I myself am reminded of attacks on Hindu homes right after the 2001 parliamentary elections, generally known to have been committed by supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami and the BNP. I am reminded of the mother in a Barisal village who had pleaded with the men who’d invaded her house. She’s so little, she’s only thirteen, one after the other please, I beg of you. I was reminded of Prashanta Mridha’s short story, based on the incident, where he’d drawn parallels with Saadat Hasan Manto’s partition story, of the worried-to-death Muslim father who had been separated from his daughter during the riots, of his being vastly relieved when his daughter was brought into the hospital. The doctor, unsure of whether the girl was dead or alive, instructed someone to open the windows, it’s stuffy in here. Khol do. Her fingers quivered, her father was overjoyed that his daughter was still alive, but the doctor was aghast, for her fingers had imperceptibly moved down, to loosen her trouser string.
Part 1: Punishing The Innocent
Lastly, in the introduction to Annexure-2 (How the Incident Began), I stumble over the authorial voice, who is the author: probe committe members, or Muktadir? Look at what the authors’ write while describing the sequence of events after the offensive picture had been discovered in Faruk’s computer shop in Ramu’s bazar, some men entered the shop saying they wanted to see it: “since people had [already] learned about the picture, fearing that Uttam Kumar Barua may delete it from his account Abdul Muktadir went to Faruk’s facebook wall from his own account and captured a [screen]shot with his [Uttam's] profile.” Since Muktadir’s “fear” led to actions which had disastrous consequences, is it not necessary that his fear not be viewed unproblematically?
Part 2: Govt response to communal attack in Ramu