This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
It appears in the past 12 years no public conclusion has been drawn from the investigations.
Combined with the original demands of the uprise and the number of custodial deaths, corruption appears to have won this battle despite heavy losses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.226.152 (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just think it needs to be emphasised that as of today (February 27 2009) we can't assume the fatality figure included in the article is the final one. There is still a search for bodies taking place inside the Dhaka BDR compound and a whole bunch of people are missing. The number of dead may well rise significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.206.209 (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all clear to outsiders what the status of the BDR is. Is it paramilitary in the sense of the UDA in Northern Ireland or in the sense of the Canadian RCMP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.8.29 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rapid Action Battalion can not be regarded as a belligerent. Here, belligerents obviously refer to parties involved in the conflict, and the conflict is between the army and BDR only. The prevailing disparity between BDR and its senior officials, all of whom are Bangladesh Army officers, is the main reason for this conflict, as stated by the BDR and most analysts. RAB was sent in order to calm down the situation, and does not have any interests of its own in this conflict. Including RAB as a belligerent gives rise to the notion that the BDR was not pleased with RAB, and this notion contradicts the stated complaints and demands of BDR Jawans. Ezra jr. r (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image File:Bd army.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
A couple of things need to be dealt with. First, the final section of the article STILL talks about as many as "148" people being killed or missing. This was an inaccurate, exaggerated death toll released by the understandably confused authorities. The correct final toll needs to be substituted. Also, as of today (May 10 2009) a total of TWENTY arrested BDR mutiny suspects have died in Bangladesh police custody in extremely dubious circumstances. I think this deserves a mention in the article and contributors should stay alert to any further increase to this already alarming number of deaths, so as to update as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.152.90.68 (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
william gomes has expossed the raw involvement in the mutiny. on the other hand some people also claims that isi was involved. the article should have a section or some lines on this with proper reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.34.240 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page still has the uncited figure of 148 for deaths, which appears to date from very early versions of the page. The issue was raised at the top of the page then too!
The infobox supports 72 plus 7 missing, the text also contradicts itself by stating 148, then 78 in the next section, and at least one of the infobox sources, #1 is a dead link. The same paper, Las Vegas Sun, currently says 74 dead here. Checking, tagging and tweaking the refs right now. 220ofBorg06:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The latest source says only 74 died, so I have updated the page and removed the spurious uncited figure of 148 that seems to date from very soon after the event occurred. The figures in the infobox probably need new cites. 220ofBorg10:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Military courts could not prosecute the killing of superior officers?
The "Trials and sentencing" section at present seems to say that the military courts were unable to prosecute the cases of killing of superior officers. This is presently sourced to this BBC article, which seems to say the issue was the maximum sentence the military courts could hand down. I honestly find both statements a bit doubtful, and think some more investigation is merited (along with better explanation in the article itself). It just seems extremely counterintuitive that military courts would be so limited in their powers, and I think most readers would find it at least odd. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odd indeed, at least compared to Western benchmarks, and so struck me rather emphatically while reading... unless it is a peculiarity of Bangladesh, possibly stemming from the atrocious situation in what had been the military at its founding... or perhaps a peculiarity related to the status of the border guard units themselves. It would be culturally fascinating to know, but getting a WP:RS answer isn't likely to be easily obtained. The overall cultural framework is "its own", although not uniquely so, given the way the courts are reported to have collectively tried the accused. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article could use a Background section, setting out, for example, a brief history of the BDR, their role and relationship with regular army command, and any grievances that may have been mounting in the months and years before the revolt. If there were prior incidents, these should also be mentioned. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article needs a Background section. The numbers of soldiers involved is quite large and suggests prior grievances. To execute your commander and officers is not a spontaneous act of 6,000 non-commissioned soldiers who have just decided at that moment to act. It does sound as though it was a financial issue to do with bonus payments and lack of promotion opportunities. The article does mention corruption but these soldiers didn't seem to have had a political agenda. I don't know enough about the situation to write a Background section but hopefully someone out there does.
Also agree that the article needs much more information about why the BDR revolted. It describes actions, but motivation is almost completely missing. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
