#Title

OF MAGIC & MADNESS

Who are these nameless, faceless arsonists?
PHOTO: ANISUR RAHMAN
Who, indeed?
As the streets keep throwing up charred vehicles ever since BNP’s October 28 rally, politicians and commentators are coming up with descriptions that, frankly, give little away: from “arson terrorism” by BNP, in the words of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, to an incomprehensible evil committed by men without conscience. The PM also told her party activists to throw anyone caught red-handed in arson attacks in the same fire, while Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan invited transport workers to beat arsonists to a pulp “for their own survival”. But each attempt to describe or prescribe in such absolutist/moralist terms is really a refusal to acknowledge the complexity of what is happening.
The truth is that the recent string of arson attacks is neither straightforward nor likely centrally planned by any single entity: BNP, for example. To simplify what is complicated may help set a narrative—as it did Awami League’s—and win political brownie points, but it doesn’t make it convincing. Helping this theory is the fact that there has been no conclusive evidence yet connecting BNP as a party with the planning of these attacks in a potential bid to unseat the government. No activist has been caught “red-handed.” The police, without citing evidence (except in an isolated case or two)—and quite prematurely, one may add—drew a conclusion that these incidents occurred after the opposition camp enforced hartal and communication blockades, making them prime suspects. This may be the case, but again, without evidence, it is merely a conjecture. There have been no CCTV footage, no caught-in-the-act arrests, no reliable confessions, etc.
This lack of conclusive evidence is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it puts to shame our expensively built, state-of-the-art surveillance system. We have seen how the government contained and then dispersed the October 28 gatherings in Dhaka. Why couldn’t it use the same expertise and technology in pre-empting arson attacks or catching the masterminds behind them? The police’s image as a trained and well-equipped force took a further battering when they basically crowdsourced their task to the public, declaring a bounty of Tk 20,000 for anyone helping to catch an arsonist. It’s almost as if they’re saying, “We can’t do our job, but maybe someone else can.” They couldn’t even successfully defend themselves against incriminating rumours after it was revealed that two unidentified men riding on a motorbike, and wearing police vests, had set a bus on fire on that fateful Saturday.
Secondly, lack of evidence allows confusion and misconceptions, and leaves a wide margin within which police can act based on suspicions and biases, rather than concrete facts. Already, since the October 28 rally, some 8,000 BNP leaders and activists are said to have been arrested in connection with various crimes, including arson and vandalism. These arrests and cases, it is safe to say, are mostly politically motivated.
Thirdly, such lack of evidence and clarity in an election year can contribute to a rise in the spread of political misinformation and disinformation, as experts have recently shown. Partisan colouring of events can influence not only the result of the upcoming election, if it is held as currently planned, but also political developments in the lead-up to the election. At least 53 arson attacks took place during the first two rounds of blockades enforced by BNP-Jamaat, according to an estimate by Prothom Alo . If these and other acts of violence committed since October 28 could be singularly linked to the party, imagine its potential public fallout. BNP could again be hamstrung by the damning portrayal of being “a party of arsonists,” like in the aftermath of the 2014 general election.
All this goes to show, contrary to the over-simplistic and rather manipulative narrative of the ruling party, how complicated the situation is. Let me be clear: I’m not saying that BNP is totally right to defend itself against any accusation of arson attacks—for it is obvious that some were indeed committed by its more reckless activists—but nor is Awami League totally innocent of having any stake in said attacks, if its eagerness to jump to a conclusion is any indication. Is there any truth to BNP’s claim that Awami League has been secretly pulling the strings? Why do arson attacks continue to happen even after the country has been cloaked in a security blanket with the full force of an all-powerful government—the police, Rab, BGB, and ruling party activists—patrolling the streets? And how will it justify the involvement of a Jubo League leader in torching a truck in Feni?
It is also possible, given how our elections have often been allegedly influenced by outside forces, that the allegiance of those behind the attacks lied elsewhere. There is also no indication that these attacks were all connected or premeditated, leaving the door open for wider sociopolitical concerns. Where does it leave us, then? In a very grey area, I would presume.
One thing is certain, however. To see ongoing arson attacks as a single criminal trend rather than the culmination or outburst of long-suppressed issues is a trap that you don’t want to fall into. If BNP, going by Awami League’s narrative, is primarily responsible even by way of association, it could argue that it is the latter that primarily benefits from the mass arrests that have followed, leading to claims of a “minus-BNP” electoral strategy. So, however incomprehensible and unconscionable the evil is, there is no room for a morally absolutist position for either of the parties. And it ill behoves a government with a long history of political repression and suppression to be suddenly so self-righteous, conveniently blaming an already battered opposition that can hardly defend itself.
These attacks are at once a political issue, a law enforcement issue, and a human rights issue. Political parties will have us prefer one over another, and see it through their own lens. But it is imperative that justice, following impartial investigations, prevails over any moral absolutism based on partial or fabricated truths.