India issue in BDR massacre probe: Roaring in recommendations, silence in reality

• Controversial commission report on government’s ‘test of courage’
• Rumors are ‘official’, commission without evidence
• Commission report worthless in cases pending in Appellate Division

Special Report

The explosive claim of direct involvement of India’s intelligence agency ‘RAW’ in the recent report submitted by the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the BDR killings is now the focus of discussion at home and abroad. The commission did not just allege involvement – they recommended that the Bangladesh government formally send a strong diplomatic letter to India demanding accountability. But the reality is completely different. Despite the threats in the recommendations, the government has been silent in its actions.

Multiple reliable sources in the Home and Foreign Ministries have confirmed that the government is not willing to even take the “risk” of discussing the matter, let alone sending a letter to India. Both ministries have been asked to maintain strict silence on the matter.

The inquiry commission had recommended that a letter be sent to India in English seeking an explanation on how 24 Indian intelligence officers entered Bangladesh and participated in the Peelkhana massacre. But the Home Ministry took no initiative to implement that recommendation. The Foreign Ministry also did not move.

A senior official said, “The government has cold relations with India. But the government does not have the courage to send a letter. Nor does it have the capacity to take political responsibility for such an initiative.”

Home Affairs Advisor Lieutenant General (retd) Jahangir Alam Chowdhury has said on several occasions, “All recommendations will be implemented.” But he has not uttered a single word about India so far. That is, the recommendations are as much a political show as they are completely empty in practical implementation.

The officials of the two ministries concerned have been given clear instructions not to make any comments, explanations or statements about India on this issue.
The advisors also have the same position. As a result, the government has practically adopted a strategy of covering the entire issue in smoke and mirrors.

“Everyone is surprised to know that the commission has made such recommendations. But the government will not implement even one percent of them,” an official lamented.

Regarding the report of the Commission of Inquiry, those concerned have started raising questions, “What new information did the Commission provide?” According to many, an attempt has been made to give a new ‘official’ form to the rumors, Facebook posts, and secret stories that have been circulating for so many years. But the Commission has not been able to present even a single concrete, verifiable piece of evidence.

A political analyst said, “This statement has been brought forward to please some countries by taking advantage of anti-India sentiment. This is a political signal, not an investigation.”

Old controversies surrounding the commission chief are also resurfacing.

The head of the commission, Major General (retd) ALM Fazlur Rahman, was himself at the centre of controversy over the BDR killings. A 2009 India Today report claimed that he had provided money to some BDR rebels, including Saka Chowdhury.

At an event on January 7th of this year, he himself said that he had gone to the BDR parade on the day of the murder, but had returned “feeling upset.”

The question arises—what did he suspect? Why did he do it? Where did he get that information? The fact that the head of the commission himself is facing allegations further questions the impartiality of the report.

In the words of legal experts: This commission report has zero judicial value

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Shahdeen Malik directly said, “The trial of the BDR murder case is now underway in the Appellate Division. This report has no legal significance.” According to him, the commission can say what to do in the future, but they have no right to politically influence the ongoing trial.

Diplomatic and political observers are of the opinion that this government does not have the courage or capacity to write a letter to India. Sending a letter directly to India means getting involved in a major geopolitical conflict. The current government is not in a position to take such a risk. Therefore, the recommendations of the commission have been kept only on paper as an exhibition. All in all, it is seen that the entire investigation report is drowning in this double standard of threatening on paper, and backing down in reality.