& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Save your breath to cool your porridge

Reaz Ahmad
IT seems that the debate over what would have been a better option to contain the Pilkhana mayhem is far from dying down. The government reckoned that political negotiation was the way to deal with the mutineers. As the gruesome eMints unfolded after the fateful morning ofFebruary 25, it was discovered that mutineers had killed scores of our valiant army officers in what appeared to be a systematic camage.
Many lauded the government's move of negotiating with the mutineers, and the eventiuil success in forcing them to give up amis and release the hostages. Many others wondered how the government could allow the so-called BDR rebels to disappear in thin air despite havingsurrounded Pilkhana.
Probably, this debate over how the Pilkhana situation was handled will go on for some time. Strong arguments can be presented in favour of both views. There are instances where use of force was counterproductive, and also instances where negotiation proved to be too costly. But, in our case.
only the end will justify the means The big challenge for the government is to get to the rootofitall.
Until and unless the government succeeds in hunting down the real perpetrators, uneartiiing the evil design behind the massacre and awarding the culprits the ultimate punishment, no oratory will stop those who have a Pandora's box full of conspiracy theories that create more smokescreens.
Instead of getting instigated or agitated, the government needs to get to the bottom of the conspiracy. Pointing at one enemy or the other as being responsible for the Pilkhana mayhem will bring no good for it. Now that several committees are probing into the incident, and work is on to reorganise the paramilitary border force, the government needs to save its breath to cool its porridge.
It's very interesting, albeit frustrating, to see a government spokesman bringing out one card or the other from his sleeve to show that the government is not at all clueless about the masterminds behind the Pilkhana incident. He said that Islamist
militants had a hand behind the mayhem, just two days after the then CID chief negated, on record, the possibility of any link with militants.
With the government-constituted probe body finding it difficult to submit its report, even in the extended time, the people are always hearing of a new clue or two from the mouth of the government spokesperson. Shouldn't we consider the downside of spreading such piecemeal clues in the public domain when the official probes are still on. Without being fully convinced through the concrete outcome of a probe, hinting at a militants' link will have a negative effect on the country's standing in the world.
The public can point a finger at the militants after every grave incident, but should the government do so on the basis of one minister’s personal analysis? We must keep in mind that such utterings can cost our businessmen, students and workers visa refusals by many foreign countries.
At last the spokesman has retracted what he had said earlier, saying that the statements he had made before were not based on probe findings; rather they were his personal observations. It was really very unbecoming of him to say that after an analysis of the information gleaned from different sources, it seemed to him that militants were involved.
If one recalls the statements made by this spokesman over the last one month one will find a pattern; he would say something briefly and then would say that he couldn't give details. First, he spoke of militants' hand behind the Pilkhana mayhem, then about his suspicion that some BDR jawans were involved with JMB, and then again, in his words, "found some more proof that various types of organisations were involved in the BDR carnage." Such systematic trickling down of a few words at a time and not more than that can in no way help in the investigations, but will rather hamper them.
The government must keep its cool at such a trying time, especially when international agencies and (he international media are taking an interest in the events in Bangladesh.
It is interesting to note that the FBI sent two teams to Dhaka. The US envoy said that the investigation could take considerable time to complete, while the government has allowed only four-day time extension for the official probe body to submit its report.
Probably, this is not best of times to blame the young government for one thing or the other, but you can't help but notice the inconsistencies in the statements that ministers are making on how to try the perpetrators of the Pilkhana
killing once they are identified. While one assures people by saying that the government is just toying with the idea of a military court trying the killer rebels, another says that they will hold the trial in a military court for sure.
These are issues sensitive enough to demand decision in a collective manner,
not by one individual minister or the other. All said and done, the government should keep its head cool and consolidate further on the coordination front so that good job done so far does not to go m vain.
Reaz Ahmad is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star Email: reazahmad@yahoo com.