandestine groups, were not worth even a perfunctory consideration on several grounds. Our contention was that it was not meant for home consumption since there was neither a group large enough to be able to make use of the weapons nor were there any with the monetary clout to pay for the volume of weapons and ammo contained in the ten truckload. Perhaps recounting our views of the matter that appeared in the columns of this newspaper and the weekly Holiday of April 5 and 9, 2004, under the captions "Chittagong Arms Haul: Time to Act" and "Chittagong Arms Haul - Some Queries," respectively, would help put the matter in perspective. We must keep in mind that the country had never seen such kinds of weapons, except those that are available with the military, and the analysts were hard put to determine the "from whom" "for whom" and "by whom" of the consignment. We may now have the answers to one of them at least. This was what we said five years ago almost to the day. "The fact that these people chose to use a government facility, and that too a key point installation (KPI), to unload such a huge quantity of arms and ammunition points to some collusive arrangements. Such a large operation cannot be undertaken without a 'guarantee' of immunity. Given the fact that the operation did not involve only the unloading of the consignment but also an equally risky task of delivering it to the 'consignee,' it can be possible only with a guarantee of sorts." It was our assertion too that, "the quantity of seized hardware negates the argument that it was for in-house use, because we are not aware of the existence of such a well-manned and well-trained underground set up, capable of not only absorbing the quantum of the materiel brought in, but also proficient in the use and handling of the weapons that were seized. Even the Bangladesh armed forces do not possess some the types of the weapons seized in Chittagong. The types of military hardware also suggest that whoever it was meant for is well organised and trained to indulge in open hostility, i.e. taking on the government forces through conventional combat or classical military operations. We are not aware of any such groups operating in Bangladesh at this moment either." We have perhaps the answer to "for whom," but the very important question of "by whom" remains to be determined. It is becoming more evident as the questioning progresses that the matter was in the know of high-ups of more than one state agency. What needs to be determined is whether any policymaker was in the knowledge of it and whether the operation had his acquiescence, or was it like the Iran-contra affair where the low level operatives were involved in illegal arms transfer without the knowledge of the country's executive head? I for one find it hard to believe that the illegal transaction was a part of the state policy. And that being so, would the accused and the security agencies, whose names have come up in the interrogation of the accused, be ready to risk their necks without direction and a "guarantee of sorts?" The million dollar question is who and of what level is that guarantor. It needs hardly be emphasised that such operations will have serious consequences for the country's security. What we cannot accept is that our national interest be put at stake by officers working in agencies tasked to ensure state security. For the sake of national security it is essential to pinpoint the agencies involved, the level of involvement, the personalities involved and the source of the weapons. The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments