Abdullah Juberee for New Age
The inquiry commission set up to investigate the abduction of Kalpana Chakma, then organising secretary of the Hill Women’s Federation, 15 years ago, found no involvement of the military or the Village Defence Party in the abduction.
The probe also failed to identify any abductor but resolved that ‘she had been abducted willingly or unwillingly.’
The widespread demand of the hill people and local and international rights organisations for making the report public has not been heeded for 14 years. New Age has obtained a copy of the report.
Till the filing of its report, the commission deemed Kalpana to be alive. It called on the home ministry to instruct the police to continue its investigation of the case filed with the Baghaichari police, still pending with the judicial magistrate’s court in Rangamati, to rescue her and to take action against her abductors.
The commission, composed of retired Supreme Court judge M Abdul Jalil, then commissioner of the Chittagong division M Sakhawat Hossain and Chittagong University sociology professor Anupam Sen, was set up on September 7, 1996 under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1956 amid widespread demonstrations by the hill people and severe pressure from local and international rights groups. It was asked to submit report in 30 days.
The commission interviewed 94 people of both sides. They included Kalpana’s brothers, villagers, local government representatives, journalists, rights defenders, leaders of Bengali settlers and members of the military, police and village defence party, district administration and the prime accused Lieutenant Ferdous Kaiser Khan.
It submitted a 40-page report to the ministry of home on February 27, 1997, five months and three weeks after its formation.
The report contains a paragraph of ‘decision,’ three paragraphs of ‘recommendations and comments,’ a brief description of depositions of each of the 94 witnesses, 10 pages of analyses, the first information report recorded by the Baghaichari police and some other documents.
Kalpana, a bachelor’s student at the Baghaichari Kachalang College, was abducted from her village home at New Lallyaghona of Baghaichari in Rangamati the night before polling to the seventh national elections began on June 12, 1996.
Kalpana was then campaigning for Bijay Ketan Chakma, an independent candidate, who was a senior presidium member of the Pahari Gana Parishad, supported by all hill peoples’ organisations then active.
Analysing depositions the people gave before the commission, the commission resolved, ‘[Neither] Lieutenant Ferdous and the two members of the Village Defence Party nor the army nor the VDP were involved in the reported abduction of Kalpana Chakma.’
‘Kalpana Chakma has willingly or unwilling been abducted but it was not possible for us to identify the abductor for lack of witnesses and evidence and there remains no grounds to recommend that legal action should be taken against anyone,’ the report concluded.
The commission also observed that many of the witnesses did not provide actual information, that they were afraid because of personal security concerns, and, that it had been impossible for the commission to get any ‘real information’ because the witnesses who had given their deposition before it were divided.
‘Suspicion, mistrust and in some cases rivalry between the tribal and non-tribal people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts have now reached a level which made it impossible to get actual information about the abductors. And many of them did not provide actual information for lack of security,’ the report said.
In their depositions, the hill people accused the military and the village defence party for the abduction while the members of the army and other law enforcement agencies and leaders of Bengali settlers were of the opinion that the Shanti Bahini had abducted her as ‘she was not working in compliance with its instruction.’
Depositions recorded by the commission showed that the depositions of hill people and local government representatives varied but depositions of the personnel of the military and other agencies were almost similar.
In its report, the commission said that the abduction of Kalpana was one among many incidents which had taken place in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. ‘Such incidents were rooted in financial want and deprivation. As by-products of the two, unrest, resentment and severe conflict are prevailing among tribal and non-tribal people.’
The report suggested taking specific measures to reduce the animosity between the ‘tribal’ and the ‘non-tribal’ people which might include a permanent political solution to the problem, to honour and protect rights of both the groups of people, to better law and order, and to further the economy of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
The commission found only four persons to have been eyewitnesses to Kalpana’s abduction which had taken place between 1:00am and 1:30am on June 12, 1996.
Two of them, Kalpana’s elder brothers Kalindi Kumar Chakma and Lalbihari Chakma, gave their depositions before the commission. The remaining two, Kalpana’s mother Badhuni Chakma and Kalindi’s wife, did not turn up.
The commission resolved that the statements of Kalindi Kumar Chakma and Lalbihari Chakma before the commission were ‘untrue and baseless’ as they lacked ‘consistency’ with the statements they made earlier.
The report says that Kalindi’s first information report with the Baghaichari police and his deposition to the Baghaichari thana nirbahi officer have no mention of Lieutenant Ferdous or the military or any law enforcement agencies and he mentioned the military for the first time before the commission on October 27, 1996. There is no mention in the report about whether the commission had sought any clarification from Kalindi regarding the inconsistency in his statements.
The report says that in between Kalpana’s abduction and Kalindi’s deposition before the commission, a number of individuals, organisations, newspaper representatives have talked with Kalpana’s brothers, have gone on demonstrations and shouted slogans against the armed forces and Lieutenant Ferdous.
The commission observed that Kalindi and Lalbihari were influenced by these individuals and organisations, that they had shifted their stance and had started levelling false allegations against the military, Lieutenant Ferdous and two members of the VDP. ‘Even the two, who are farmers in village, were taken to a news conference in the Dhaka press club by Hill Women’s Federation.’
The commission said that if Lalbihari had identified Ferdous, Nurul Huq and Saleh Ahmed in that night, he would certainly have said it to his brother before he made his deposition to the thana nirbahi officer as Kalindi had given his testimony to the TNO, and filed the FIR with the police after consulting him.
The commission rejected straightway other independent investigations and the collection of depositions by various organisations as they had no ‘legal right’ to conduct such investigations or to collect depositions. But the commission took cognisance of the activities of Bangladesh Manabadhikar Commission and attached due importance to a video clip which it had given to the military.
The commission did not take into account the Bengali transcript of an interview with Kalpana’s mother Badhuni Chakma, and the original audio interview in the Chakma language taken by Bijay Ketan Chakma, maintaining that it was not possible to confirm the authenticity of the voice.
It, however, took into account the video clip provided by the military intelligence which depicted Badhuni as saying that Kalpana was well, that she had been in contact with her, as Badhuni’s face in the video was the same as her photographs published in newspapers.
Analysing the reasons for attempts to specifically implicate Lieutenant Ferdous in Kalpana’s abduction, the commission observed that it might be a sequel to his ‘successful operations’ against the Shanti Bahini (the armed wing of the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samiti during the insurgency period).
Besides, the commission also observed that it was not surprising that the military had been implicated in her abduction as the military camp in the locality had obstructed their activities.
The commission also took the intelligence reports submitted by the military into account which claimed that the Shanti Bahini had abducted Kalpana and had passed the blame on to the military to tarnish its image.
The commission also accepted the military’s opinion that the ‘ammunition pouch’ which was left by Kalpana’s abductors and later deposited with the Baghachari police was not of the pattern that the military or other law enforcement agencies use. The commission also questioned the incident of gunshots being fired during Kalpana’s abduction as only three of the 94 witnesses heard them.
The commission also took into account intelligence reports and a news report published in daily Sangbad which said that Kalpana had been taken to the Indian state of Tripura by Shanti Bahini and was living in a protected village of Andarchhara, close to the India-Bangladesh border.
The report said that the commission could not confirm the authenticity of the information but observed that the ‘mystery’ could be resolved if discussions were held between India and Bangladesh or the government held discussions with the Shanti Bahini.
As for possibility that Kalpana had been abducted by the Shanti Bahini, the commission said, ‘Although depositions of some witnesses point fingers at the Shanti Bahini but there is no direct evidence against any member of the Shanti Bahini. Nobody can be implicated on the basis of assumptions only.’
Courtesy of New Age
