Shahzad Uddin, University of Essex
Bangladeshi citizens took to the streets throughout July in nationwide protests sparked by students demanding reforms to the government’s job quota system. Security forces have quelled the unrest by deploying what many see as excess force.
Thousands of protesters have been arrested, around 200 people have been killed, and many more remain injured – some of whom are reported to have lost their eyesight. There have also been reports of the police destroying hospital death registers.
Video evidence, which has been examined and verified by Amnesty International, appears to show the police mishandling injured protestors, shooting them at close range and using tear gas in confined spaces.
Bangladeshi police are equipped with weapons that violate human rights standards, and they have used them to shut down the protests. An independent forensic pathologist who examined photographic evidence of the wounds of dead protesters suggested they were caused by birdshot pellets.
Amnesty International considers the use of birdshot inappropriate for law enforcement and believes it should never be used in the policing of protests.
The strength of police brutality seen in Bangladesh is reflective of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government, which has become increasingly autocratic over its 15 years in power. Media censorship, a lack of effective political opposition, and a weak civil society mean the government is not being held to account.
Bangladesh has never before seen a student protest movement become so violent. Yet the regime continues to side with the police.
On July 25, Hasina was photographed weeping over damage caused to a railway station in the Mirpur district of Dhaka during the protests. This has incensed the Bangladeshi people, who have criticised her for lacking empathy for the dead protesters.
The Bangladeshi government has now established a one-man commission to investigate the deaths and destruction that resulted from the protests. But this commission lacks judicial independence and, as it is controlled by the government, does not inspire confidence from the public.
Previous statements and actions by government officials have also shown a clear bias in favour of the police. This has further undermined the credibility of any domestic investigation.
So far, there have been no apologies from the police or the government for the deaths and injuries of protesters. In fact, Hasina has blamed her political opponents for the unrest.
The death of university student Abu Sayeed, who was videoed standing with open arms as he was shot by heavily armed security personnel, is now even being denied by the police. Hasina has defended the response of the police and security forces to the protests.
Holding the government to account
The government has been allowed to spin the narrative against the protesters with relative ease. This is largely the result of efforts to restrict the ability of journalists in Bangladesh from criticising government policies and practices.
Journalists in Bangladesh are at risk of arrest under the draconian Digital Security Act. Under the act, which was adopted in October 2018, internet service providers and their intermediaries are required to hand over data to the authorities without a warrant obtained from a court.
In March 2023, Shamsuzzaman Shams, a correspondent for the leading national newspaper Prothom Alo, was detained under the Digital Security Act in relation to an article about the cost of living in the country. He was accused of publishing content that was “tarnishing the image of the nation”.
As a result of this crackdown, which saw 56 journalists targeted in the first three months of 2023 alone, newsrooms in Bangladesh have been driven towards self-censorship. In its World Press Freedom Index for 2024, for example, international NGO Reporters Without Borders ranked Bangladesh 165 out of 180 countries – worse than India and Pakistan.
The local media coverage of the protests and the inability of journalists to demand answers from the prime minister is testament to this.
In the absence of local media pressure, foreign diplomats have taken on the responsibility of asking the government difficult questions.
A senior diplomatic official in Dhaka, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told reporters from the AFP news agency that Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Hasan Mahmud did not respond to a question from a UN representative about the alleged use of UN-marked armoured vehicles to suppress the protests.
The UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, has also called on Bangladesh to urgently disclose the details of the crackdown on protests amid accounts of horrific violence. Türk urged an “impartial, independent and transparent investigation”.
International media and human rights agencies can also play a crucial role in holding the Bangladeshi government to account. Senior director at Amnesty International, Deprose Muchena, has expressed deep concern at the crackdown on the protests.
Muchena stated that protesters are not safe at the hands of the Bangladeshi government and the Rapid Action Battalion, which has been deployed to police the protests. He said:
“[the] authorities must immediately lift the shoot-on-sight orders, fully restore internet access across the country, and end the use of army and paramilitary forces in the policing of protests … These repressive measures are a deliberate attempt to crush both these protests and any future dissent.”
Since its establishment in 2006, the Human Rights Council of the UN has mandated numerous international investigations. The investigations seek to address serious violations of human rights law, whether these violations are prolonged or arise from sudden events.
Similar investigations are needed in Bangladesh. Establishing an investigative body to examine the abuses perpetrated by the security forces would ensure a thorough and impartial investigation. This would ultimately promote justice and accountability within the country that would otherwise not be forthcoming.
Shahzad Uddin, Professor of Accounting, University of Essex
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
