[🇧🇩] Human Rights and Bangladesh

‘We must challenge not just regimes, but also oppressive legal machinery'


VISUAL: STAR

Taqbir Huda is currently pursuing graduate legal studies at Harvard University and has previously served as the South Asia regional researcher at Amnesty International, specialising in documenting gross violations of human rights by the state and advocating for accountability, including for the atrocities committed during the July uprising in Bangladesh. In an exclusive interview with Noshin Nawal of The Daily Star, he talks about the current state of human rights in Bangladesh and the potential way forward.

How pivotal were human rights violations in precipitating the eventual ouster of the Awami League?

Human rights violations—egregious ones—became a hallmark of Awami League rule, particularly over the past decade. As human rights defenders, we felt quite frustrated by the impunity with which the regime operated, no matter how severely or frequently it committed violations. However, the sheer scale of atrocities during the July uprising was unprecedented. It was arguably the deadliest protest in our history and among the most lethal in the world this year.

The rapid escalation of civilian deaths, the shockingly young age of many victims, the complete communication blackout, the shoot-on-sight curfew orders, the sheer brutality of force used against unarmed protesters, vividly documented in videos and images—all of it was so horrific that it shook the conscience of the international community.

Human rights are only as good as the power of those who care about them. Usually, the best and only leverage that human rights defenders have is the ability to stigmatise perpetrators and the informational politics that flows from it. Ultimately, it was the determination of the student-led mass movement that proved decisive to Awami League's ouster, but the discourse of human rights played an important role in characterising the enemy.

What were the most rampant human rights violations that characterised the Awami League rule?

Extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances were undoubtedly the most egregious and systematic violations that were instrumentalised as tools of repression, with at least 708 people forcibly disappeared during the Awami League's 15-plus years of rule, according to conservative estimates by Odhikar. Human Rights Watch dubbed this period as a "decade of disappearance." Victims' families often told us that death was preferable to disappearance—at least death allowed them to start mourning and find closure.

At the same time, thousands were killed extrajudicially, usually under the guise of anti-drug or counterterrorism campaigns. All this happened against the wider backdrop of suppressing dissent, with freedom of expression being systematically dismantled through draconian laws like the Digital Security Act. These laws allowed the regime to criminalise dissent under the guise of legality, creating an atmosphere of fear and silencing opposition voices.

How was dissent silenced during Awami rule, and what were the implications for freedom of speech?

The Awami League was alarmingly effective in eradicating dissent, particularly in the online sphere. I can refer to two cases I had directly investigated and campaigned for while serving at Amnesty. Take the case of Khadija, a university student who hosted a webinar when she was 17 where a retired army officer criticised the Awami League. Since they couldn't target him—as he was abroad—they went after her. Khadija endured nearly 15 months of pre-trial detention before being released under immense national and international pressure.

During her imprisonment, Khadija was subjected to what could arguably be described as inhuman treatment. She was forced to do manual labour, placed in solitary confinement, and denied basic medical treatment for kidney-related illnesses. To see such tyranny inflicted on a young woman highlights how authoritarianism had trickled down to the lowest levels.

Another striking example is the case of Anisha Siddika, a victim of arbitrary detention whose case I investigated while working at Amnesty. She was a 58-year-old woman who was arrested at the dead of night in August 2023, after her son made a Facebook post critical of the Awami League and procedural irregularities of the international crimes tribunal. Her son was residing in the US at the time. The state sent a chilling message: no matter where you are, if you criticise the Awami League, they will retaliate by targeting your loved ones who remain in Bangladesh.

They arrested his mother under trumped-up terrorism charges using the draconian Special Powers Act, accusing her of conspiring to commit sabotage against the government. Although Anisha observed the full-face veil as a matter of religious practice, the police forcibly unveiled her face, photographed her, and uploaded her image to their Facebook page. Such a blatant violation of her dignity should have sparked public outrage. Yet, there was a conspicuous silence from the usual circles of civil society and human rights defenders who are usually the first to respond to suppression of dissent. I would like us to reflect on why we failed to stand in solidarity with Anisha Siddika, despite the very public manner in which the state violated her human rights.

Have you personally been affected by this clampdown on dissent?

