SB reports tried to conceal facts, downplayed mass uprising

Most of the intelligence report by Special Branch (SB) of Bangladesh police had an inclination to hide the fact that people vented their anger against the government on the streets during July uprising. Concealing this fact, the SB reports tried to label the demonstrating students as ‘anti-liberation forces’ and the movement as ‘foreign conspiracy’.

The intelligence reports were rife with words such as ‘instigation’, ‘miscreants’ and ‘opposition conspiracy’. The arguments and language used by the then Awami League government to suppress the anti-discrimination student movement were reflected in the intelligence reports.

Prothom Alo has obtained 16 such reports by the SB concerning the mass uprising. The SB reports gave little importance to the issue of excessive use of force or human rights violations by law enforcement agencies. The aggressive role and display of arms by leaders and activists of the then ruling party, the Awami League (currently banned), were largely ignored. On the contrary, the reports even advised the government to encourage a more active role by Awami League leaders and activists in suppressing the movement. The intelligence officers also recommended that the media generate public opinion in favor of the government.

For instance, in an intelligence report dated 4 August last year, SB recommended that leaders and activists of the Awami League and its affiliated organisations gather in groups and in large numbers. A report dated 31 July emphasised the need to ensure a heavy presence on streets by Awami League leaders and activists.

Through the SB, the police prepare various intelligence reports covering the overall national situation and security. Important SB reports are sent to the Prime Minister and the Home Minister, which is why the government values these reports alongside those from other intelligence agencies.

The current SB administration analysed these past intelligence reports in early June and July. According to the SB's analysis, the student-mass movement was portrayed as politically instigated, and as part of a conspiracy by the BNP-Jamaat alliance to topple the government. Instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of the movement's core demands or the justified outrage of the students, the reports prioritised fears of sabotage, violence, attacks on government installations, and the safety of law enforcement and administrative personnel.

The SB analysis noted that the need for dialogue, negotiation, or the legitimacy of demands was comparatively underrepresented in these reports. In some instances, the idea of dialogue was mentioned only as a strategy to suppress or control the movement. The importance of students’ democratic rights and public grievances or sympathy was largely overlooked.

The analysis also revealed that the intelligence reports at the time recommended generating a “counter-narrative” during the course of the movement. It was advised that the then government use the media and social media to shape such narratives.

A senior SB officer told Prothom Alo, “Due to political loyalty, the true picture of that period was not reflected in the intelligence reports. Because the then officials viewed the situation through a partisan lens, they failed to assess the reality. Unless work is done with professional impartiality, it benefits no one.”

The analysis further revealed that the intelligence reports of that time disregarded the ground reality.

According to the SB's analysis, the repressive measures taken by the then government and law enforcement agencies led to the rapid expansion of the movement. Opposition political forces, professionals, teachers, parents, and people from all walks of life joined the movement. The situation gradually slipped out of control. New social groups and forces began joining the movement quickly.

Yet, the intelligence reports from that time tried to downplay the scale of the movement, branding protesters as “outsiders,” “political miscreants,” and “vested interest groups.”

At one stage of the movement, intelligence reports indicated that there could be attempts to occupy key installations such as Ganabhaban, Bangabhaban, the Secretariat, and Police Headquarters.

The SB's current administration separately analysed reports from 5 June to 20 July last year. These reports indicate that intelligence officers believed if the movement was not suppressed, it could spread nationwide and provide the opposition with opportunities—particularly expressing concern over the potential roles of BNP and Jamaat-Shibir.

Reports from 21 July to 4 August last year featured accounts of mass arrests and repression. These later reports explicitly stated that the situation could quickly escalate into a “mass uprising,” a possible attempt to topple the government, and could lead to the demoralisation of law enforcement agencies. Some reports even hinted that the student-mass movement might eventually evolve into a single-point demand for the government's resignation.

The SB's analysis stated that most reports gave little emphasis to issues such as excessive force by law enforcement, casualties, mass arrests, and internet shutdowns. The reports’ perspectives toward the movement's participants were clearly biased.

It also noted that many reports did not properly highlight the root causes of the protests or the grievances of ordinary students. Also, the participation of teachers, cultural activists, professionals, and ordinary parents was viewed with suspicion. Due to the tendency to obscure the real problems, the spontaneous mass movement was not properly understood, the analysis concluded.

Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of Police Headquarters and spokesperson Enamul Haque told Prothom Alo, “There is no alternative to performing one’s duties with professionalism. The police are currently committed to carrying out their responsibilities in accordance with rules and regulations.”