Prothom Alo :
The 15-and-a-half year autocratic rule of Sheikh Hasina came to an end on 5 August last year through an uprising of students and the general masses. During these 15 and a half years, there were innumerable incidents of enforced disappearance, murder, extrajudicial killing and other human rights violations. From a human rights angle, how would you evaluate this rule of Sheikh Hasina?
Sayeed Ahmad: From a human rights angle, the 15 and a half years of Sheikh Hasina's rule was alarming in many senses. Certain new elements of human rights violation emerged during this period, things we had not seen before in Bangladesh. We had seen crossfire and extrajudicial killings before the Sheikh Hasina rule, and there have been some examples of human rights violations in all regimes. However, during the last regime the manner in which all the forces of the state, the laws, the administration and the political powers were used to usher in a rule of repression and oppression, was certainly different than other times.
"You are either with me or against me" - the last Awami League government used this narrative to quash all differences of opinion. Opposition to the government was equated with being an enemy of the country or the state. Alongside crossfire, the incidents such as enforced disappearances were horrific. And the inhuman brutality that took place during the July-August uprising remains an extreme example of human rights violations.
You must have seen the recent report of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the human rights violations that took place during the July-August uprising. How far do you think this report will be able to play a role in the trial of those who carried out the killings and violence aimed at suppressing the movement?
Sayeed Ahmad: I feel this report will be very helpful in these trials. The trial process depends hugely on evidence. Those who were in power up until 5 August were mainly involved in the violence. So there were efforts on their side to destroy all documents and evidence in this regard.
In this backdrop, the UN report is very important. After all, this is a universally recognised institution. In this report they have pointed out certain specific elements of human right violations. There are even indications that there were elements of genocide. This report can be a positive guideline for the tribunal where the trial of these crimes is taking place. But this is not enough. Further complementary evidence is required to prove the crimes.
The UN report pointed to certain specific issues, such as which forces were involved in this violations, what weapons they used, how they targetted specific groups in their assaults and so on. Alongside mention of the state actors, there is also mention of the non-state actors such as Chhatra League, Jubo League or Awami League's other associate organisations. In the case of human rights organisations we can normally hold the state actors accountable, but the non-state actors must also be brought to book. The UN report can be helpful in this regard.
Prothom Alo :
The UN report says there have been human rights violations during the interim government's rule too. The media has reported several deaths in custody of the joint security forces in these six months. How do you view this?
Sayeed Ahmad: It must be remembered that the UN report is not up till 5 August, but up till 15 August. That is why the facts and figures of up until 15 August have been included. The report says that up until 15 August, a total of 1400 killings took place. But it hasn't been specifically specified how many died before the government fell or Sheikh Hasina fled and how many after.
The UN report has mention of some human rights violations during the interim government rule. The human rights organisations of our country have also published some statistics of death in custody. There have also been many incidents of mob lynching. All this is extrajudicial killing too. It is unfortunate that there are human rights violations during the interim government's time. But the government tries to come up with all sorts of explanations, like the police are not performing properly, they haven't regained their morale as yet, and so on.
Anyway, we will have to wait a little while longer. We will have to see how much importance the government gives to investigating these incidents, whether they are setting up a system or transparency. If these matters are not carried out properly and the killings are not tried, then that will be a matter of concern.
Prothom Alo :
There have been mob tendencies in the country over the past few months. What impact is this having on human rights and the rule of law?
Sayeed Ahmad: Such mobs are a great threat to human right and the rule of law. After the fall of the autocratic government on 5 August last year, the incidents which occurred were an outburst of people's pent-up anger. But when such mob propensities continue even six months after the fall of the autocratic government, this must be seen in a different light. If we carefully analyse the recent mob incidents, we will see these were not spontaneous.
We observe who are issuing calls on the social media and how these are being organised. We see the involvement of a couple of groups in these incidents. They do not seem to be spontaneous gatherings, but motivated activities. These groups are using the mobs as a method.
It is unfortunate that the government sometimes turns a blind eye to the mobs, sometimes failing to take any action. Not being able to control the mobs can be seen as a failure of this government. If such mobs continue, then this will be an alarming tendency of human rights violations.
The people are concerned about the law and order situation. "Operation Devil Hunt" has been launched in this situation? What could the possible consequences of this be?
Sayeed Ahmad: "Operation Devil Hunt" has purportedly been taken up to bring the law and order situation under control. But there is scope for many questions to be asked in this regard. First of all, there is the matter of this operation's name. The term "Devil Hunt" is dehumanising. It simply does not go with human rights. It must be noted that within just a few days of this special operation being launched, over 10,000 people were arrested. Any other time we would call this "mass arrests" and launch a protest. We do not see much coverage of the human rights violations in this special operation in the mainstream media.
The government releases the numbers of arrests being made in this operation, but we do not know what happens after the arrests. We need to know if they are being given their due legal rights. Our past experience with "Operation Clean Heart" was not too good. Such operations always pose as a threat to human rights.
