Commentary:
Issue 01/2013: Wednesday: 16
January 2013
At
last we have now three inquiry reports before us – one by a commission headed
by Abdul Jalil, a retired High Court judge, one by a police officer in
Baghaichari thana and one by
Criminal Investigation Department (CID), but sadly, none of these has been able
to pinpoint the whereabouts of Kalpana Chakma or to identify her abductors.
However the failure hardly surprises anyone who is familiar with the way the
ruling elites of Bangladesh
treat with the indigenous Jumma people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
While
the demand for reinvestigation has become louder, a review of these reports is
warranted to demonstrate how “an inquiry” denies justice to a weak and
marginalized people.
Let’s
begin with the report of the Commission of Inquiry headed by Abdul Jalil. The
three-member commission also included the then Commissioner of Chittagong
Division, Sakhawat Hossain, and Dr. Anupom Sen, professor of social science at Chittagong
University.
The
Commission submitted its report on 27
February 1998 but the government refused to make it public despite
repeated demands by Jumma organizations and civil and human rights groups.
However the report was made available to the later investigations.
The
40-page report concluded that “Kalpana Chakma has been abducted either
purposely or by force, but because of lake of adequate evidences and proofs it
has not been possible for us to determine by whom. Therefore, there is no
reason to recommend legal actions against anyone.”
This
failure of the Commission can be attributed to a host of reasons. Firstly, the
Commission members lacked the kind of sincerity that any independent, impartial
and fair inquiry would demand. They conducted their business sitting either in Dhaka
or in Rangamati, and none of them visited the place of occurrence and examined
the material evidences related to the incident.
Secondly,
the Commission claims to have interviewed 98 persons, but surprisingly its
interviewees did not include such important witnesses as the then TNO (Thana
Nirbahi Officer) Hassan Jahangir Alam, Kalpana Chakma’s mother Badhuni Chakma
and her sister-in-law Charubala Chakma (Kalindi Kumar Chakma’s wife). Their
testimonies could have been of great significance since the later two were
eyewitness to the incident of Kalpana Chakma’s abduction, while the former was
the one who had written down the statement of Kalindi Kumar Chakma, the
complainant of the case. To solve the mystery as to why the name of Lieutenant
Ferdous, Nurul Haq and Saleh Ahemd did not figure in the FIR (First Information
Report) as accused, the Commission could have asked for the production of the
statement written down by the TNO. This would have provided the Commission an
opportunity to corroborate Kalindi Kumar’s later statements with it.
Thirdly,
while the Commission failed to attach importance to the eyewitness’ accounts of
the incident, its members let themselves be influenced by military propaganda.
For example, the Commission gave an extensive space to a rumour then prevalent
that Kalpana Chakma was with her aunt in Tripura,
India. Another example is
the way the Commission cited a report of a fake human rights organization. It
said: ‘A human rights commission conducted inquiry, and along with others,
interviewed Kalpana Chakma’s mother. The interview was videoed. In the video, a
copy of which was submitted to us by a witness from the army, Kalpana Chakma’s
mother Badhuni Chakma said her daughter was fine and that she got news of her.
We watched and listened to that video statement. The image of Kalapana Chakma’s
mother recorded in the video is identical with those of her published in
various newspapers.’
Kalpana’s
mother, in a press conference in Dhaka, refuted the claim that she had told the
so-called human rights commission that her daughter had maintained contact with
her. Her statement was published in various newspapers, but Abdul Jalil’s
Commission failed to make mention of it.
Lastly,
the Commission failed to make use of a number of field investigation reports
conducted by journalists and human rights activists immediately after the
abduction of Kalapan Chakma on the night of 11 June 1996. When it was confronted with the question of
whether the FIR was read out to Kalindi Kumar Chakma, these reports[i] could have been of great help. But
without adequate investigation, the Commission went on to conclude: ‘It is not
true that it (FIR) was not read out to him (Kalindi Kumar Chakma).’ The fact is
that the FIR was not read out to him and it was acknowledged by the then TNO to
a group of journalists and HR activists.
Now
a few words about the police report and the CID report. In tone and tenor both
the reports are identical. The court ordered an investigation by the CID after
the police report, submitted on 21 May
2010, had failed to name any of the perpetrators. But the CID
report, which was submitted to the court on 26 September 2012, is none the better. Both the reports
were prepared without visiting the spot and without interviewing the key
witnesses. The reports also failed to mention the name of the perpetrators –
Lieutenant Ferdous, Saleh Ahmed and Nurul Haq – although the eyewitnesses had
spelled them out during interviews with the investigating officers.
