Makkah on a Cycle - the unfulfilled desire of Zafar Farazi

Zafar Farazi on his Cycle

I met this man yesterday as I was walking out of the Court building through the Mazar gate. His cycle caught my attention and I read the information on the placard. His name is Zafar Farazi. He has traveled all the 64 Districts of Bangladesh on his cycle. His furthest attempt so far is a trip to Ajmir, which took him 16 days he tells me.


Right now hes only desire is to go to Saudi Arabia riding on his cycle to perform Hajj. He will travel via India, Pakistan, Iran , Iraq to reach Saudi Arabia. He also prepared a road map marking the break down of distances he needs to travel in each country. However, the authorities have denied him VISA for travelling. With the recommendation of the foreign ministry, he has appealed to be granted VISA for his trip but he has not heard from the relevant authority till date.

In most developed countries, a man like Zafar Farazi is likely to be featured in a reality TV show or some magazine. In Bangladesh however, he is only to be treated as BUM ! A mindless vagabond who has nothing better to do. I hope his desire to perform Hajj riding on his bicycle to destination Makkah comes true someday. 

The BCB T20 Opening Concert- fingerprints of a confused nation!

 Yesterday I went to the BCB T20 Opening Concert. I was under the impression that it was an ICC event, so was expecting to see the usual bunch of stuff I am used to seeing on TV, like players rallying with flags, some cultural shows and fireworks etc. I heard Akon and AR Rahamn was here, so was expecting to see cameo performance. But as it turned out, the event was not really an ICC event at all but rather one organized by Bangladesh Cricket Board  and it most certainly cannot be passed off as an opening ceremony. Basically it was a concert, plain and simple , with AR Rahman being the main show, and Akon also chipping in with a cameo at the fag end.

Much criticism has been made in the social media about this event and also about the price of the ticket. I got in with a complementary ticket (courtesy of a client from the sporting arena) which was priced at Tk. 20,000. I can't imagine myself paying 20,000 Tk to buy this ticket! On the event itself I met some friends who also came in with complementary tickets. I seriously doubt how many people actually bought the tickets (which went as hight as Tk. 75,000, I am told). Questions may be raised as to how BCB gathered this fund to hold this event and more importantly was this event at all necessary to do, given that ICC did not officially acknowledge this event? On a lighter vein, some melody , some dance , some fun..what's the harm in it eh ? after all the pre-election violence, let the nation just take a chill pill !

Well apparently many people in the social media is complaining that if we are to have fun in a T20 opening event, we rather do it in 'deshi style'.They are of the view that events such as these are an opportunity to portray our own culture and heritage and BCB did not do the best job they think. On the other end of the spectrum I have come across Facebook comments that says AR Rahman and Akon are world class artists and our local artists are not up to that standard to compete with them. If the people are interested to buy tickets and watch these celebrity artists then why stop them ? A third category of people cannot understand what the fuss is all about; "if you dont like it, just turn off the GOD DAMN TV" they say.

Well I am trying to appreciate the view of the second category who think it is fine to present mega celebrities before our hungry audience as clearly there is a market for it, and people are willing to pay the heavy fee charged. Proponent of the 'open market' will say, our entertainment industry will thrive when there is completion from superior foreign artists. If the people want  some melody,dance and romance, why not let them have it as our local industry is not fulfilling the demand of the people.

But is our 'entertainment industry' merely a 'product' for the market ? I know hollywood and bollywood is, but I am asking the question should it be ? Yes the reality of 'revenue generation' is ingrained with any artistic work, that no body can deny. But should 'entertainment industry' give the people what ever it demands  or should there be certain standards or values that the industry will seek to promote ? The Iranian film industry is a good example. They are not as technologically advances as Hollywood or Bollywood but they do a very good job with the script. Most of their movies have an inner social message which sticks to you long after you are done with the movie.

Coming back to the main issue, there is nothing wrong with foreign artists flying in to celebrate the opening of T20 world cup. Brian Adams did it last time during the ODI World Cup. That was fine, a couple of songs, a few words of appreciation, bye bye. But I did not understand why we had to have a full fledged concert as 'opening ceremony' ? And even if we must have one, why does AR Rahman have to be centre stage in it. He could have been the 'surprise guest artist'. As an official BCB event , which effectively should be considered a national event, I think there was no harm in our local artists getting more attention in the event. Clearly our local artist did not like it much. Ayub Bacchu of LRB expressed his grievance  openly on stage. Miles walked out of the event as organizers did not let them play due to shortage of time (just imagine, MILES cannot play because there is no slot available to them ? wowwwww).

Souls and LRB playing to a dis-interested crowd in the afternoon.

I am not a 'bangla purist', my problem is not that Hindi or English songs were played, far from it. My grievance is with the nature of the event itself i.e, the content and management of the event ; the prime minister gracing the occasion makes it a national event, yet I found the program itself to be an entirely 'commercial concert' focused around AR Rahman mainly. It was also a little hypocritical at one point when they were showing promotional videos on Bangladesh and its culture. I am not really a big fan of the cliche 'motherland diloguebaji' and generally don't pay much attention to it, but this was just so downright into your face. We are hosting the world cup and we are hosting the concert with the tax payers money, and yet we felt the need to to hire an Indian artist to be the centre of attraction , that I find a little hard to reconcile.

AR Rahman performing, Excellent light works, projection and choreography. loads of costume change and bollywood dance moves

Akon first time in Bangladesh.

I am not a big fan of bollywood music or hip hop, so the music was kinda okayish for me. But what I liked best was the fireworks. Man it was awesome!  

Published in Dhaka Tribune on 12 September 2013

The cost of negligence
Nabil AhsanLaw & Rights

Our legal system in its present form is not yet ready to accommodate widespread tort claims

Traffic accidents taking multiple lives or alleged negligent doctors killing patients are two very common phenomena in Bangladesh. Recently, there have been large scale industrial accidents killing and permanently crippling many workers. We often witness huge uproar in the media after such events, people demanding justice and putting the accused persons behind bars. Eventually the hype loses its momentum and life goes on as usual. We tend to forget what happened to the families of the victims who died or the sole bread earner of a family who lost his leg in an accident. Who is to take care of their families and to look after the education of their children?

Most developed legal systems have a concept of compensation for victims and their families for accidental death, bodily injury or property loss arising out of someone else’s negligence. It is commonly referred to as tort claims. If you have watched Boston Legal, you must have noticed lawyers constantly negotiating a deal out of the courtroom. Most of these negotiations are relating to tort claims for negligence. Essentially, the idea is to put a price tag on a person’s body and life so as to compensate him for his loss, taking into consideration his medical expenses, pain and suffering, and future earning potential.

In England the concept of tort of negligence developed in the early part of the 20th century. Following the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the “neighbourhood principle” gained widespread popularity in the English courts. In simple terms it means we all owe a duty of care to people who may be affected by our conduct or behaviour. So, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to its workers as well as to the end users of the products it prepares. Similarly, a driver owes a duty of care to his passengers and to other persons on the street. If he is negligent about his conduct, giving rise to bodily injury or financial loss to any other person to whom such duty is owed, by law he is liable to compensate the victim for the loss that victim suffered.

A few instances where a tortuous claim for negligence may be appropriate are given in the following paragraphs:

Negligence and road accident

If your family members died or suffered serious injury as a result of road accident, don’t just file a criminal suit. Yes, the driver may go to jail, but you can’t get a penny as compensation from the driver. In all likelihood he is a poor fellow with no substantial assets. Instead you are better of suing his employer, whether an individual person or a company. You can file a civil suit claiming for damages, to be assessed on the basis of the victim’s earning potential. This civil suit has no connection with the criminal charge against the driver, and both the cases can run simultaneously.

In a recent case, Bangladesh Beverage v Rowshan Akhter concerning death of a journalist in 1989 following an accident caused by the negligent driver of a reputed company, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, awarded the family members of the deceased approximately Tk20m as compensation for the victim’s untimely demise. The company was held vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver employed by it.

Medical negligence

Often we hear about death due to medical negligence. An angry mob would barge in and break hospital property. Media will be there and so will the police. As a routine matter, the concerned doctor would deny any liability while the family members would insist that the doctor was negligent. At the end of the day what is really achieved? The better solution is to take all the evidence and reports and consult an expert to determine the real cause of death. If there is prima facie evidence of medical negligence, you may consider filing a lawsuit against the doctor and the hospital management.

