Attempting to analyze an event before it's fully completed can be like counting your chickens before they're hatched. In my previous post, I argued that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's offer of amnesty to soldiers of the Bangladesh Rifles who mutinied against their officer corps in some ways legitimized the latters' resistance. At that time, it appeared that some deaths had occurred but that the soldiers were ready to accept the Prime Minister's offer of amnesty. This wasn't the end of the story however. It appears that the mutineers did not end up surrendering immediately - not until the military brought in reinforcements. After the full surrender, the military searched the barracks and soon discovered more than just a few dead officers - about 58 officers were found slain. Many of the mutineers were arrested. Although offered amnesty previously, the government has since stated that the men responsible for the murders would be punished; it is not clear that the amnesty might not still be applied to those who participated in the mutiny but did not engage in any of the murders.
While the new developments suggest that the government's actions and statements since my previous posting may no longer legitimize the mutineers' resistance, it offers some insights into other aspects about the resistance that took place. Specifically, the killing of the 58 officers raises issues of proportinality. To be sure, resistance takes many forms. In certain circumstances, violence may be called for, but in others, the use of any force or lethal force may exceed reasonable boundaries. Mutinies can certainly involve justifiable violence and killing, particularly where the leadership that is displaced is commiting egregious crimes and the only way to stop it is to commit some act of violence to stop greater violence from continuing.
In this context, a mutiny took place to advance claims of better pay and career opportunities. Ultimately, can the killing of 58 officers be justified for such purposes? Viewed along a spectrum, if the killings were largely committed in cold blood while the officers were held as prisoners, such conduct should arguably not be considered legitimate. However, if the killing took place amidst a battle between those within the barracks seeking to suppress the mutiny and the mutineers, might the killings then be more justified, more legitimate? Even in the latter case, and assuming some degree legitimacy, it is rare that a government would tolerate or be expected to tolerate such defiance (resulting in the death of so many military officers) from individuals within its military structure. Moreover, any explicit granting of legitimacy, via amnesty may likely result in disaffection within the military, upon which the civilian government relies upon not to overthrow it in the context of Bangladeshi politics.
Sources consulted:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7914541.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7914541.stm
No comments:
Post a Comment