We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.īut you know what? We change lives. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.” My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. “Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight.
In February 2009, when the mutiny occurred, Bangladesh’s civilian government had been in power for only a few months after two years of military rule.Ībout a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”: “Many of the country's brightest military leaders” were killed in one strike, “their death rendering a serious blow to the country's security apparatus while feeding fears that more violence may follow,” the Monitor wrote at the time. The military was furious with Prime Minister Hasina for negotiating with the mutineers instead of allowing the army to attack.” Still, the facts themselves … served only to deepen the public's sense that the mutiny was well planned and, perhaps, connected to a larger plot to destabilize the country.Īccording to the AP, the incident “exposed deep tensions between the government and the military. But it was quickly reined in when Prime Minister Hasina, under pressure to de-escalate the situation, promised a general amnesty. The mutiny appeared to spread in subsequent days as BDR soldiers in several districts abandoned their barracks. Suddenly, shots were fired by junior personnel, who were allegedly aggrieved over poor pay scales and untimely promotions. Nearly 4,000 other soldiers and a handful of civilians have already been found guilty of involvement in the 33-hour uprising in special courts and sentenced to up to seven years in prison, reports Reuters.Īccording to The Christian Science Monitor’s coverage at the time, thousands of border patrol members, then known as Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), gathered at an annual conference in Dhaka on the day of the incident.Īmong them were 168 officers. Some 654 witnesses testified for the prosecution, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reports.
The trial began in January 2011 and lasted through October this year.
At least 400 soldiers were sentenced to prison, with terms ranging from three years to life. The charges included arson, murder, and torture in the deaths of 74 people – 57 of whom were top Army officers. Roughly 850 people were accused of involvement in the bloody two-day capital uprising in 2009, which was sparked by dissatisfaction with unequal pay and poor treatment. Today's verdicts also come against the backdrop of nationwide strikes aimed at forcing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who was in power at the time of the mutiny, to resign before upcoming national elections. The drawn-out legal process has been criticized by human rights organizations. Nearly five years after border security forces in Bangladesh mutinied against their commanding officers in Dhaka, killing scores of people and raising concern a new civilian government could fall, a special court sentenced more than 150 soldiers to death. A daily roundup of global reports on security issues