Bangladesh has experienced significant turmoil since a widespread uprising ousted the former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL) government on August 5 last year. However, amidst these uncertain times, the violence and fatalities in Gopalganj on July 16 have taken on a particularly ominous significance.
Initially, the violence seemed to stem from traditional power plays between two political factions: the recently established National Citizen Party (NCP) and the long-standing AL. Their clash was expected, akin to the predictability of tomorrow’s sunrise.
These confrontations are not uncommon in Bangladesh, especially since 1991, with the AL, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and Jamat-e-Islami frequently engaging in street battles, often with the police siding with the ruling party.
From 2013 onwards, the anti-government protestors’ actions appeared increasingly lethal, met with harsh and brutal responses from law enforcement.
The events in Gopalganj seemed to encapsulate the darker aspects of Bangladeshi political dynamics, with law enforcers swiftly transitioning from a measured response to lethal force, resulting in the deaths of at least five local individuals.
In a society still grappling with the traumas of the previous year’s violence, one would have expected the government to initiate an impartial investigation into the shooting of five individuals by security forces. However, the government’s response mirrored a recurring theme, with familiar actors following an old script.
The government’s initial statement failed to acknowledge the deaths caused by security forces, instead focusing on blaming AL supporters while commending the NCP and law enforcement. Subsequently, an official inquiry committee, led by a senior bureaucrat from the Ministry of Home Affairs, was established, disregarding calls from human rights organizations for an independent investigation.
The police’s actions, such as filing murder cases against thousands of unnamed individuals and conducting mass arrests under curfew, seemed more aimed at instilling fear than uncovering the root causes of the violence. These actions harkened back to past authoritarian regimes rather than the promised new era post-2024 uprising.
When examining rapidly escalating incidents, identifying the “original sin” is customary. In Gopalganj, the consensus points to the AL and its student wing, Chhatra League, as instigators.
While constitutionally, the NCP had the right to hold a rally in Gopalganj, the AL had no justification to disrupt the event. The local police were expected to safeguard the rally participants and venue, irrespective of political affiliations.
The pressing concern now is whether the victims of the violence will receive justice. In Bangladesh’s fragile democracy, legal and constitutional frameworks are often intertwined with common sense judgments on what is feasible.
The failure to foresee the violence and the subsequent use of lethal force by security forces cast a shadow on the interim government’s credibility. The army’s admission of using force, albeit in self-defence, raises questions about accountability for the tragic incident.
The key question remains: will justice prevail for the victims of the violence, or will accountability be selective, perpetuating a cycle of impunity? The impartiality and thoroughness of the official enquiry committee will be essential in determining the path towards justice and accountability for the lives lost in Gopalganj.