Former Bangladesh Chhatra union president Dipak Shil was detained on Monday while attempting to join a human chain in Dhaka’s Dhanmondi to protest the obstruction of female Baul singers in Sunamganj from performing. After his release, CPB leaders and activists brought out a procession on Monday night. The procession ended at Paltan intersection, where participants held a brief rally and chanted “Joy Bangla, Joy Samajtantra (Socialism)”.
Following this, 40 to 50 people identifying themselves as leaders and activists of Jubo Dal and Chhatra Dal protested against the “Joy Bangla” slogan. An exchange of words between the two groups escalated, and two CPB leaders and activists were beaten. The attackers subsequently gathered outside the CPB’s central office with sticks and clubs, chanting various slogans. The situation eventually calmed down without escalating into a major confrontation.
In a statement issued after the incident, CPB president Kazi Sajjad Zahir Chandan and general secretary Abdullah Kafi Ratan said a group of people carrying sticks and clubs, identifying themselves as supporters of the ruling party, had gathered in front of Mukti Bhaban in Purana Paltan. Claiming that members of the banned Awami League were inside the CPB’s central office, they attempted to break through the main gate. When CPB leaders and activists resisted, the group attacked them, leaving several people injured.
The statement further said that even after police arrived and took responsibility for securing the office, the attackers continued to blockade it for an extended period. They kept demanding that the alleged members of the banned party inside the office be handed over to them. CPB leaders described the incident as a direct assault on free political activity and peaceful coexistence, demanding that the attackers be identified and brought to justice.
Repeated incidents of mobs surrounding political party offices, leaders’ homes and political programmes cannot be dismissed as trivial. The implications for law enforcement are particularly serious when members of the ruling party and its affiliated organisations are found to be involved.
A female Baul singer performs at a musical gathering in the courtyard of expatriate Shawkat Ali’s house in Hatia village, Dirai upazila, Sunamganj, on Thursday night.
Recently, leaders and activists of the BNP and its affiliated organisations, including Jubo Dal, surrounded the JSD office in Gulistan, Dhaka, and exerted pressure on the party. Subsequently, instead of taking action against BNP activists, law enforcement agencies arrested JSD leaders and activists. Earlier, during the interim government’s tenure, the Jatiya Party’s offices were attacked and set on fire several times. More recently, a procession attacked the residence of Jatiya Party chairman GM Quader in Uttara.
Following the July mass uprising, the Awami League government fell on 5 August 2024. For several days afterwards, the country effectively had no functioning government. In the resulting vacuum of state authority, political party offices in various parts of the country were attacked, vandalised and set on fire. Some attacks targeted Awami League offices, while others affected different institutions. Political anger, revenge and long-standing grievances may have contributed to these incidents.
At the time, many viewed the attacks as expressions of immediate anger. Some hoped they would stop once the situation returned to normal. Yet, two years later, political party offices and leaders’ homes are still being attacked. It is increasingly difficult to dismiss these incidents merely as a consequence of the post-uprising situation. Instead, they raise questions about political tolerance, the government’s responsibilities and the capacity of law enforcement agencies.
The recent incidents differ in their political contexts and patterns. However, they share one common feature: in almost every case, activists of the ruling party have been at the forefront, while law enforcement agencies have taken positions against the victims, effectively acting on behalf of those activists.
The BNP came to power in February with a two-thirds majority. The party is generally regarded as centrist. Its leaders have also spoken in favour of political tolerance in their speeches and statements, advocating a new kind of politics that moves beyond extremism and the suppression of dissent. The path the country takes now depends on the choices made by the BNP, the government and law enforcement agencies.
Why is the CPB being targeted?
During the ousted Awami League government’s tenure, opposition parties boycotted the 2014 and 2024 elections. The CPB also stayed away from both polls. The party consistently spoke out against the Awami League’s repression and anti-people activities. During the July mass uprising, the CPB and its former leaders openly sided with the students and the public. Yet the party is now being treated as an adversary. It remains to be seen whether policymakers in the ruling BNP will tolerate this or rein in their party’s activists.
The CPB has alleged that following Monday night’s attack, police detained two of its members, Iran Molla and Sohel Fakir. Both were released late at night.
Anyone who objects to a political slogan has the right to protest against it. But such objections cannot justify assaulting members of another party or threatening them outside their offices. Nor is it the responsibility of party activists to determine whether a political slogan violates the law.
Earlier, cultural activists had called a human chain in Dhanmondi on Monday afternoon to protest the obstruction of female Baul singers in Sunamganj. They gathered in front of Meena Bazar at Dhanmondi 27, but police prevented them from holding the protest. Former Chhatra Union president Dipak Shil was detained from the scene and released at around 9pm. There have also been allegations that ruling party activists were present alongside police. This raises serious questions about the role of law enforcement agencies.
