Was Joy right to claim that Hasina did not instruct lethal force against protestors

In his interview with Sajeeb Wazed Joy, the Al Jazeera interviewer Sreenivasan Jain confronts the son of the former Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina with a question about a leaked recording of an intercepted  conversation claiming that it contradicts his assertion that “none of [the killings]” during the protests “was ordered by my mother.”

Jain asks bluntly. “When you say your mother did not give the instructions, you saw the Al Jazeera reporting of it, the BBC reporting of it, the recordings that were aired … where your mother can be heard saying, she has cleared the use of lethal force against the protestors. She says, ‘I have issued an open order, now they will use lethal weapons, shoot wherever they will find them.’

Joy responds forcefully to this. He argues that both Al Jazeera and the BBC have taken that clip out of context. “She says, she orders for the arrest of protestors and lethal force to protect property and life against militants,” he tells the interviewer. He adds that his mother’s order applied only for “violent protestors, armed protestors, terrorists.”

So which interpretation is correct? The answer is not merely rhetorical. The decision of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to convict Sheikh Hasina of crimes against humanity rests, at least in part, on how these words are understood – and indeed is relevant to most of the trials before the ICT.

The recording in question relates to a conversation between Sheikh Hasina and the former mayor of South Dhaka, Fazle Noor Taposh – who is also Hasina’s nephew - which took place at around 10pm on18 July 2024.

The conversation starts with the two Awami League leaders talking about attacks on property by “shontrashis” – a term often translated as “terrorists” but more accurately understood as “violent political operatives”. Taposh refers to attacks on the national secretariat (which houses government ministries) and the Abahani Club (the former governing Awami League–linked football club), and expresses concern that other “sensitive residences” may also be targeted.

Hasina responds by saying she is taking action to disperse gatherings. Taposh, however, warns that “they” – presumably meaning the shontrashis - have “many more plans for the night” and asks whether the Home Minister has suggested taking the “extreme step” of deploying the military.

Hasina replies that this is unnecessary, though she notes that she had spoken to the army chief who was “on alert”. In addition, the former prime minister says, other measures including “taking aerial photos with drones and using helicopters.”

Hasina then goes onto say that she had given an order “to arrest the whole lot of them”, and that multiple named agencies has been told “capture as many as you can from wherever you can.”

Taposh then says that the Home Minister had told them that “they” are now “moving towards the Mohammadpur police station”.

In response, Hasina says that they should send RAB there, and it is at this point, that she says the infamous words: “I’ve already given the instruction. This is an open directive now. They’re to use lethal weapons. Wherever they’re found, shoot on sight.”

The former prime minister then goes onto say, that she had not given such an order earlier, as she had been “holding back for all these days” as she was “thinking of the safety” of “the students.”

Taposh responds to that by saying “at night it’s not the students … it’s shontrashis.”

Hasina then returns to describing damage to infrastructure. “Fires everywhere… BRTC and BTRC have been shut and set on fire; they’ve even set the BTV on fire, and now the internet is down — they’ve burned everything. How anything can work now?”

The call ends with Taposh warning that “they’ll mount even larger attacks at night” while Hasina refers to the torching of the Disaster Management office and Taposh mentions possible targets in Banani or Gulshan.

If one considers the phone conversation in isolation, it is not unreasonable—as Joy argues—to interpret Hasina’s reference to her authorisation of the use of “lethal weapons” in this conversation as applying specifically to those engaged in arson and violent attacks on property, rather than to peaceful protesters.

The central focus of the conversation prior to her statement concerns attacks on buildings. Immediately before the order is mentioned, Taposh notes that “they”—apparently referring to shontrashis—are heading toward the Mohammadpur police station, implying a possible violent assault.

Moreover, immediately after referring to the authorisation of lethal force, Hasina states that she had previously refrained from doing so out of concern for “the safety of the students.” This suggests that she was, at least by her language in this call, consciously distinguishing between students and shontrashis.

There is another possible reading. Midway through the call, when Hasina and Taposh discuss surveillance and mass detentions, they may no longer be referring solely to shontrashis but to protesters more generally. On this interpretation, when Hasina later refers to her “instruction” authorising the use of lethal weapons, she is speaking with this broader category in mind rather than limiting the order to those engaged in violent acts. Whilst this reading cannot be ruled out entirely, it is ultimately less persuasive particularly in light of Hasina’s subsequent sentence about her concern for the “safety of the students”.

Therefore, on this narrow reading, Joy has an important point: the recording alone is not decisive proof that Hasina ordered the use of lethal force against peaceful protesters as such.

The BBC and the Al Jazeera documentaries are therefore somewhat misleading in failing to explain the context in which Hasina made her comment, and suggesting that she was talking about an order to use lethal force on protestors.

However, even if one accepts this interpretation of the conversation, the evidence given by Abdullah Al Mamum, the then Inspector General of Police, before the International Crimes Tribunal, together with the events that happened on the ground, is critical to understanding the true scope and effect of Hasina’s instruction.

The Inspector General of Police told the court that on the 18th July – the same day as the phone conversation - Hasina had given an instruction to use lethal weapons to supress the protests. “Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal called me and informed me that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had instructed the direct use of lethal weapons to suppress the movement,” he told the court. “At that time, I was present at the Police Headquarters, and Additional DIG Proloy Joarder was present in front of me. When I informed Proloy Joarder of the Prime Minister’s instruction, he left my room and conveyed this instruction to the DMP Commissioner and nationwide. This instruction was given on July 18, 2024, and the use of lethal weapons began on that day.”

It would appear that the IGP is referring to the same authorisation which Hasina is referring to in her conversation.

The other piece of important context is that prior to the authorisation, only the student activist Abu Sayed had died following shooting by law enforcement authorities with other deaths on that day appearing to have been the responsibility of Awami League activists, not the police). However everything changed on 18 July – apparently after a new policy was authorised - when over 50 people were killed by law enforcement authorities on that day. On 19^th July close to 200 died, the next day over 70 people suffered fatal injuries and on 21 July over 20 were killed.

So although the conversation with Taposh does not make the nature of Hasina’s instruction to law enforcement authorities clear, other evidence does strongly suggest that Hasina’s instruction did involve the use of “lethal weapons” on protestors.

Even if one was willing to give Hasina the benefit of the doubt, and argue that she had only meant the order to involve shontrashis (as Joy suggests) this was evidently interpreted by police and security forces as authorisation to use lethal force against ordinary protesters - and there is no evidence that Hasina took any subsequent steps to correct the misinterpretation or restrain her forces in the use of lethal weapons.

* David Bergman is a journalist. His Facebook ID is (david. bergman.77377)

* Views expressed are the author's own