Questions over Gopalganj violence deserve answers
Bangladesh has been in a state of flux ever since a mass uprising toppled former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's Awami League (AL) government on August 5 last year. But even for these uncertain times, the violence and killings in Gopalganj on July 16 have taken on a different, more sinister significance.
On the face of it, the violence appeared to be an outcome of old-fashioned muscle-flexing by two political parties: the newly-formed National Citizen Party (NCP), and one of the oldest parties in the country, AL. They squared off in a confrontation that was as predictable as tomorrow's sunrise.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Such clashes are nothing new in Bangladesh. Since 1991 in particular, the AL, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamat-e-Islami have regularly battled it out in the streets, with the police usually intervening on the side of the party that was in power at the time.
From 2013 onwards, however, the intent of anti-government protesters appeared to become more deadly, while the police response degenerated into outright brutality.
The incident in Gopalganj appeared to incorporate all the dark elements of Bangladeshi political culture, while the response of law enforcers quickly moved from "proportionate" to the lethal and brutal, leaving at least five local men dead.
In a society still reeling from the trauma of the killings of last July-August, one would have expected the death of five people in firing by security forces to compel the government to set up an independent enquiry. But what happened was almost a replay of an old drama, where new actors read off an old script.
The interim government's statement on the day failed to even acknowledge that five of its citizens had been shot dead, almost certainly by the security forces. The statement was more concerned with apportioning blame on the supporters of the AL, while praising the law enforcers and the NCP for their role.
The government then followed it up by setting up an official enquiry committee, headed by a top bureaucrat in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The call for an independent enquiry by human rights groups such as the Ain o Salish Kendra went unheeded.
Police acted as if time had stood still: it filed four murder cases where 5,400 nameless/unknown people were shown as the accused. Under cover of curfew, security forces rounded up several hundred suspected AL activists in rural areas of Gopalganj district.
Police actions seem designed to strike fear into people of the area, rather than ascertain the causes of the violence. All this harks back to the days of Sheikh Hasina's authoritarian rule, and not the bright new dawn promised by the victors of the 2024 uprising.
Original sin
When analysing incidents which escalate quickly, it is customary to search for the "original sin"—who ate the forbidden apple? In Gopalganj, the consensus appears to hold the AL and its student wing Chhatra League responsible for casting the first stone.
Constitutionally speaking, that line of argument is irrefutable. Gopalganj is an integral part of Bangladesh, and the NCP, like any other political party, has every right to hold a rally there. The AL, on the other hand, had no right to attack the rally and chase the NCP leaders out of town.
The local police also had a duty to protect the rally venue and participants, not just because the current government is apparently biased towards the NCP (whose leaders have been described by the chief adviser as "our employers") but because the party was exercising their constitutional right.
The big question now is whether the victims of the violence will see justice.
However, in a fragile and fledgling democracy like Bangladesh, politics is not conducted purely on constitutional or legal grounds. There is such a thing as "common sense," and that is often used to arrive at a judgement on what is possible. The constitution does make allowance for such complicated scenarios by adding a little caveat, "with reasonable restrictions," to every fundamental right.
Mission of conquest
The home affairs adviser told the media that he had "intelligence reports" about possible trouble in Gopalganj during NCP's programme. But he said he did not know the magnitude of the trouble. This sounds rather pathetic for two reasons.
Firstly, anyone who follows political banter on social media would have known there would be big trouble in Gopalganj. The NCP's programme in that particular district was not just a walking tour. It was billed by its top leaders as "March to Gopalganj."
They posted cards on their respective Facebook pages making the announcement, almost as if they were embarking on a mission of conquest. The date chosen for the Gopalganj adventure—first anniversary of Abu Sayed's death—was probably not a coincidence.
There were a series of statements by people associated with NCP which saw the march as an occasion to declare the death of "Mujibism" and the end of Mujib's legacy right on the soil of Gopalganj.
Given the triumphalist drumbeat from the NCP, it is most unlikely that the supporters of the AL would have seen the planned march as a mere exercise of constitutional rights. Having seen the destruction of the Bangabandhu Memorial Museum in Dhaka on February 5, it is quite possible that they feared the NCP would try to demolish Mujib's tomb as well.
Secondly, given the nature of intelligence gathering in Bangladesh, with security agencies having access to technology that allows them to snoop on people's mobile phones and web-based conversations without needing court orders, it is inconceivable that they would not have known how the NCP's programme in Gopalganj was viewed by AL supporters and what kind of disruption they were planning.
Army's 'self-defence'
All this should have raised the alarm bells in the home ministry, and appropriate measures should have been taken to prevent violence. The measures could have included attempts to persuade the NCP to refrain from the march or at least tone down the rhetoric.
The failure to anticipate the violence and then allow the security forces to shoot their own citizens puts a major black mark on the already-questionable report card of the interim regime.
The army has already taken a step towards accountability, by admitting they "used force," even though they wrapped it within a "self-defence" justification. It is worth noting that the army statement did not mention any use of fire arms by what they termed "unruly people."
Live broadcast on TV showed soldiers firing from their assault rifles. Clips of the video circulated on various social media platforms, which probably made it impossible for the army to deny they opened fire.
The big question now is whether the victims of the violence will see justice.
The immediate call from the government and various political parties is for the arrest and prosecution of AL supporters who attacked the NCP rally. If such prosecutions are followed up with action against the mob violence that has been going on across the country with impunity since last August, then most people would heave a sigh of relief. Otherwise, it would be seen as yet another case of "selective justice."
How the government may deal with the question of accountability for the death of five citizens is an even bigger question. Would the official enquiry committee be able to probe outside the parameters set by the government through its statement, where no mention was made of the death of its citizens? Would they be able to hold army officers accountable for the loss of lives? Without an independent investigation, that would seem most unlikely.
Sabir Mustafa is former head of BBC Bangla service, and former managing editor of VOA Bangla.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
Comments