Over the past year, Baul singers have been attacked in Manikganj, Sherpur and Sylhet. Protests against these incidents have also been obstructed and attacked. This naturally raises a question for any concerned citizen: does this mean that protests are now prohibited in the country? The July mass uprising stands as one of the most powerful demonstrations of protest by the country’s students and citizens. Why, then, should people be prevented from protesting now?
27 arrested from JASAD office
On 26 September, police detained 289 people during a central council meeting of JSD at the party’s central office in Gulistan, Dhaka. Of them, 27 were subsequently shown as arrested. They were accused of chanting “Joy Bangla” inside the office to intimidate others and create an unstable situation.
JSD said it had organised the meeting with permission from the Dhaka Metropolitan Police. Around 400 leaders and activists from different parts of the country attended. The party alleged that BNP activists attacked its office while the meeting was underway. Police subsequently arrived, cordoned off the office and detained those present. They even locked the party office, although law enforcement agencies later handed JSD leaders the keys to unlock it.
Almost all 27 people who were arrested have since secured bail. During the operation, law enforcement personnel had claimed that members of the Awami League, whose activities are banned, had gathered at the JSD office. However, they ultimately failed to substantiate that claim. Questions have therefore arisen over whether the allegations against the detainees were fabricated.
JSD was an ally of the ousted Awami League government. However, the party itself is not banned under the country’s laws. Police may take action if a crime is committed during a political party meeting, but any such action must be based on specific allegations and evidence. Detaining everyone simply because they were present at an office, and subsequently arresting some of them, must be regarded as excessive.
Jatiya Party repeatedly targeted
The Jatiya Party and its late chairman, HM Ershad, are often described as among the most opportunistic political party and leader in Bangladesh’s political history. When opposition parties, including the BNP, boycotted the 2014 election, Ershad, his party and its leaders participated in the one-sided polls and fully enjoyed their share of power. They simultaneously served in the government and in the opposition, earning the reputation of a “domesticated opposition” in the country.
The party has paid a price for that role. It split several times while Ershad was alive and fragmented further after 5 August 2024. Its public support has dwindled to a historic low. For the first time, none of its candidates won a seat in the most recent election. In most constituencies, the party could not even mount a meaningful contest. Yet, at one time, it was considered the country’s third political force.
In other words, the people have already passed their judgment on the Jatiya Party’s past role. Even so, its offices and leaders continue to be targeted. During the interim government’s tenure, the party’s offices were attacked and set on fire on several occasions. These incidents demonstrated that the tendency to target political parties because of their identity or political positions had not disappeared. The recent attack on GM Quader’s residence in Uttara has heightened those concerns.
The BNP is now in power. The responsibility for ending political violence and ensuring the security of all parties therefore rests with the current government. If anyone uses their affiliation with the ruling party to attack another party’s office, the government cannot evade responsibility. If overzealous members of the ruling party are behind such incidents, its policymakers should rein them in.
Attacks on political party offices are not merely a problem for the parties directly affected. They have implications for the entire political environment. If a party believes that opposing the ruling party could lead to its office being attacked or its leaders and activists being harassed, conducting political activities will become increasingly difficult.
Who is exploiting political rivalries?
After Sheikh Hasina fled to India, almost all Awami League leaders went into hiding. Their party offices, homes and business establishments were left unprotected. Widespread attacks, vandalism and arson followed.
The historic residence of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman at Dhanmondi 32 was also attacked. On the night of 5 February 2025, protesters entered the house and extensively vandalised it and set it on fire following the announcement that Sheikh Hasina would deliver an online address. Much of the building was subsequently demolished using cranes and excavators. The demolition continued the following day. On 17 November of the same year, the army and police intervened when an attempt was made to demolish the remaining part of the house.
Both incidents occurred during the interim government’s tenure. There has been criticism that some online activists instigated the attacks. However, the government of the time took no action against anyone over the incidents.
Political parties will inevitably face criticism and opposition over their past conduct. Anyone accused of a crime can also be prosecuted under the existing law. But allegations of wrongdoing or political differences cannot be used to justify attacks on party offices, obstruction of meetings and rallies, or harassment of party leaders and activists.
One of the key expectations for political change following the mass uprising was freedom of expression and the right to hold dissenting opinions. That freedom must be guaranteed not just to the ruling party and its allies, but to every lawful political party. The BNP is now in government. It is therefore the government’s responsibility to act on allegations against BNP leaders and activists and ensure that law enforcement agencies remain impartial.
The recent incidents involving the CPB, JSD and the Jatiya Party are therefore not merely questions of security for a few political parties. They are also a test of how well the political system that emerged after the mass uprising protects the right to hold and express dissenting views.