August 21, 2004 — 5:22 PM
Thirteen military-grade Arges grenades rained down on a crowded political rally on Bangabandhu Avenue in Dhaka. Within minutes, 24 people were dead and over 500 injured. The target — Sheikh Hasina, leader of the Awami League and leader of the opposition — survived with permanent ear damage.
What happened in the hours after the attack was not a botched investigation. It was a deliberate, systematic destruction of evidence, orchestrated from the highest levels of the BNP government.
Step One: Attack the Survivors
As the grenades exploded and bodies fell, police on duty at the rally did not pursue the attackers. They did not secure the crime scene. They did not call for medical assistance.
Instead, they fired tear gas shells into the crowd of survivors and charged batons at Awami League members who were trying to rescue the injured.
Let that settle. The police — the state force present at the scene — attacked the people trying to save lives rather than pursue the people who had just taken them.
This was not incompetence. This was the first phase of the cover-up: disorient the witnesses, scatter the survivors, create chaos that would make it impossible to reconstruct what happened.
Step Two: Wash the Crime Scene
Within hours of the attack, the entire crime scene on Bangabandhu Avenue was hosed down with water and detergent. Blood, shrapnel, grenade fragments, forensic evidence — all of it washed into the drains.
In any functional criminal justice system, a grenade attack on a political rally would trigger the most meticulous forensic investigation possible. Every fragment would be catalogued. Every blood stain would be photographed. Every trajectory would be mapped. The crime scene would be sealed for weeks.
In BNP-ruled Bangladesh, the crime scene was washed before the bodies were cold.
The detergent was not incidental. Water alone removes surface blood. Detergent breaks down biological evidence at the molecular level — DNA, skin cells, hair follicles, anything that could later link perpetrators to the scene. This was not cleaning. This was evidence destruction executed with forensic awareness.
Step Three: Destroy the Weapons
Four Arges grenades were recovered from the scene — intact, unexploded, capable of yielding fingerprints, residue analysis, and serial number tracing. In a real investigation, these would be the most valuable pieces of evidence. Military grenades have serial numbers. They can be traced to manufacturing batches, shipment records, and ultimately to the arsenals they were stolen from.
The BNP government had the grenades destroyed.
Not preserved. Not sent to a forensic laboratory. Not examined by international ballistics experts. Destroyed. The physical evidence that could have identified the supply chain of weapons used to kill 24 people was eliminated on government orders.
In the 2018 verdict, Judge Shahed Nuruddin of Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 would write:
“The specialised deadly Arges grenades that are used in wars were blasted at the Awami League’s central office on 23 Bangabandhu Avenue in broad daylight with the help of the then state machinery.”
The destruction of the recovered grenades was part of that state machinery’s work — ensuring that “help” could never be forensically proven.
Step Four: Refuse to Register the Case
The Awami League attempted to file criminal cases immediately after the attack. Bangladesh Police refused to register any First Information Report (FIR). Instead, they registered only a general diary — an administrative notation with no investigative weight.
This was not a bureaucratic oversight. Refusing to register an FIR is a deliberate legal maneuver. Without a registered case, there is no formal investigation. Without a formal investigation, there are no charges. Without charges, there are no arrests. The refusal to register the case was Step Four in the cover-up: make the attack legally invisible.
Step Five: Withhold the Bodies
The BNP government initially refused to hand over the bodies of the victims to their families. The reason was strategic: independent autopsies could reveal the type of grenades used, the blast patterns, and other forensic details that would contradict the official narrative being constructed. By controlling the bodies, the government controlled the evidence.
Families were eventually allowed to bury their dead, but only after the state had controlled the post-mortem process.
The “Joj Mia” Fabrication
With the crime scene washed, the weapons destroyed, and the case file empty, the BNP government needed a story. They needed someone to blame — someone who was not a cabinet minister, not a DGFI director, not the State Minister for Home Affairs.
They found Joj Mia.
Joj Mia — real name Jamal Ahmed — was a petty criminal from Noakhali District. He had no connection to the attack, no knowledge of the plot, and no relationship with any militant group. But he was expendable, and he was available.
On June 10, 2005, CID officials arrested Joj Mia from his home. Sixteen days later, under torture by security forces, he was coerced into giving a false confession under Section 164 to a magistrate. The confession implicated the “Seven Star Group,” a criminal organization, in the attack. The CID’s fabricated narrative claimed Joj Mia and 14 members of this group had planned and executed the grenade attack.
Another victim — Shaibal Saha Partha — was also arrested and tortured into giving a false confessional statement. He was eventually released, but he continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress from the torture he endured in state custody.
The Joj Mia fabrication was not a botched investigation that happened to catch the wrong man. It was a deliberate frame-up, designed to close the case with a convenient scapegoat while the real perpetrators — the same pattern used in the Shamsunnahar Hall raid — remained in power.
The One-Man Commission: Justice Joynal Abedin
To complete the illusion of accountability, the BNP government appointed a one-man judicial commission headed by Justice Joynal Abedin. The commission’s report blamed the attack on “foreign and local enemies” — a phrase so vague it could mean anything and implicate no one in the government.
Two years later, Justice Joynal Abedin was elevated to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The Daily Star described him as a “shame” for the judiciary. The elevation looked less like a career milestone and more like a reward for services rendered.
This was the same playbook used after the Shamsunnahar Hall raid, where Justice Tafazzul Islam’s one-man commission blamed low-level officials and protected the Home Minister. BNP had refined the technique: commission → whitewash → promotion.
Two Years of Nothing
For two full years after the attack — from August 2004 to the end of BNP rule in October 2006 — the CID failed to submit any charge sheet. BNP leaders repeatedly told the press that the investigation was “about to be completed.” It never was.
This was not a cold case growing stale. This was an active cover-up. The Home Minister who ordered the crime scene washed — Lutfozzaman Babar — was the same minister responsible for the investigation. The fox was not guarding the henhouse. The fox was burning the henhouse down and hosing away the ashes.
The Truth Emerges After 1/11
When the caretaker government took power in January 2007, the investigation was reopened. The results were devastating for the official narrative:
July 2007: The CID initiated a fresh investigation under the new government.
November 2007: Mufti Abdul Hannan, chief of HuJI, who had been arrested by the BNP government in 2005 but deliberately NOT linked to the August 21 case, confessed. He revealed the attack was carried out by HuJI with support from Maulana Tajuddin — brother of BNP Deputy Minister Abdus Salam Pintu. Pintu had personal knowledge of the attack.
2008: Lead CID investigator Mohammad Javed Patwary concluded the attack was aimed at killing Sheikh Hasina, guided by the common grievance of both Mufti Hannan and Abdus Salam Pintu.
2011: Mufti Hannan gave another confessional statement implicating Tarique Rahman, Lutfozzaman Babar, Harris Chowdhury, Abdus Salam Pintu, and senior officials of the Home Ministry, Police, DGFI, NSI, and the Prime Minister’s Office.
October 10, 2018: Speedy Trial Tribunal-1 sentenced 19 people to death, including Babar, Pintu, and the former heads of DGFI and NSI. Tarique Rahman, who had fled to London, was tried in absentia and sentenced to death.
The Pattern of Evidence Destruction
The washing of the Bangabandhu Avenue crime scene was not an isolated act. It was part of a systematic pattern of evidence destruction under BNP rule:
The Grenade Attack (2004): Crime scene washed with detergent. Recovered grenades destroyed. Case refused. Bodies withheld. Scapegoat fabricated. Commission whitewashed.
The Chittagong Arms Haul (2004): Ten truckloads of military weapons seized. Investigation stalled for years. Political connections never pursued. The same Babar who oversaw the grenade cover-up facilitated the arms haul cover-up.
The Shamsunnahar Hall Raid (2002): No forensic investigation of police assault on 200 women. Babar’s role buried. VC scapegoated. Commission produced a report that never mentioned the Home Minister.
In every case, the same formula: destroy the evidence, fabricate a scapegoat, appoint a compliant commission, and wait for the story to fade.
Why Detergent Matters
The use of detergent to wash the crime scene is the detail that reveals the most. Water cleans. Detergent destroys. The person who ordered that scene washed knew that biological evidence — DNA from the attackers, skin cells on grenade pins, hair from the rooftop positions — could survive water but not detergent.
This was not a panicked official ordering a cleanup. This was a forensically informed decision to eliminate specific categories of evidence. It suggests that whoever ordered the washing understood exactly what the investigation would look for — and exactly how to make sure it was never found.
In the 2018 verdict, the court found that the attack was carried out “with the help of the then state machinery.” The detergent was part of that machinery. The destroyed grenades were part of that machinery. The refusal to register the case was part of that machinery. The Joj Mia fabrication was part of that machinery.
Every act of evidence destruction was an act of complicity. And every act of complicity led back to the same place: the cabinet of the BNP government.
Sources
- Wikipedia: 2004 Dhaka grenade attack
- The Daily Star: Coverage of August 21 grenade attack investigation (2004-2018)
- Speedy Trial Tribunal-1, Judge Shahed Nuruddin, October 10, 2018 verdict
- Confessional statements of Mufti Abdul Hannan (November 2007, 2011)
- Wikipedia: Lutfozzaman Babar — death sentence for grenade attack
- Dhaka Tribune coverage of Joj Mia fabrication and investigative failures
Leave a Reply