WHILE the 2009 carnage in the Bangladesh Rifles, later renamed as Border Guard Bangladesh, remains a shocking incident, leaving an indelible scar, the failure to establish the motive and the plotters of the incident and to bring them to justice is unsettling. The rebellion, which began in the border guard headquarters on February 25 and spilled over to some other sector headquarters that day and the day after, left 74 people, including 57 officers deputed to the force from the army, dead. After the incident, which happened less than two months after the Awami League government had assumed office, two investigation committees were formed, one by the government, headed by a former secretary, and the other by the army, but none of them could establish the motive of the rebellion and identify the plotters. Both the reports, yet to be made fully public, which failed to get to the reasons and the plotters, however, suggested further investigation to establish who, if any, hatched the plot and why. Further and thorough investigation, the demand for which has only become louder after the fall of the Awami League government on August 5, 2024, is important for strategic planning and stopping such events.
In the aftermath of the rebellion, which exposed weaknesses in Bangladesh鈥檚 security framework, various theories emerged to explain the underlying causes of the incident. While the official explanation attributed the incident to dissatisfaction about salaries, benefits and working conditions among the soldiers, many security experts found this explanation inadequate and misleading as it is highly unlikely that such an extreme level of violence could erupt solely because of grievances. Survivors, sacked border force personnel and families of the slain officers also allege that the official explanation coming from unpublished investigation reports 鈥� a few of the findings and recommendations of the government committee were made public in May 2009 though 鈥� is an attempt to hide the motives and plotters of the massacre. A number of survivors and security experts have, meanwhile, also alleged that there is an external, specifically Indian, involvement in the massacre and that the external forces, aided by the political leadership of the day, exploited the existing grievances among the soldiers. This allegation of the involvement of external forces is a serious one and needs to be investigated properly. If such an involvement is there, the implication of the massacre is far-reaching and severely impacts national security, bilateral relations and regional stability.
This is heartening that the government has declared February 25 National Martyred Army Day, assured its commitment to ensuring justice and formed the national independent investigation commission to investigate the rebellion. The government should now deliver on its assurances.
