ILLUSTRATION: BIPLOB CHAKROBORTY

The situation that has arisen since October 28 poses a threat to the human rights of civilians as a whole. Indiscriminate arrests undoubtedly provoke fear among the general population. The public becomes panicked when such incidents increase, as they fear they could also be arrested. This affects people’s inner peace, their sense of security, and undermines their sense of safety, which goes against human rights.

The law enforcement agencies may argue that they are acting under the Special Powers Act (referred to as the kala kanun ), but are they following the law properly? An important requirement in the law is that detainees must be brought before the courts within 24 hours. Are the thousands of individuals that have been arrested being presented before the court within 24 hours?

Many detained persons are being apprehended based on assumptions and are being left outside of judicial procedure. If the law enforcement officials follow the Special Powers Act accordingly, the detainees must go through the judicial proceedings, and if the accusation is proven, they will receive punishments; if not, they should be released. However, this is not happening. In that case, we can say they are being detained arbitrarily and discriminatorily.

Arresting thousands of people based on assumptions interferes with their freedom of movement and right to life. There is a matter to consider: what are the criteria for arresting these people? The October 28 incidents may have been carried out by a few hundred people, but the reason behind the number of arrests exceeding thousands remains a question.

When we ask the police about any case of domestic violence, rape, harassment and murder, it is often observed that they claim to not find any charges against the supposed perpetrators. Now, my question is: if the law enforcement agencies are making a list of “troublemakers,” based on whose allegations and based on what are they doing so?

If someone is being detained for specific crimes such as theft or robbery, that can be comprehensible. But such measures seem to be absent here. Since there are no clear criteria, they can assume anyone is a troublemaker. How can I be sure they would not consider me a troublemaker?

On top of that, if they decide to target a specific political party, that is also an injustice. In a democratic country, anyone can be a member of any political party, so why would they be assumed to be troublemakers without any concrete reason?

Sultana Kamal

Eminent human rights activist

Bangladesh does not have any credible mechanism to gauge public opinion. Election is not genuine, surveys are not efficient, media is not free and the constitutional provision of referendum is no longer there. Nevertheless, it may be safely argued that the incidents of October 28 have made the people of Bangladesh doubtful about the scope of exercising their voting rights in the forthcoming general election.

As the history and political culture of this country testify, people in this country love their voting rights and aspire to see their representation in the government. This spirit motivated them to engage in the Liberation War in 1971 and later turn in large numbers at the polling booths in elections whenever conducted under a trustworthy government. This explains why an increasing number of people participated in the opposition’s movement for a free and fair election in recent months.

The prospect of such an election is hazy now. The speed at which police have filed numerous cases against BNP leaders and activists for the mayhems of October 28, the scale at which they have been arrested, and the uniformity with which they are being denied bail send an unambiguous message. The ruling party is determined to capitalise on its own narratives of October 28 events to muzzle the opposition, and thus to arrange an election according to its design.

Given the memory of the past two elections in 2014 and 2018, it would surely frustrate the democracy-loving people. The opposition party has resorted to hartals and blockades, while the government is rejecting any prospect of negotiation; this deadlock is causing harm to the country’s struggling economy.

In the past, civil society and other powerful groups, both domestic and international, could have played a role to end the impasse. People must be thinking where the solution would come from this time, and how.

Overall, this is a time of despair, at least for the people who suffer most when democracy dies, monopoly in every sector prevails, and corruption multiplies in the absence of accountability and balance of power.

Dr Asif Nazrul

Professor of law and researcher on constitutional and environmental laws