Prothom Alo :
The UN report talks about abolishing RAB. Human rights organisations and certain political parties have been demanding the same too. The government, though, is talking about changing the force's name and uniform.
Sayeed Ahmed: Names and uniforms are just external façades. Simply changing these will not bring about anything tangible. The problem isn't in the uniform or the name. The problem was in the way their operated, their system of operating. Take RAB, for instance. The law and framework within which RAB operates, lends it a sort of impunity. Various international and local human rights organisations, even the US sanctions on RAB, mentioned specific allegations against the force. It was said that there had been an extreme militarisation in RAB. They used weapons not normally used by law enforcement agencies. Another allegation was that RAB had risen above all accountability.
The report of the commission for enforced disappearances said that RAB had been involved in many such incidents. Other forces were mentioned in this connection too. It must be noted that when members of these forces commit any crime, it is said that this was their individual liability. But if there was a culture within these forces against impunity and unaccountability, then these incidents could not merely be an individual's liability. Just changing the uniform and name of any force will merely be eyewash with no palpable results.
Tolerance for difference of opinion or criticism is still very low. Questions remain as to how much space there actually is to express views outside of the populist opinions
After the interim government took over power, certain agitation was generated over minority and ethnic identity issues. How would you explain that?
Sayeed Ahmad: The minority issue and the ethnic issue must be seen separately. The minority issue, particularly the religious minority, the Hindus to be more specific, is a complex issue. After the change in political scenario on 5 August, there were several allegations about attacks on members of the Hindu community or on their establishments. It is undeniable that these incidents are partly political. Even though there have been no elections in the country in the true sense for quite some time, generally speaking those of the Hindu faith are perceived to be involved with Awami League. And that is why some of them may have been attacked. Then again, miscreants and opportunists took advantage of the circumstances. That is why many Hindus were victims. Just as such incidents took place after 5 August, these incidents took place during the rule of Awami League too. But this time these matters were magnified due to the exaggerated and motivated reports by the Indian media. There was an effort to depict these attacks as taking place simply because they were members of the Hindu community. Whether the cause is political, communal or a matter of law and order, they cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents.
Each and every incident must be investigated and action taken accordingly. Unless this is done, it will not be possible to prevent such incidents and the risks for the minority community will not abate.
The issue of the indigenous people, particularly those of the hill regions, is particularly sensitive. Did the hill people feel the same sense of freedom and relief that we people of the plains felt after 5 August? They wanted to air their grievances. Some tried to prevent them from doing so. Such incidents are certainly a hindrance to building an inclusive state and society.
Prothom Alo :
Freedom of expression had been obstructed for many years in Bangladesh. How far has the situation changed now, do you think?
Sayeed Ahmad: I do not see the freedom of expression in legal terms alone. I see this as a matter of practice. We could not practice this for many years because of the autocratic rule. This was obstructed in many ways during the past Awami League rule. This was done by means of laws such as the Digital Security Act, by tagging, censorship or social media blocking. There certainly has been an improvement regarding freedom of expression. There is less legal action against writing or expressing views. But there still remain many obstacles in the way of free expression.
Tolerance for difference of opinion or criticism is still very low. Questions remain as to how much space there actually is to express views outside of the populist opinions. It cannot be said that there have been great achievements during the interim government in eliminating the legal, political and cultural obstacles to freedom of expression. I feel there is a lot more for them to do in this regard.
The human rights commission was formed 15 years ago, but it has no contribution to upholding human rights. How can it be rendered effective?
Sayeed Ahmad: The interim government is rather lax about the human rights commission too. The members of the commission who had been appointed by the previous government have resigned, but no new members have been appointed in their stead. That is disappointing.
The human rights commission was formed in 2009 by means of a law. However, it had certain shortcomings and deficiencies from the very outset. There are quite a few human rights activists in the present interim government's council of advisors. They themselves have spoken of these matters at various times at different forums. One of the major shortcomings of this human rights commission is that it has a very limited mandate.
For example, the commission cannot really do much if the law enforcement agencies violate human rights. But in context of Bangladesh, if is seen that much of the human rights violations are carried out by the law enforcement agencies. If the national human rights commission cannot take measures against human rights violations by the state forces, then the question is, how far can such a commission protect the people's human rights?
There are also questions concerning the process of nominating members for the commission and also concerning its budget allocation. The government has brought about some changes recently, but it is doubtful whether these will make any difference.
Prothom Alo :
There are often allegations of bias when it comes to human rights. Is there any link between politics and human rights?
Sayeed Ahmad: There is a strong link between politics and human rights. Human rights mean people's rights. Politics talks about the rights of the people too. It is like two different approaches to the same field. There are many overlapping issues between human rights and politics and sometimes this generates confusion. The way to avoid such confusion is to remain objective. Many of our human rights activists here have not been able to remain objective and still fail to be so. In many instances they lose their neutrality because of political bias, personal relations or closeness with the government. As a human rights activist I feel that there can be no bias when it comes to human rights.
Prothom Alo :
Thank you for your time.
Sayeed Ahmad: Thank you too.
* This interview appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir