How, and how not to investigate Salman Muqtadir’s BrownFish studio vandalism incident

Salman Muqtadir’s BrownFish Studio was attacked and vandalised. That much is not in dispute so far as it is an established fact.

But now it has become increasingly clear that Salman’s studio was not the original focus of the confrontation. The wider New Gini Properties premises were attacked amid a dispute over land and its possession. BrownFish, which Salman operated from rented space inside the property, was caught in that attack.

Daily Waadaa’s reporting from the scene found extensive damage across the premises. Police have also said their preliminary investigation points to a land dispute rather than an extortion demand directed at Salman. 

Cantonment Police Station Officer-in-Charge Mohammad Gias Uddin said New Gini Properties had erected a gate restricting access to other landowners, after which people from the opposing side went to the property to “show their strength.” Other structures besides BrownFish were attacked.

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed has similarly said the dispute concerns roughly 35 kathas of land and involves New Gini Properties on one side and a party linked to a senior retired military officer on the other. According to the minister’s preliminary account, people went to the property at night on behalf of the retired officer and vandalised structures there.

Journalist Zulkarnain Saer has provided a more detailed account on his verified Facebook profile. Those claims require independent verification though.

According to Saer, the dispute involves New Gini Properties owner Nazim Uddin Bhuiyan Arzu and retired Major General Golam Mohammad Mohiuddin.

Saer alleged that Nazim was a Rukon of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami’s Cantonment Police Station unit in 2010, when he was involved in Thai glass and scrap businesses. Saer claimed Nazim later developed a relationship with Haji Abbas, whom he described as an influential local figure and former organising secretary of the now-banned Awami League’s Cantonment Police Station unit.

Saer further alleged that Nazim used those connections to gain control of plots and later became information and research secretary of the Awami League’s Gulshan Azad unit in 2021.

His account also makes allegations about Mohiuddin. Saer claimed the retired general was involved in the land business with Jubo League leader Moinul Khan Nikhil during the Awami League government and faced allegations of using influence to gain control of land.

According to Saer, Mohiuddin subsequently sought assistance from then Home Affairs Adviser Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, himself a retired lieutenant general, during the interim government, as his dispute with Nazim intensified.

Saer said that the confrontation culminated on Saturday night when around 150 to 200 people arrived in four trucks in an attempt to take control of the disputed 35-katha property.

Just to clarify, these details are Saer’s account and they are not treated as established facts until independently corroborated.

The political connection remains an unanswered question

The central question is no longer simply whether Salman was personally targeted over extortion. The available evidence points to a wider land dispute. The question now is who organised the group that descended on the property, who financed or mobilised it, and whether anyone with political or institutional influence provided protection or assistance.

If Saer’s account of Mohiuddin’s previous political and military connections is accurate, investigators should establish whether any such network played a role in Saturday’s operation.

That does not establish BNP involvement. Nor does the scale of the attack, by itself, prove involvement by any political party.

But the absence of political backing would raise a different question: how could a group reportedly numbering in the hundreds assemble, travel to a property near the cantonment, allegedly carrying weapons, and conduct an hour-long attack without being stopped before substantial damage was done?

The location makes that question harder to dismiss. The property is within the parliamentary constituency represented by Prime Minister Tarique Rahman.

There are several possibilities, and an investigation should distinguish among them rather than begin with a political conclusion.

People connected to the current ruling establishment may have been involved. Individuals connected to the previous political order may have retained enough money, organisation and local influence to carry out the operation independently. People associated with another political organisation could have participated. Or the incident could have been driven principally by a private land conflict involving hired muscle rather than a political organisation.

At present, the publicly available evidence does not establish which explanation is correct.

There is, however, already one politically relevant development. Police have now arrested five people. Among them is Shah Alam Anik, whom law-enforcement officials identified as a joint convener of Muktijoddha Projonmo League. Police have also arrested Shahriar, whom they describe as the alleged main planner, along with Md Mamun, Aslam and Munna.

That makes it more important, not less, to establish the chain of command.

Who instructed Shahriar? Who arranged the men and transport? Who selected the property? Who knew beforehand what would happen? And was the operation backed, facilitated or protected by anyone with political or institutional influence?

Those are investigative questions. They cannot be answered simply by identifying several people who allegedly participated on the ground.

Saer has made another allegation that complicates the claim that BrownFish was merely accidental collateral damage. He said the attackers knew that top criminal Sweden Aslam was the maternal uncle of Salman’s wife and that this knowledge increased their hostility towards the studio.

If that allegation is substantiated, the picture changes somewhat. BrownFish may not have been the reason the group went to the property, but it could still have been deliberately singled out for heavier vandalism once the attackers were there.

The distinction matters. The attack may have originated in a land dispute without every part of the subsequent violence being indiscriminate.

Salman was still the victim of a crime

That brings us to Salman’s Facebook Live.

Whatever ultimately emerges about the land dispute, Salman’s studio was vandalised. Furniture and equipment were smashed, CCTV cameras were damaged and workers alleged that phones and cash were taken. Reporting from the scene indicates BrownFish suffered extensive damage.

As the person whose business was attacked, Salman was entitled to demand answers from the authorities, including the Home Minister.

His suggestion that BNP-linked people might have been involved was an allegation, not an established fact. BNP is the governing party, but that alone does not establish a connection between the party and the attackers. Determining whether such a connection existed is precisely one of the matters investigators should examine rather than assume either way.

There is also little value in collapsing the vandalism case into questions about whether Salman should have rented space on disputed property or what relationship he had with New Gini Properties owner Nazim Uddin.

If there are questions about the legality of the property, ownership, possession, access rights or any dealings between Salman and Nazim, those can be investigated separately and resolved through the appropriate legal process.

They do not alter the immediate fact that a group entered the premises and destroyed property.

There was also confusion over whether Salman had approached police. The Home Minister initially questioned whether Salman had filed a case. Salman subsequently said he had gone to Cantonment Police Station that night, remained there until around 4am and filed the case.

The investigation has already produced arrests. Shahriar has been identified by police as the alleged main planner. That designation now creates the most obvious investigative route.

If investigators establish that Shahriar acted on somebody else’s instructions, the inquiry should follow that chain wherever it leads. If evidence links the operation to Mohiuddin, that should be investigated. 

If evidence points towards figures associated with BNP, Jamaat, NCP, the Awami League or any other organisation, that connection should be examined on evidence rather than assumption. If the organisers acted without political backing, that conclusion should likewise be established through evidence.

Arresting people accused of taking part in the attack addresses only one layer of the case.

The larger question is who organised it, who supplied the manpower and vehicles, who authorised the attempt to take possession of the property, and whether anyone expected protection from political or institutional connections.

—