Moreover,
the CID report has a contradictory element in it. On the one hand, it suggested
that ‘reinvestigation of the case will be initiated in future if new information
on Kalpana Chakma is found or she is rescued’, on the other it sought a court
order to destroy the material evidences kept in Baghaichari police station. The
question is: how fairly reinvestigation can be conducted if there is no
evidence?
To
sum up, the reports are biased and one-sided and skewed against the
complainant. The inquiries were not conducted to find out the perpetrators of
the crime, but to protect them. This is why all the Jumma political parties and
civil and human rights groups rejected them.
But
who can prosecute him whom the government has granted impunity?
****
Post
Script: As we finish writing this commentary, we have been informed that the
Chief District Judges’ Court in Rangamati today ordered reinvestigation by the
Superintendent of Police of Rangamati district. We are unable to comprehend the
wisdom of the court in issuing the order, which falls far short of the demand
for a judicial inquiry. What difference will it make when even a retired High
Court judge had to do the army’s bidding? The hard truth is that unless there
is a change in the Army’s attitude and policies towards Jumma people, no
inquiry will likely result in justice for Kalpana Chakma.
[i] a) Following a visit to Baghaichari, Priscilla Raj, in
an article entitled “Where has Kalpana Chakma gone?” published in the 17 July 1996 issue of daily Bhorer Kagoj, wrote: “A mystery is
deepening over the FIR (First Information Report) of the Kalpana abduction case
as well. Kalindi Kumar, the complainant, said the FIR was not read out to him
and that the FIR does not contain all his statement that he gave to the TNO.
There is also controversy about who have written the FIR. The DC of Rangamati,
SP and the OC of Baghaichari Thana told the visiting journalists, human rights
activists and others that it was drafted by the TNO of Baghaichari Thana.
However TNO Hassan Jahangir Alam disputed this, saying he had sent Kalindi
Kumar to the Thana after noting down his complaint. The TNO showed the
journalists and others the copy of the statement. What is remarkable is that
although this statement makes mention of ‘guns and torches in the hands’ of the
assassins, the FIR does not. Moreover, regarding the allegation that the FIR
was not read out to Kalindi Kumar Chakma after recording his statement, OC
Shahidullah said that the TNO had written down Kalindi Kumar’s statement and
read it out to him.
“However TNO Hassan Jahangir
Alam disputed this, saying that Kalindi Kumar first came to him and gave his
statement to him, but that was not recorded as FIR. Mr. Alam acknowledged that
he had not read out the FIR to Kalindi Kumar after noting down his statement.”
b) Morshed Ali Khan, a
reporter of The Daily Star, also visited Rangamati and Baghaichari following
the incident. He wrote: ÒThe OC of Baghaichari Shahidullah, also the
Investigative Officer (IO) of the case confirmed taking Khudiram statement as
identifying the abductors, but said that despite his best efforts to rescue
Kalpana, his investigation was hampered due to various reasons. .... During the
investigation it was found out that the First Information Report (FIR), written
by the OC from Khudiram’s description, did not match the one recorded by the
TNO of Baghaichari. The statement given to the TNO by Kalicharan was recorded
with clear facts and figures while the FIR written by the OC lacked clarity. No
one read out the FIR to Kalicharan before accepting it, it was alleged.” [Focus:
A Month After Abduction, Kalpana Chakma Yet to be Rescued: Dhaka Saturday, 13 July 1996]
c) A representative of the
Ain-O-Salish Kendra visited the place of occurrence and talked to
cross-sections of people. On 6 July 1996, the organization, in its ‘Draft Field Report’ said: “TNO said he did not write the FIR. Rather, he said that he handwrote a
statement on blank white paper for his own records. He then told Kalpana’s
older brother to go to the police. The TNO’s notes are with him. He would not
agree to let us copy it, but we did read it. It was far more thorough and
specifc (eg how many men came, what time, name of Lt. Ferdous) than the FIR. We
advised him to keep it in a safe place. He said he would produce it if ordered
by the court.” [Compiled in Kalpana Chakmar Diary (Kalpana Chakma’s Diary),
edited by Hill Women’s Federation, first published: 12 June 2001, page 183]
-------------------