Chief Justice Obaidul Hasan is a respected man. Recently he made certain valuable statements a workshop in Dhaka about upholding human rights. Perhaps he was referring to the recent events in the country when he said that even the agitators have human rights, the police have human rights and the protection of everyone’s human rights is vital. The chief justice is right. According to our constitution, every Bangladeshi citizen is entitled to human rights. Even criminals, smugglers, drug peddlers or the people who are accused of arson during the agitation have human rights. All of them have equal rights to justice. According to the constitution, they cannot be killed or physically harmed or even threatened without being tried.
Of course, in some very exceptional cases there are provisions for killing or detaining someone in keeping with the law. For example, in the case of self defence, if there is no other way one can exert force. If the assailant dies or is injured in the process, one may be acquitted if judicial requirements are met. But the right of self defence is certainly not the right to vengeance. If self defence is not required instantly, there is no scope to exert it. The person or family who is a victim of revenge, in fact, can also be a victim of human rights' violation.
The right to life, the right to be safe from torture and the right to justice are all civil and political rights. These are given priority as fundamental rights in our constitution. As a result, if they are violated, one can go directly to the highest court of the country for redress. In the constitutional framework of Bangladesh, the main responsibility of the Supreme Court is to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and to hold the government accountable for violating such rights as that is mainly done by the government.
So, it is promising that the chief justice is giving due importance in talking about protecting these rights of all citizens. Talking against exerting excessive force, he even said some of the recent incidents breached human rights severely. We find reflections of his speech on 28 October and subsequent events. In these incidents, a policeman, some agitators or opposition political party workers have been killed. Many opposition activists and policemen were injured. Leaving aside the debate over the vertical (citizen by government) and horizontal (citizen versus citizen) application of the concept of human rights, we can say that in each of these cases, human rights were violated (and at the same time an offence under the penal code).
However, in these cases we have seen that while the police are active in prosecuting and arresting those who attack them, they do not take such initiative in the cases of killing of opposition party workers. The opposition has been accused of killing 27 activists and injuring many others since its agitation began in the middle of last year. Cases or arrests have occurred in the case of these murders.
According to our constitution everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and everyone has the equal right to get the protection of law. The highest court has the authority to monitor whether the law has seen everyone equally in the above-mentioned incidents. The chief justice has reminded us about the human rights of everybody and so we may hope that the Supreme Court will take such initiative.
2
The chief justice pointed to the limitations among many of us when it comes to internalisng the concept of human rights. In my own experience I have seen that even the human rights commission, several human rights organisations and eminent human rights activists have limitations about comprehending the matter. The human rights commission is largely controlled by the government and the retired bureaucrats chosen by the government. Due to the control of government over appointments, the staff and financial matters, we do not see the commission playing a noteworthy role against the recent human rights breaches like enforced disappearances, killing, fictional cases and arbitrary arrests.
The non-government human organisations do not have these limitations. But they are obliged to get government approval for the release of their foreign funds. But even so, in the past they would protest together. But now they are not clearly stating why they cannot play the role like in the past in cases of human rights violations.
Apart from the banner of the non-government organisations, many human rights activists of our country express their concerns personally or play a vital role in building the public opinion. But most of them envisage the thing in a fragmented manner. For some only the human rights of minorities, for some only the human rights of the opposition party members or for some human rights of members of the law enforcing agencies get priority. This can be normal for a layperson but not expected from the people who are experienced in leading the human rights organisations or known as human rights activists.
Let me explain it with an example. We saw for a long time regular news in newspapers that people are handed over to police after beating or detention on the suspicion of them being activists of Shibir. This is a clear violation of the Bangladesh constitution. Because there is no such law in the country that allows someone to be captured or abused with the suspicion of being a Shibir activist and such actions outside of the law is a breach of Section 31 of the constitution. Yet none of the state organisation or the human rights organisation or human rights activists are seen protesting about it. It has become such a norm that even the media raises no questions about it.
We have to remember, human rights are not only about the rights of one's favoured persons. It is the right for all. It is the same for the people, the party or the persons with religious or cultural rights that we may not like. If the people who are responsible to protect human rights cannot remember this simply truth, human rights will be in jeopardy.
3
The chief justice in his speech also talked about the necessity of political etiquette. Notwithstanding the differences in political belief he urged for mutual respect.
We have seen the lack of this in the politics of Bangladesh for a long time. I also saw distasteful and offensive comments about the architect of Bangladesh's independence movement, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, sector commanders and brave freedom fighters. Recently we have seen very unsavory words being used about political opponents even in parliament. We do not see any instance of the Speaker or any other member of parliament raising the issue that these words may be unparliamentary. Hateful and indecent speech at the highest level encourages aggressive behaviour by loyal political parties, with an overall negative impact on society and human rights culture. I don't see any anxiety being expressed in society about these things anymore. The chief justice of Bangladesh upheld the universality of human rights and the necessity of political manners. But he did not explain them with examples. But if free discussion may sustain it in society, that can play a positive role in upholding human rights.
*Asif Nazrul is a professor of department of law at the University of Dhaka