Industrial accidents

The recent Rana Plaza collapse demonstrates how negligence and poor judgment can lead to colossal loss of lives. Somebody ought to pay for this. While media campaign for punishment of Rana, the owner of the building, and others is definitely positive, from entirely economic perspective, victims of industrial accidents should consider making tort claims against their employers for failing to take proper safety measures to ensure protection of factory workers. Under the Bangladeshi law, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 provides the legal instrument for obtaining damages as a result of negligent or wrongful act resulting in death.

It will be unrealistic to suggest that getting compensation will be an easy matter. In our legal tradition, unfortunately, the exercise of tortuous claims is not popular. There are many institutional hurdles as well. Most lawyers do not know how to handle tort claims. Moreover, courts are reluctant to pass an order attaching huge sum of compensation.  Our legal system in its present form is not yet ready to accommodate widespread tort claims. However, everything has to start somewhere. Knowing your legal rights is the first step!

Published in Dhaka Tribune on 8th July 2013

Law that protects: Police interrogation or unpardonable torture?

The Hollywood movie “Unthinkable” vividly portrays an interesting dilemma on the use of torture to obtain information from a person in custody. It is common belief within the police forces around the world that torture is a civil necessity and if some force is not applied, no clue can be found from hard-nut criminals.

In Bangladesh there is serious allegation against the police of using torture and often lethal force on persons detained in custody. We commonly hear rumors of physical and psychological assault, the so called “water treatment,” “shock treatment” and “egg treatment.” Those who come out of such torture usually prefer not to speak in public but close ones know and see the marks of apparent torture on their bodies.

Recently, the rates of custodial torture and death is on the rise in Bangladesh, with the courts routinely handing over detainees to police custody for torture in the guise of a legal instrument commonly referred to as "remand." But what is this remand and what is the legal basis of this term remand?

Actually, in our Criminal Procedure Code, the word "remand" is mentioned nowhere. However it is commonly understood by the magistrates and lawyers that remand is that process whereby the accused/detainee is taken into police custody and tortured to solicit information or obtain forced confession. Political leaders and activists often fall victim to this procedure of remand. So does the underprivileged members of the society. The privileged few however, use influence and money to avoid torture in remand.

Ultimately, the widespread discretionary power of the police to arrest any individual suspected of committing an offence and this power coupled with the threat of torture while in "remand" has resulted in a "racket" of corrupt police officials, extorting money from families of unfortunate victims.

If one looks at the law, it is difficult to find any legal basis for this torture in the name of remand. Custodial torture and death runs counter to the high ideals on which this nation is founded.

Article 35(5) of the Constitution gives protection to every person from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in a landmark judgment (Blast v Bangladesh and Others) held that the provision of the Criminal Procedure code (sections 54 and 167) which gives the police widespread authority to arrest individuals and thereafter carry out torture in police custody in the name of remand is unconstitutional.

The court stressed that there ought to be detailed guidelines on how to conduct an interrogation of a detainee in police custody.

The court further held that failure to observe those guidelines should result in criminal charges being filed against those officers responsible for unlawful conduct. Moreover, the victim of torture is entitled to compensation for his suffering.

The Hon’ble Court observed: “The magistrate in the absence of any guideline passes ‘parrot like’ orders authorising detention in police custody which ultimately results in so many deaths and incidents of torture in police custody.”

To remedy the lapses in the existing law, the Supreme Court proposed certain modifications/amendments to the law in order to ensure proper accountability of police officials.

Unfortunately, 10 years after the deliberation of the Supreme Court, the government has made no necessary amendment to the law.

By contrast, the observation by the Supreme Court declaring the caretaker government unconstitutional gets the attention of the Parliament within days of passing a short order and the constitution gets amended at light speed. One can only infer that, the political parties whenever they assume office want to maintain the culture of inhumane policing for collateral purpose; hence the blatant disregard to a judgment of the Supreme Court.

Bangladesh is a signatory to United Nations Convention Against Torture. The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to transport people to any country where there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

Unfortunately, the government has taken no visible steps to comply with its international obligation.

The government is yet to enact a law directed to end torture and inhuman or degrading treatment by law enforcers or government officials although a bill in this regard has been placed in parliament by one of its lawmakers on September 10, 2009.

In reality, paying lip service to any international obligation is unlikely to bring about any substantial change. What is needed is a political will to stop custodial torture once and for all.

Failing that determination and political will to make the police force an independent, efficient and accountable body of civil defence, all attempts to redress the current problem is bound to fail.

Published on THE PLATFORM on 29th May 2013:

Victim of the State: The Disappearance and Reappearance of Shukhoranjan Bali

The discovery of a witness of the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal who was allegedly abducted by authorities last year raises serious questions about due process

As elections in Bangladesh are approaching, political tensions are at their peak with the opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), demanding free and fair elections under a ‘caretaker government’. Meanwhile, the ruling party Awami League is playing its trump card – ‘the war crimes trial’ as a means of last resort to gain some public support before it goes to the polls later this year. Despite the high voltage excitement in the political arena, one should not lose sight of the deteriorating human rights condition in Bangladesh. In particular, the rising rate of forced abductions and extra judicial killings.

According to a recent report published by Amnesty International, Bangladesh security forces perpetrated at least 30 extra-judicial killings, 10 forced disappearances and carried out widespread torture in 2012. The members of the opposition have often fallen victims to such forced abductions. On 17 April 2012, Ilias Ali, a central leader of the opposition party BNP, was allegedly abducted from the heart of Dhaka City by law enforcement officials. Earlier on 25 June 2010, Chowdhury Alam, the Dhaka City Corporation Counsellor and BNP leader was also allegedly abducted by law enforcement officers from Dhaka.

Labour leaders too are not safe from sudden abductions and unlawful execution thereafter. Aminul Islam of the Bangladesh Centre for Workers Solidarity (BCWS) went missing on 4 April 2012. An unidentified body was discovered two days later claimed by his wife to be that of Aminul Islam. It is believed that Islam was abducted by law enforcement officers and tortured thereafter. More than a year after the incident, the Police have made no headways into the investigation of the murder. Meanwhile, both Chowdhury Alam and Ilias Ali remain missing. Countless others go missing every day, neither heard nor spoken of.

The infamous ‘cross fire’ procedure is another area of grave concern. It is widely accepted that law enforcement officers often carry out cold calculated extra judicial killing only to term it as death caused by ‘cross fire’ during encounters with police officers. In many cases the deceased individuals were already in police custody before being shot dead in ‘cross fire’. With a corrupt police force, easily controlled and manipulated by the whims and desires of its political masters, the lack of accountability has resulted in a serious abuse of process, often targeted at the political opposition. The idea is simple; if there is a threat that cannot be contained politically, it ought to be exterminated by brute force in the guise of law. With a license to kill, the law enforcement forces have become an armed agent of the ruling political party, ready to carry out its dirty business.

The story of the abduction of Shukhoranjan Bali, a witness in the International Crimes Tribunal has been circulating since November 2012. He was allegedly abducted from the gates of the Tribunal as he came to testify in favour of Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a renowned cleric and a leader of the opposition party Jamaat-e-Islami. The International Crimes Tribunal is a domestic Tribunal, set up by the current Awami League regime in 2008 under the International Crimes Tribunal Act 1973 to try alleged perpetrators of war crimes in Bangladesh during its War of Independence in 1971.

Bali was initially a state (prosecution) witness against Sayedee at the International Crimes Tribunal, but became a cause of serious embarrassment for the government when he decided to change his previous statement implicating Sayedee in the murder of his brother in 1971. Instead he agreed to give evidence in favour of Sayedee claiming that the Prosecution coerced him to give false testimony against Sayedee. On 5^th November last year, as he was on his way to the tribunal to testify accompanied by Sayedee’s defense lawyers, he was allegedly abducted by law enforcement officers in plain clothes and taken away in a police van. With a biased, state censored media, the Government made sure that the Bali incident did not make much noise.

The twist to the otherwise well concealed incident dramatically came about recently when a local newspaper published a report claiming that Bali is locked up in a Kolkata prison serving a sentence of 105 days for illegally crossing borders to India. The newspapers claimed that Bali admitted he was abducted by policemen and thereafter remained in illegal detention in Dhaka for six weeks before being handed over to India’s Border Security Force near the end of December 2012. One can all but wonder what impact Bali’s statement could have made to the overall outcome of the trial of Sayedee. Earlier this year Sayedee, was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal, in part for the alleged murder of Bali’s brother.

The response of the Tribunal and the prosecution in the aftermath of Bali’s abduction raises serious questions about the credibility of the trail process. The Tribunal entirely ignored the defence counsel’s plea for a judicial investigation into the alleged incident, relying solely on the assurance of the Chief Prosecutor, that no such incident took place at the tribunal gate. The Attorney General, the highest law officer of Bangladesh ridiculed the defence counsel’s application of Habeas Corpus, before the High Court Division, calling it a mala fide application brought solely to hinder the trial process.

One should note that if it is established that Bali was in fact abducted by the law enforcement officers, the prosecution in that case have made false and misleading statements before the Court. It goes without saying it would seriously impede the credibility of the trial process, which is already under heavy criticism by several international human right organisations. Human Rights Watch, closely following the war crimes trial in Bangladesh, have expressed its concern over the Bali incident. Brad Adams, the Asia Director, stated “The apparent abduction of witness in a trial at the ICT is a cause for serious concern about the conduct of the prosecution, Judges and Government”. Moreover, Human Rights Watch considered it inappropriate that “instead of ordering an independent investigation, the Court asked a party in the case to investigate and then blithely accepted its answer.”

The onus is now on the government to investigate this matter and give a clear statement as to how and why Bali ended up in Kolkata. Bali’s safety and security is a matter of grave concern following his discovery. It is inadvisable to hand Bali to the same authority that allegedly wanted him to ‘disappear’.

The incident of Bali may have gained media attention because of the unusual sensitivity of the issue. Ultimately it may have saved his life. Unfortunately, there are many in the same situation as Bali, victims of police backed ‘abduction’ and perhaps ‘elimination’. The voices of the families of these victims never reach the international media. Human Rights organisations and journalists ought to play a greater role to ensure that the government is held accountable whenever and wherever it violates due process.

Operation "Flush Out" - My perspective !

You bloody idiots. Take your sorry ass back to where you came from ! 

                                              ...............................................

Today I met up with some school friends with whom I have lost touch for ages. Reminiscence of almost forgotten memories and lots and lots of laughter and thereafter, as if just to prove we are no longer 8 years olds, the issue of politics came up, in particular the hefazot movement and operation “Flush out” on 6th May. My old friend is of the view that the police action on Hefazot was fully justified. It was the only rational or reasonable approach for the government to deal with the situation. His primary reasons for holding this view is outlined below: 

1. Hefazot broke their promise to hold peaceful demonstrations when they started violence early on the morning of 5th May 2013. They damaged public property and it was necessary to tackle the situation before they caused more damage to peoples’ property. Police did not use unnecessary force. The force used was justified on the ground of greater public good because had they remained in Shapla Chottor they would have caused more havoc and unnecessary damage to public property. 

2. The timing of operation “flush out” was a strategic decision taken by the government to minimize further loss and damage. He gave examples of how SWAT teams in Hollywood movies carry out similar tactical operation in the middle of the night. It is logistic decision taken by the intelligence and Special Forces based on the 'imminent' threat posed by hefazot. Therefore, to go into the details of operation is basically politicizing the issue which does not benefit any one. In other words, those who is demanding justification of operation ‘flush out’ are basically doing it to gain political advantage. 

3. The closure of two TV channels was illegal but can nonetheless be justified on the ground of public policy. They were presenting false news and in the process inciting the people to commit more violence. 

4. The number of dead being 2500 is a ludicrous idea. The media was there at all time, and live footage was displayed instantaneously which does not reveal any casualty. He is strongly critical of people who are promoting the idea that large numbers of people were killed that night.  

5. Hefazot’s demand has nothing to do with the common people. They are uneducated people disconnected from the mainstream society. Government should not allow Hefazot to disrupt the normal lives of ordinary citizens based on issues that are irrelevant or immaterial to ordinary citizens of Bangladesh. 

As is the case in tea table conversations, I switched to automatic "debate" mode arguing back and forth my case often the argument drifting to unconnected issues. I generally enjoy the dialectic process of debates, one party putting forward a viewpoint and the other side putting across a counter argument and thereafter both sides trying to defend their respective positions. While this exercise is useful for putting the main issues across the table, nonetheless clarity of thought can only be achieved upon sound reflection and research on the issues. This is my attempted response to my dear friend. 

Response 1: A justified force 

I will not dare to delve into the realm of conspiracy theories as to who caused the vandalism. There are some videos available all over the internet which may question or challenge the existing media allegation that hefazot men burned down houses and shops and committed looting and arson. For the purposes of this piece, I am assuming hefazot is guilty as charged. In that event what should have been the appropriate police reaction? To answer this question let us take a quick look at how riot police controlled riots in the recent past across the world. 

London Student Riots - 

Between 6 and 10 August 2011, thousands of people rioted in several London boroughs and in cities and towns across England. The resulting chaos generated looting, arson, and mass deployment of police. The events were also called "BlackBerry riots" because people used mobile devices and social media to organize. In Chingford, East London, three police officers were hit by a car used as a getaway vehicle by a group who looted the Aristocrat store on Chingford Mount Road. Two of the officers were seriously injured and taken to hospital. In total, 186 police officers were injured as well as 3 Police Community Support Officers. Ten firefighters were injured as the London Fire Brigade which dealt with over 100 serious fires caused by the disturbances. The LFB also reported that eight of its fire engines had their windscreens smashed and that two fire cars were attacked. Vehicles, homes and shops were attacked and set alight. At least 100 homes were destroyed in the arson and looting.Shopkeepers estimated the damages in their Tottenham Hale and Tottenham branches at several million pounds.The riots caused the irretrievable loss of heritage architecture.It was estimated that retailers lost at least 30,000 trading hours. 

The damages as quoted above is by all means a lot more extensive than those allegedly caused by Hefazot men during the day of 5th May 2013. So how did police react to this? What was their mob control method ? The BBC reported that West Midlands riot police officers were issued with plastic bullets to use against looters, but that none were fired. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-14813632). On 9 August 2011, Theresa May, the home secretary, rejected the use of water cannon and said: "The way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon. The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”. How many protesters were killed by police action ? To my knowledge – zero. However, there was loss of life caused by vandals and these were investigated and some of these perpetrators have already been punished following due process of law. 

The Greek riots: 

The 2008 Greek riots started on 6 December 2008, when Alexandros Grigoropoulos, a 15-year-old student, was killed by two policemen. The murder of a young student by police resulted in large protests and demonstrations, which escalated to widespread rioting, with numerous rioters damaging property and engaging riot police with Molotov cocktails, stones and other objects. Demonstrations and rioting soon spread to several other cities, including Thessaloniki, the country's second-largest city. Outside Greece, solidarity demonstrations, riots and, in some cases, clashes with local police also took place in more than 70 cities around the world, including London, Paris, Brussels, Rome, Dublin, Berlin, Frankfurt, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, The Hague, Copenhagen, Bordeaux, Cologne, Seville as well as Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, and the western Cypriot city of Paphos. 

By the end of Sunday 7 December 2008 38 vehicles were damaged, 13 police officers were injured, and 22 rioters were arrested. The rioting and violence continued for several weeks. Again , was any of the protesters shot dead by police using live bullets ? as to my cursory research in Google I don’t seem to find any records of casualty caused by police shooting. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Greek_riots http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/2008_greek_riots.html) 

The Arab spring and Tahrir square: 

Now lets consider a bad example. Jan 25 2011 Tahrir square protests, saw 900+ killed in 18 days of protests. The highest-level inquiry into the deaths of nearly 900 protesters in Egypt's uprising has concluded that police were behind nearly all the killings and used snipers on rooftops overlooking Cairo's Tahrir Square to shoot into the huge crowds. (http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/2013/03/14/police-blamed-in-egypt-s-tahrir-square-revolt-deaths). Ultimately, however Hosne Mubarak could not save his skin despite his extreme crack down on the protesters and is currently standing trial on charges of premeditated murder of protesters during the 2011 Egyptian revolution and, if convicted, could face the death penalty. 

Having looked at the examples of recent riots, what should be our stand? Should we have taken the example of London or Greece or is the strategy of the tyrant Mubarak the right approach for us? Ultimately, I leave this question to your own judgment and conscience. True we are not a developed country like those western nations, but our secular civil society speaks of rule of law, constitutional governance, west-ministerial democracy – all products of recent western political ideology. So should we not also draw our inspiration of protecting human rights including the right to life and freedom from torture  from these nations? 

An apparent double standard: 

Switching to a different but connected issue, let us look at the genesis of the confrontation on 5th May. What really instigated the violence? I was glued to the TV right from the morning of 5th May 2013. The earliest news that surfaced in several channels was that a clash ensued between hefazot activists and Chatro league cadars near the AL office in Paltan. The images that appeared on the news papers the following day shows a number of AL activists firing at a distant crowd using revolvers and automatic pistols. In that case why is it only being highlighted that hefazot became an unruly mob? Why is no body pointing fingers at those identified chatro league activists individuals for shooting at the hefazot crowd? I know  one of the men in the picture below personally. To my knowledge he carried as licensed gun and is at present looming at large despite this image appearing on several daily newspapers following the incident on 5th May ! To my knowledge none of those individuals were arrested. Yet a top brass of Hefazot leadership is now facing a 22 day remand in police custody. Is it not a double standard? Would it not have been justified on the part of the police to crack down on AL activists on the morning of 5th May 2013? 

Armed Chatro League men shooting at Hefazot

Awami Thugs beating up Hefazot activists with the infamous "logi boitha" 

Response 2: Operation flush out at 2 AM - a justified police tactic 

My dear friend is of the view that timing and method of operation was entirely a matter of strategy and the police authority need not justify their actions to the public. Ultimately, the crux of his argument is that the end justified the means. Basically, what he is saying is that something needed to be done and the police did it. Going into the nitty-gritty of police action and criticizing them amounts to politicization of the issues. I find this contention slightly insulting on two counts. First, as a citizen of this country, a government is accountable to its citizens for all actions that it takes, particularly any action that affects the life and liberty of its citizens. It must be held accountable for all its action by the public. The media and parliament are important tools of check and balance. Secondly, as a legal professional, it is part of my job to challenge the actions of any government agency if it is in violation of due process by means of judicial review. To suggest that I should keep my mouth shut and not demand explanation from the government as to why 10,000 armed soldiers at 2 A.M. massacred unarmed civilians with lights turned off and in presence of a controlled media, is simply unacceptable and runs counter to the high ideals of democratic governance. 

The key question is why conduct the operation at 2 AM at night when the protestors have settled in for the night, many of whom were sleeping? Why not at 5AM in the morning. If the idea is to ‘flush them out’ as opposed to kill them, surely 5AM in the morning right after the fajr prayers is perhaps more viable option. The police would have had better visibility as to where the protesters were located so they could do more targeted crowd control and prevent collateral damage and loss of life. Also, the better visibility would have allowed the protsters to escape rather than trample and kill their fellow protesters while they are running to save their lives in darkness. 

What could be the strategic justification for conducting the operation at the dead of the night ? Were the hefazotis a cause of threat at that point of time when the operation was conducted? As I understand it , the violence had subsided at Paltan area by the evening of 5th May and so far as shapla chottor is concerned there was never any violent incident at that point anytime during the day of 5th of May. So why jump on these unarmed civilians with 10,000 trained armed personnel with orders of shoot live bullets (claimed by the government as rubber bullets) ? The police or any spokes person have not even bothered to explain or justify the timing of the operation. On the contrary, the members of the ruling AL appears to consider this crack down as a sign of victory worthy of celebration. In the absence of clear explanation from the government, and with a media that has decided to turn a blind eye to the indecent , all that is left for us ordinary citizens who care, is to speculate. One speculation leads to more speculation , rumors after rumors piles up until it becomes impossible to separate the true event from the imagined delusion of it. Who is to blame for it? Us ordinary folks , the social media  or the government ? 

Response 3 -Closure of TV Channels: 

There are two ways two look at this issue (i) the closure of channels from a political and factual context (ii) from a strict legal position. First taking into consideration the political context, the channels and in particular Dtv is known for having anti government stand which is  not surprising, partly due to the fact that its ownership belongs to members of the opposition, in particular its CEO who is currently standing trial for crimes against humanity in the International Crimes Tribunal. The Gonojagoron Monch at Shahabagh had in a number of occasions demanded closure of this particular channel as it is allegedly closely associated with and patronizes Jaamat-e-Islami , Bangladesh. However, beside their political identity, what is the exact transgression that demanded or warranted a draconian measure like closing down a TV station when it was telecasting live news around 4 AM at night ? In what respect was its news drastically different from other 22 channels that the government did not close down? It is being said the Dtv was constantly showing dead bodies and this was causing agitating the protesters.  Once again I want to focus on the timing of the operation. At 4 AM at night, people were either sleeping or glued to the television watching the events unfold. In fact most of them would have fallen asleep had rumors of imminent attack on the demonstrators not been circulated in all TV channels. In any case , the Hefazoti men were tired and many of them were sleeping after a difficult day of protest. Who was Dtv really inciting at 4 AM in the morning ? Once again I ask , could they not have closed down the TV 10 AM in the morning during office hours? Why take the effort of doing late night raid on Dtv’s office ? In any case were there not 22 other channels that would contradict the alleged false information by Dtv? I thought one great philosopher said “I do not agree with you but I shall give my life in protecting your right to say what you want to say”. I am certain that philosopher was an ignorant fool! 

In terms of the legality of the action, let us not even go into the nitty-gritty of the law and make it boring lecture on media law. A very fundamental idea of the legal process is the idea of natural justice, i.e., before you punish me for something, you must give me an opportunity to explain myself. In other words you must ask me to show cause as to why a certain action shall not be taken against me. Was such a show cause notice give to Dtv ? Has it still been given to Dtv 15 days after the close down? How can any one justify this arbitrary, mala-fide decision of the government? 

Response No .4 – 2500 ? are you out of your mind 

How many died that night. 0 as per the DMP commissioner, however 11 bodies were found at the site( whatever that means??). Not less that 50 as per Al-Jazeera. Different numbers are being claimed in different national dailies. 2500 and even 25000 as per rumors in the social media. If you think of it , it’s a really an issue of trust and belief. The government had said the no. is 11. But the problem is no body seems to believe this figure. Everybody has formulated their own views as to the number. There  is a perception among the people that the government is not being entirely honest. Its everyone's guessing game at this point. 

Ultimately, 11 or 50 or 500. It is immaterial. People are acting as if its okay to kill 11 but its not okay to kill 2500. What non-sense ! How can you put a value on life based on numbers ? Article 32 of our Constitution guarantees a right to life and liberty to every citizen of Bangladesh. If a single person have been killed without due process of law, the government must answer to its citizens why that has happened and who is to take responsibility for it. Then why this unnecessary debate with numbers ? 

Response No. 5 – you  idiots , you live on our charity. How dare you come challenge us ?

We feel so much sympathy for the garments workers. We generally feel sorry for the state of affairs of ordinary rural people. But when it comes to these madrasah folks suddenly we are not that sympathetic  They are like the uneducated, bearded , clumsy looking fellows who are the burden of this society. What do the they really do other than giving the adhans , or leading the prayers or offering milads here and there. Brain washed idiots. What do they know about anything? 

Yes it this bourgeoisie mentality which Marx vehemently fought against. The arrogance of the educated urban elites! Bangladesh represents a very minority Dhaka based middle class and a significant large group of rural under privileged people. But the urban bias is visible at every step. Somehow we the urban elites have the duty and responsibility to decide what is good for the rest. It is as if they are incapable of even formulating any desires and expectations for themselves. They are incapable of having any wants and demands. And that is democracy my friend!

I will not attempt to address the rationality or irrationality behind 13 point demand of Hefazot here. That is beyond the scope of this discussion. But I will insist that these people have a right to say what they want to say whether I agree with them or not. Unfortunately, we have not given them a patient hearing. We have ridiculed them, we have mocked at them and we have disrespected them by calling them “terrorist”/brainwashed idiots/Rajakar er nati puti etc. Senior members of AL and the government have made extremely objectionable remarks about them. This is simple unacceptable!

An attempted conclusion: 

There is republican there is democrat, there is conservative there is liberal, there is right wing there is left wing, and of course there is BNP and there is BAL. Yet there are certain human values about which there can be no division. These are universal irrespective of race, colour and creed. If in this respect we still manage to find division or disagreement then perhaps we need to take a long hard look at the mirror. Let us keep this issue beyond the petty power politics. Let us stand up together and demand our rights as citizens. Let us all together demand justice !