The opening statement of the report asserts, “There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Bangladesh during the year,” prompting The Daily Star to emphasise this. BNP leader Ruhul Kabir Rizvi seized on the report to criticise the government. However, a contradiction arises on page 3, where it states that “Extrajudicial killings decreased from the previous year.” Over the past five years, we’ve observed a marked decline in extrajudicial killings: 466 in 2018, 285 in 2019, 222 in 2020, 80 in 2021, and 19 in 2022 (previous ASK Reports). Shouldn’t we consider this a ‘significant change’?
Now, we must inquire into how the US State Department defines ‘significant changes’. It is noteworthy that the report lacks any chapter or section detailing its methodology, depriving us of the chance to benchmark it against international standards. The assessment of any report hinges on various factors, including the appropriate utilization of human rights indicators, reliance on credible sources, and meticulous referencing.
On page 16, the report states, “International and domestic legal experts highlighted the lack of evidence supporting the conviction and suggested a political agenda to sideline the opposition leader from the electoral process, despite prosecutors dropping multiple corruption charges against Prime Minister Hasina.” This assertion leans more towards a political statement rather than a thorough legal and human rights analysis. Would the filing of charges against former US President Donald J. Trump constitute a human rights violation? Clearly not. So why is the corruption charge against Begum Khaleda Zia being framed as a human rights issue? This indicates a lack of respect for Bangladesh’s judicial process by the US. While the judicial system in Bangladesh is not infallible, neither is theirs. Moreover, systemic biases against African American persons by law enforcement agencies in the US further underscore the discrimination in their justice system.
In the eloquent pages 18-19, the report unfolds a narrative of governmental inaction, lamenting that the government remains inert regarding the Vested Property Act 2002 aimed at expediting the return of land, predominantly to Hindu individuals. This Act, once hailed as a beacon of justice, empowered the government to seize properties under the guise of declaring individuals ‘enemies of the state’. Such a pronouncement often led to the confiscation of assets left behind by minority religious communities who sought refuge abroad, especially during the bloodbath of the 1971 War of Liberation.
For the sake of human rights diplomacy, it behooves one to accord due recognition to such advancements within reports. Failure to do so risks evoking parallels to the paternalistic ethos of the ‘white man’s burden’, a paradigm antithetical to the ethos of an independent state such as Bangladesh
Yet, the report’s choice of present tense, i.e. ‘it declares’, seems to defy the present situation and also the annals of the history of Bangladesh. Once upon a time, when this very land was a part of Pakistan’s domain, the erstwhile administration deemed Hindus, who had fled to India during the fiery crucible of the India-Pakistan war in 1965, as enemies of the state and their property ‘enemy property’. However, with the dawn of Bangladesh’s independence, under the auspices of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s governance, the laws underwent metamorphosis. How, then, could a good faction of our populace be branded as enemies in a land that proclaims itself a secular People’s Republic? We may not boast as paradise, but we certainly are a far cry from the infernal landscape painted by this report’s brushstrokes.
In the ethereal prose of the report’s pages, a story unfolds: the enactment of the Cyber Security Act (CSA) of 2023 in the gentle month of September. While the report concedes that the CSA ushered in a law of reduced penalties and the gentle breath of bail wafting through the corridors of justice, it casts a wary eye upon lingering controversies. Yet, amidst its somber symphony, a discordant note emerges—a subtle attempt to tarnish the government’s noble endeavor to nurture the delicate bloom of free speech. With deliberate precision, it sidesteps any praise, clinging instead to its initial proclamation of ‘no significant changes’, a whispered mantra echoing through the corridors of power.
I implore the citizenry of the United States to exercise their prerogative in holding their government accountable, ensuring the universal application of human rights standards devoid of any semblance of selective bias
As delineated within the report’s exhaustive pages, a salient observation emerges on page 29: government authorities recurrently denied the primary opposition political party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), along with other opposition parties, authorization to convene public gatherings. Paradoxically, the government exhibited a liberal disposition towards permitting political assemblies orchestrated by the BNP, wherein fervent calls for ousting of the Awami League government resonated unabated.
Throughout the preceding year, Bangladesh bore witness to a dynamic political milieu, its vitality palpable. However, the discerning officials of the State Department apprehend the delicate balance inherent within the realm of individual freedoms—acknowledging that one’s liberty is concomitant with the prudent recognition of the rights of others. In this nuanced discourse, the indispensable concept of freedom is elucidated as circumscribed by reasonable restrictions. Across the global stage, nations uniformly uphold the sanctity of public order, eschewing the propagation of chaos, arson, and bloodshed under the guise of unfettered right to freedom of assembly.
Indeed, within the tapestry of governance, there exist instances where law enforcement agencies wield excessive force, yet such actions find no sanction from the upper echelons of government. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, steadfast in its commitment to justice, disavows any policy countenancing extrajudicial killings, including those within custodial settings. Instead, the nation contends with the lingering specters of colonial legacies, wherein certain deleterious practices persist as vestiges of a bygone era.
Does the corpus of human rights reporting proscribe the portrayal of positive developments? For the sake of human rights diplomacy, it behooves one to accord due recognition to such advancements within reports. Failure to do so risks evoking parallels to the paternalistic ethos of the ‘white man’s burden’, a paradigm antithetical to the ethos of an independent state such as Bangladesh. The populace of Bangladesh resolutely rejects the ideological biases and political myopia inherent within the USA’s report, discerning therein a manifestation of racist and hegemonic tendencies. Indeed, this report, emblematic of a bellicose foreign policy and perpetual antagonism towards a country of the global south, stands culpable for engendering destabilization within the international human rights regime.
As we draw the curtains on this discourse, there arises an earnest expectation for the draft of a more professionally crafted, accurate, and impartial report from a venerable institution of the United States Federal government. In closing, I implore the citizenry of the United States to exercise their prerogative in holding their government accountable, ensuring the universal application of human rights standards devoid of any semblance of selective bias.
* Professor Dr. Mizanur Rahman is the former Chairman, National Human Rights Commission