The Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called for disbanding the Rapid Action Bureau (RAB) highlighting the 800 custodial and extra-judicial deaths in its hands as the main reason. The government dismissed the call and correctly so because the fate of a country's law-enforcement agency and that too of an elite one cannot be decided upon what a human rights organisation based abroad thinks of it. Similar call to rein in RAB and other law-enforcement agencies has also come from within the country, including TIB (Transparency International Bangladesh).
The government's rejection of HRW's call notwithstanding, the New York-based organisation and TIB have brought into serious public debate in the country and abroad the phenomenal number of people who have died in custody of the law-enforcement agencies including RAB. Such deaths cannot be dismissed no matter where the call comes from because the issue of custodial death is a major indicator on where a country stands in the index of rule of law, the fundamental foundation of a democratic society. A litmus test of rule of law is the zero tolerance on the issue, without even an iota of grey area. The western democracies claim unquestioned rule of law because custodial deaths do not occur there except in extremely exceptional cases. When such custodial deaths occur, those responsible are brought to justice like common criminals without exception.
Bangladesh fails in this litmus test to establish rule of law palpably, without HRW or the TIB saying so. Custodial deaths happen so often in our country that such deaths are considered normal. The issue of custodial deaths was a major election issue in December 2008. The Awami League had pledged that if people voted it to power, it would ensure that custodial deaths would be nonexistent in the country. The AL had made that commitment based on its belief in the rule of law and democracy.
The AL-led government did not keep that commitment. Therefore, it has been under pressure on the issue from human rights organisation at home and abroad because custodial deaths in its regime, instead of going away, continued with new twists. The victims of custodial deaths were no longer the alleged criminals; those opposing the government politically also became victims that encouraged the law-enforcement agencies to carry on with their despicable acts with impunity. These agencies also added new dimensions to their activities by placing themselves, with indulgence of the government, above the law. In addition to dying in custody, people, particularly those incarcerated for political reasons, started to vanish into the thin air for which a new term has been introduced in the country's politics, namely forced disappearances.
In the aftermath of the BDR killings of 2009, nearly 60 of the accused died in custody. The authorities had said they had died of heart attack. All those who died were members of a fighting force and therefore no sensible person believed in what the authorities had said. The AL-led government had promised during the December 2008 elections that if it formed government it would also ensure that there would be no more deaths by "cross-fire". Yet once in power, the AL inherited gladly both custodial deaths and killing by "cross-fire" from the BNP government. Therefore, it also accepted the BNP's explanation of death by "cross-fire"; that these deaths were due to gunfight between the law enforcing agencies and accomplices of the killed victim while they were showing the members of the law enforcing agencies evidence related to their alleged crimes. No sane person in the country and abroad believed in the explanation of the authorities on custodial deaths.
The country witnessed a spate of killings at the hands of the law-enforcement agencies leading to the January 05 elections. By then, these agencies had already been given de facto immunity with custodial deaths/enforced disappearances and "cross-fire" deaths. These agencies were given further encouragement to commit custodial and extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances because the government told them those actions were against terrorists. That, of course, was no justification for their actions. By the time the January 05 elections were held the law-enforcement agencies seemed to have the power to do pretty much what they wanted, particularly with those who differed with the government.
The Narayanganj seven-murder case was, as the expression goes, the straw that broke the camel's back on custodial/extra-judicial deaths and forced disappearances in the hands of the law enforcing agencies. The Narayanganj deaths brought about a national consensus on custodial/extra-judicial deaths forcing the government to come out of denial about the misdeeds of the law enforcing agencies, in particular those of the RAB. The Naryanganj murders further revealed that the law-enforcement agencies were no longer killing those who opposed the government and the alleged criminals. The victims in Narayanganj were all members of the ruling party. Those accused in planning and executing the murders by paying money to the law enforcing agencies were also alleged to be members of the ruling party.
The national consensus and public outcry over the Narayanganj deaths, with significant credit for the consensus going to the pro-active media, succeeded in pushing the government into a corner for the first time since custodial deaths and other allegedly illegal and criminal activities by the law-enforcement agencies seemed to have become normal activities. The national anger acted as the catalyst that forced the government to respond. After keeping the nation guessing for weeks, during which the main accused were allowed to escape to India, allegedly facilitated by the law-enforcement agencies, the government took into custody three members of RAB -- one, the son-in-law of a senior minister. The Prime Minister expressed her firm resolve that the government would not tolerate such conduct of the law enforcing agencies.
The Narayanganj trials are on. The connections of the accused to the ruling party have thus far not brought any reprieve for them. Since the incarceration of the RAB officials, families of victims have come out to give details of their own family members who have died in custody/extra-judicial "cross-fires" and forced disappearances. The media played a major role in presenting their miseries to the nation. While the family members of those who died in custody were able to bury their dead, those who could not yet recover the bodies of those who disappeared are in a situation that is too gruesome and torturous even to describe.
The Naryangang seven-murder case has been followed by a case against sub-inspector of Police Jahidur Rahman. He has been arrested after a case was lodged against him by the wife of a businessman who was killed at Mirpur Police Station. The nation would like to believe that the policy of zero tolerance for custodial deaths as promised by the Prime Minister after the Narayanganj deaths would now become the uncompromising policy of the government because the only way to stop the demands of institutions like HRW for disbanding RAB for custodial/extra-judicial deaths is for the government to submit itself to a simple litmus test. The government would need to establish that if anyone died in custody of the law-enforcement agencies or in "cross-fires" or disappeared while in custody, those in whose custody these individuals were held would be tried under the law like common criminals. The government cannot claim that there is either rule of law or democracy in Bangladesh without subjecting itself to the litmus test.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador. [email protected]
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
