Human Rights Day: Why the chasm between state commitments and access to rights?

December 10 marks the Human Rights Day (HRD). It was on this day that a landmark document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), was proclaimed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in Paris in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. Not only have most states in their constitutions espoused the tenets of the UDHR, but the document has also been the source of at least 70 human rights treaties at global and regional levels.

The principles of equality, non-discrimination, justice, accountability, diversity, participation, and the rule of law are some of the core blocks on which the UDHR rests. States and societies that ensure protection and promotion of human rights for everyone are not only more resilient and sustainable, but are also better equipped to withstand challenges of all kinds—including wars, pandemics, and the climate crisis. The successful attainment of the much celebrated 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with concomitant commitment to "leave no one behind" makes it mandatory for the states that they respect and promote rights and dignity of everyone, irrespective of their status.

While the UDHR encompasses a whole range of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, which were subsequently expanded through various international human rights treaties, this essay will essentially examine the status of enjoyment of the freedoms of assembly and expression by people in Bangladesh. The UDHR acknowledges that "(e)veryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression … without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (Article 18). It also guarantees that "(e)veryone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association" (Article 19).

Both these principles have been further elaborated in a number of international treaties that Bangladesh is a state party to. As a member state of the UN, the country is obliged to honour each and every article of the declaration as well as the provisions of those treaties. Needless to say, the principles laid out in the UDHR have also been enshrined in the country's constitution, the supreme law of the land. Hence, it is incumbent on the state of Bangladesh to ensure that its citizens enjoy all those rights and freedoms without encumbrance. However, a cursory examination of the human rights situation pertaining to the freedoms of assembly and expression prevailing in the country leads one to surmise that there exists a wide chasm between the state commitments and the lived experiences of citizens.

Though the right to peaceful assembly has been guaranteed in Article 19 of the UDHR as well as the Article 37 of the constitution, it has increasingly become restricted in the country. Under the law, if political parties and organisations plan to hold rallies, meetings, and marches, they are required to secure prior permission from the police commissioners in the metropolitan cities and superintendents of police at the district level. In the past, granting such permission was a routine matter; over more than a decade, the applicants find it increasingly difficult to secure permission. The reasons for refusal of permission are not communicated.

Experiences show that, while the ruling party and its associate organisations do not face any problem in holding public programmes, opposition political parties have reported facing severe restrictions (Prothom Alo, November 26, 2021). There have been instances in which opposition rallies organised after securing due permission were subjected to attacks by the police or supporters of the ruling party and its associate organisations. Those include denial of or very delayed granting of permission, calling of parallel meetings on the same venue and date by the ruling party or its associates, imposition of "virtual curfew" on the day of the event and, in some cases, severance of all road and railway links, monitoring passengers on trains, creating obstacles in securing accommodation, and public requisition of buses and motor launches to disrupt the flow of supporters (Prothom Alo, November 26, 2021).

In addition, spontaneous rallies and demonstrations by groups of students and the youth, mobilised on issues such as revoking the VAT on student fees, road safety, and government service quota reform, were also subjected to denial of permission, police action and attacks by pro-government loyalists. On several instances, leaders and activists were detained, imprisoned and charged for holding unlawful meetings, creating public disorder and the like. The attack on civic protests marked a new low when a number of people protesting the visit of a foreign leader were killed or injured by police fire and arrested in different parts of the country. On March 14, 2021, during a press conference, the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) banned political programmes during the state celebrations of independence, declaring that parties that would fail to comply "will be considered as traitors" (Dhaka Tribune, March 14, 2021).

Freedom of expression/speech is another fundamental prerequisite of any democratic polity and has been recognised as such (Article 18 of UDHR). Yet, over the decades, this has been subjected to serious erosion under successive regimes. Despite the constitutional acknowledgement of those freedoms, those were curtailed through continuation of colonial vestiges, such as the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 pertaining to defamation and sedition, and the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The defamation provision in the Digital Security Act (DSA), 2018 and the Penal Code are legal instruments to intimidate journalists and free-thinking individuals. In most countries, defamation is a civil offence; in contrast, it is a criminal offence in Bangladesh. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898 explicitly stipulates that the plaintiff has to be an aggrieved party; in practice, defamation cases admitted by magistrates were filed by individuals who had no locus standi to file them.

Other legislative instruments such as the Printing Presses and Publication Act, 1973 and the Special Powers Act, 1974 also come in handy to tame the press. The Special Powers Act, in particular, accords substantive powers to state functionaries to detain individuals—including journalists and whistleblowers—for committing "prejudicial acts." The relatively recent legislations such as the Information and Communication Act (ICT), 2006 and the DSA have taken a serious toll on freedom of expression—including that of the media.

Apart from legislative measures, the state can exercise control over the media by exercising its discretion on issuance of licence, directing the flow of advertisements, and influencing the formats and contents of reports/programmes through "informal advice," a practice that has its roots during the military dictatorships.

In recent times, the DSA has turned out to be the most important instrument to control freedom of expression. Quoting the Department of Prisons, a recent Amnesty International (AI) report informs that 433 individuals have been imprisoned under the DSA as of July 11, 2021. The report further informs that more than 1,300 cases have been filed against about 2,000 people under the law, and nearly 1,000 people have been arrested since the law was enacted in October 2018. Amnesty claims more than 100 journalists have been sued under the law between January 2019 and July 2021, and at least 40 of them have been arrested. The vague wording of the law provides the state agencies the scope to clamp down on dissenting voices on social media, websites and other digital platforms. The punishment that can be meted out under the law extends to life imprisonment.

In addition to the legislative instruments, journalists and dissenting voices face threats and intimidation from various official and private quarters as well. The absence of an enabling environment that encourages free and unfettered reporting and analysis leads to the practice of self-censorship. Various national and international media watch reports have time and again expressed concerns about the constraints in which journalists, particularly those at the grassroots level, have to work in Bangladesh.

Thus, freedoms of expression and assembly have largely remained a chimera for the Bangladeshis. This failure of the state to uphold its constitutional and international legal obligations in upholding the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly amounts to undermining the very spirit of the Liberation War. The Human Rights Day exhorts people to stand up for their own rights and those of others. The onus, therefore, rests on all conscientious citizens, organisations, civic bodies, learned bodies and academics, artists, poets, and writers' guilds to contest and challenge the state and hold it accountable. Being humans, we all are innately entitled to enjoy these rights—rights are no charity.

C R Abrar is an academic, and a member of Nagorik, a platform of human rights and rule of law. The author acknowledges the support of Rezaur Rahman Lenin in writing this article.