Strategically Speaking
Another militant shocker
That was the headline carried in this newspaper in reporting the recent arrest of nine militants reportedly belonging to Huji (B).
The headline is very appropriate, but one is shocked not so much because a large number of militants were arrested with a large quantity of arms and explosives, what was shocking was the admission by two among the apprehended militants of their participation in the dastardly attack against the AL leadership on August 21, 2004.
It was shocking because not very long ago the "findings" of police investigation of the case were pointing to a different direction and at different circumstances. Given the recent catch, one can hope that the investigation would be completed successfully.
Various theories were advocated, including the involvement of an Indian insurrectionist group. It is not a bad thing to have as many theories when conducting an investigation, but, as is the case with our investigating agencies, and our propensity to be economical with information, we are not aware that these have been discarded through the process of rational elimination.
It was for the first time in mid-August of this year that the IGP very categorically mentioned about the possible involvement of Mufti Hannan and his party, Huji (B), in the attack. And he said also that the investigation would run its proper course given the way the investigations were proceeding. And he said this when we were given to understand by none other than the IO of the case that the case was all but wrapped up, "dug out and proved" according to him. But, the culprits that he was pointing his fingers at were not quite what the IGP was suggesting.
This has been a classic example of how political influence, driven by the need to hide the complicity in the militant activities of those associated with the ruling party, can derail the course of an investigation, as has been in the case of the August 21 incident. But it is not enough to rest our arguments here. People must be made aware how deeply have our national security and state interest been affected by the partisan use of the law enforcing agencies by the erstwhile government, the least of which has been the efforts of our detractors to paint us as the next Afghanistan, Talibanisation being a matter of time only.
In diverting the investigation in a totally tangential direction the powers that be have allowed this terrorist group to carry on with its activities of regrouping and planning their operations in Bangladesh with ease. It is a remarkable piece of good fortune and very good piece of intelligence work that the latest arrests and recovery of arms and explosives were made. While the press has reported that they are linked to Huji (B) and Mufti Hannan, at least from the report in one newspaper they belong to the JMB.
It is interesting to note the winding course that the inquiry and investigations of the incident have taken. Simultaneously with the police investigation, which was preceded by mutual accusation by the two major parties, was a one-man commission of Justice Abedin. Among his findings was the possibility of a foreign intelligence agency's complicity in the matter.
We are not privy to the other findings of the Committee, but having been one of the many to have given his views to the Commission, the line of questioning appeared to me to be directed by some preconceived notion. This is an attitude, which, in the parlance of the Army, is often termed as "situating the appreciation" rather than "appreciating the situation."
And then we have the case of "George Mia." It has now come to be considered a comical farce where very little credit was given to the IQ of the common man to see through the charade that was played out by the investigators and their manipulators. Twenty persons were arrested in connection with the case, of whom 17 were released very soon after.
However, we should not go overboard with the confession of Hannan. I find it hard to believe that he was acting alone. And as the IGP had mentioned in August this year, Huji (B) had pressed into service other terrorist organisations in conducting the August 21 grenade attack. I am not quite certain what the objective of the proscribed militant group was, and what advantage would have accrued to it by the decimation of a political party's leadership that was in the opposition at that time. Link with this the erstwhile administration's effort to divert the direction of investigation of the case and we may get close to a reasonably sound explanation.
We have to dig out who is behind Mufti Hannan. The cost benefit analyses suggest that Huji (B) and perhaps its external links were exploited by those that had the greatest stake in the situation that would have ensued had the attack been successful in taking out the AL leadership.
The question that one comes across quite often while discussing the rise of religious militancy in Bangladesh is whether religion based politics and state patronage have allowed these elements to germinate in our soil. There is no one-line line answer to this, and is really a subject matter of a separate article. Suffice it to say that it is but clear that both the major parties had been and are willing to work with the Islamists, some of whom allegedly have links with the radicals. These parties have been provided the operational space as well as a voice of legitimacy, having been made, in one instance, partner by the BNP during the erstwhile 4-Party Alliance regime and in the second the AL's signing of an MOU with one such party prior to the aborted January 2007 election.
What is perhaps not common knowledge is that Mufti Hannan is not the leader of his party and he is not alone in the functioning of the militant outfit. It has a 16-member advisory council which, reportedly, has senior leaders of the Islamist parties including the one with which the AL had signed the much criticised MOU.
There is no doubt that the erstwhile government was disinclined to accept the existence of the radical elements till the events of August 17, 2005. The Huji (B) was proscribed only in Oct 2005 when, in fact, it emerged in 1992. And even then it turned a blind eye to its open activities like when it held a public rally in Dhaka on Oct 18, 2006, albeit under a different name.
The agencies ought to verify Mufti Hannan's statements and of those who have been recently arrested. But what the government must dig out is why the investigation was deliberately diverted to different course. What is shocking too is that nobody has been called to account for the ill-motivated inquiry carried out to divert the course of the investigation into a totally different direction.
The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic affairs, The Daily Star.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments