#Title

Did the IU authorities take BCL assaulters’ side?
The Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) has added a new dimension to the ritual of torturing common students. The latest episode happened at the Islamic University (IU) in Kushtia last week: a non-resident student was beaten up overnight by a group of students led by two BCL leaders. But what’s curious is the aftermath of the incident – specifically, the role that the vice-chancellor, proctor and the hall provost played. Firstly, it seems they have unofficially given the control of the university residential halls over to the BCL. Secondly, what are the authorities – namely, the VC, proctor and the hall provost – supposed to do following such an incident? Do they try to find out the truth?
What was the IU authorities’ stance before and after the news of the torture incident broke out?
Let’s revisit the incident in brief. On February 12, at around 11 pm, Phulpori, a non-resident female student of the university, was allegedly summoned to the common room of Deshratna Sheikh Hasina Residential Hall by Sanjida Chowdhury, vice-president of the BCL IU unit, and Tabassum Islam, an activist of the same unit. There, they tortured her till 3:30 am.
In her written complaint, Phulpori alleged that at one point, she was forcibly disrobed and videotaped. “They threatened to spread the video if I told anyone about this incident,” she said in her complaint. “While beating me, they [Sanjida and Tabassum] said not to hit me in the face so that there is no visible trace of the torture.”
On February 15, I spoke with the IU VC, proctor and the hall provost on the phone about this incident.
The proctor said, “I received two complaints. The alleged victim and Sanjida Chowdhury filed a complaint each.”
“So one of the alleged torturers also filed a complaint?”
‘Yes, she also filed a written complaint,” the proctor confirmed.
“What did Sanjida write in the complaint?”
“She clarified her position and sought security. She also refuted the allegation of torture against her.”
This means it is not a complaint; rather, Sanjida has defended herself.
“I forwarded both the complaints to the VC’s office seeking necessary actions,” the proctor told me.
“Three days have passed since the alleged torture. Could nothing be done during this time?”
The proctor said, “We learnt about the incident late on February 14. We formed a probe committee on February 15. The committee will submit their report in seven days, and actions will be taken based on that report.”
So the proctor came to know about the incident two days later. What was the hall provost, Dr Shamsul Haque, doing during that time?
When I asked, the provost said, “On February 12, at around 2:30 pm, a group of 30-35 students came to me with a non-resident student [Phulpori]. She seemed to be in tears. They said Phulpori’s elder sister, who was a student at Dhaka University, had threatened them through her friend, over phone.”
“So, all of the 30-35 students complained?”
“Yes, all of them.”
“Were Sanjida and Tabassum among them?”
“Yes.”
“Do you find it believable that a new, non-resident student got her elder sister to threaten BCL leaders here from Dhaka?”
“They claim so. In any case, I don’t know how Phulpori even moved into the hall. The students demanded that she be removed from the dorm. I told her to leave the hall and stay somewhere else. But after an hour, 30-35 students returned to my office with her, complaining that she had gotten her sister’s friend to threaten them again.
“Then I informed the proctor. Two members of the proctorial body arrived at the spot. We learnt then that Phulpori’s father was a van puller. Where could she go? I gave her a few days to rectify the issue. I also convinced the complaining students to give her time. We settled the issue.
“On February 13 morning, I came to know that the student had left the hall. I also learnt that she had been tortured the previous night. But I did not receive any complaint about that.”
“But didn’t Phulpori file a written complaint?”
“Not on the 13th. There were media reports that Sanjida and a few others tortured Phulpori from late February 13 night till early hours of February 14. Students of Deshratna Sheikh Hasina hall brought out a procession late at night and went to the VC residence. Members of the proctorial body arrived. I also went there. They demanded that the reports that were printed in the newspapers be withdrawn. The VC assured them over phone and sent them back.”
“So, you didn’t get a written complaint from Phulpori?”
“She submitted a written complaint at the hall at around 12 pm on February 14. Based on that complaint I formed a probe committee. We will know everything when they submit a report within seven working days.”
Then I spoke with IU VC Prof Shaikh Abdus Salam why no action was taken in the three days following the incident.
He said, “Nothing can be done until the probe committee submits their report. We need to know the truth.”
These statements from the IU VC, proctor and hall provost are highly significant. They shed light on how and why student torture and persecution are taking place in our universities. It is also evident that the university administrations usually take the attackers’ side.
Note that the torture of a newly admitted student coming from a poor family started on February 12 afternoon. The provost said he informed the proctorial body about this on February 13 afternoon, whereas the proctor claimed that he came to know about it on February 14 day’s end. This anomaly in their statements is noticeable. Also, the provost subtly placed the blame on the victim student, saying her sister had threatened Sanjida et al, who had control of the hall in question, fully knowing the BCL leaders’ influence.
After a writ was filed on February 16, the High Court’s directives finally moved things along: the provost ordered BCL leaders Sanjida and Tabassum to leave the hall. Later on, the duo were suspended from the ruling party student wing as well. The High Court also ordered to form a probe committee comprising a judicial magistrate, university teachers and administrative cadre officers. One such committee has already recorded Phulpori’s statement.
How likely is it that the truth will be revealed? We can’t comment before the investigation is over. However, given our past experiences with such probe committees, not much can be hoped for.
The most rudimentary question is this: if the authorities of a university, instead of taking actions against the misdeeds of the ruling party’s student wing, lean on their side, would probe committees bring true results? When will BCL’s torture of common students stop?
Translated by Mohammed Ishtiaque Khan.
The most rudimentary question is this: if the authorities of a university, instead of taking actions against the misdeeds of the ruling party’s student wing, lean on their side, would probe committees bring true results? When will BCL’s torture of common students stop?