Between August 2022 and August 2024, I was working as the Bangladesh researcher at Amnesty International, investigating and reporting on human rights violations perpetrated by the state under the former ruling party. For my own safety and that of my family, I was forced to keep my affiliation with Amnesty a well-guarded secret from the outset. The last thing I wanted was to have a criminal case filed against me for "spreading propaganda" or "tarnishing the image of the state"—which had become the former government's default response to even the slightest bit of critique. Awami League had essentially blacklisted Amnesty, and high-ranking party officials would frequently accuse it of conspiring against Bangladesh whenever its human rights violations were exposed. To avoid risk of persecution, I had to use a pseudonym and burner phones for external communications, request my non-Bangladeshi colleagues to front our outputs on Bangladesh, and avoid any public facing engagements (such as media interviews) which would risk putting me on the state's ever broadening radar of surveillance. There were even moments when I added and then removed my Amnesty affiliation from my LinkedIn profile. That's how successful the state was in catalysing a culture of fear.

All this changed on July 16, 2024, a day after the crackdown on the student protesters started, when I decided to accept the first media interview (as a spokesperson for Amnesty) to highlight how the state had used Chhatra League and police to brutalise students, including the killing of Abu Sayeed, on DW News—the first international media outlet to cover the July uprising in any detail. At a moment when the state began killing children while simultaneously imposing a total internet shutdown to block international monitoring, seizing any available opportunity to expose the truth seemed like a moral obligation. So I began seizing every such opportunity that followed, despite the inherent risks which I had assiduously sought to avoid so far.

Human rights defenders should not have to navigate their work under the constant shadow of state retaliation. We must create a culture where questioning authority is seen as a vital part of our national integrity, not a threat to it. In our quest for accountability, we would do well to remember that any attempts to ensure justice must be fair, transparent, and in compliance with international human rights standards. Anything less would dishonour the legacy of those who shed blood for our collective freedom.

What systemic factors allowed such widespread human rights violations to persist for so long?

The roots of this issue lie in the colonial-era criminal laws that the postcolonial state inherited and expanded upon. These laws grant sweeping powers to the police, such as arresting and searching individuals without warrants, seizing their devices, and denying them bail, leading to lengthy arbitrary detention awaiting a trial.

Alarmingly, the latest available statistics show that almost 80 percent of Bangladesh's prison population consists of pre-trial detainees—individuals who haven't even been convicted of any crime. This is a direct result of an authoritarian penal system where human rights of the accused are violated by the state with full legal sanction. Additionally, we lack an independent prosecutorial system; prosecutors are often ad-hoc political appointees, while the police and judiciary have been compromised through partisan recruitment.

If the police, prosecution and judiciary are effectively under partisan control, how can the criminal justice system be anything other than an instrument of oppression at the beck and call of whichever party is in power? The Awami League used the same colonial policing model that the British Raj introduced to quash native rebellion, against protesters during the July uprising and beyond.

We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that the mass arrests, mob assaults, prolonged remand and detention of former Awami League ministers and high-ranking officials on legally dubious charges are also a cause for concern. The right to a fair trial is not conditional; it is absolute, no matter how egregious the alleged crime may be or how detestable the person accused may be. We owe it to all the victims of Bloody July to ensure that justice for their killings is obtained through a fair and transparent process, rather than one that reproduces injustices. We cannot allow their deaths to be exploited for the settling of political vendettas. We cannot allow the legal system to be misused in the same way that the Awami League had misused it. We cannot slip back to the very despotism we fought so hard to escape.

Authoritarians come and go, but authoritarian institutions and laws remain intact. True emancipation requires dismantling these systems. We must challenge not just regimes but also the oppressive legal machinery that sustains and justifies the state's sweeping punitive powers.

How do you evaluate the role of the National Human Rights Commission?

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been largely irrelevant in the course of my human rights work in Bangladesh. We were aware of its existence but, as Dr Shahdeen Malik once aptly described it, the NHRC had become "a retirement home for top bureaucrats."

Given that the NHRC does not possess formal executive powers or direct investigative powers over law enforcement agencies (who are accused of committing the bulk of human rights violations), the only possible role it could meaningfully serve is that of a watchdog. Unfortunately, we currently lack robust human rights statistics, relying instead on data published by certain NGOs. Even those are often methodologically dubious because they are primarily based on newspaper-reported incidents, which are not the most reliable sources. If the NHRC were to adopt a methodology for documenting and enumerating human rights violations, it could provide a vital resource (and perhaps even serve as a contact point) for international human rights organisations working on Bangladesh (which typically lack a field presence and are reliant on ground sources), such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Civicus, etc. which have worked persistently to push for accountability for human rights violations in Bangladesh at the international level.

Equally important is shifting our understanding of justice. Victims of human rights violations often require reparations—compensation, rehabilitation, and restitution—but these mechanisms are almost non-existent in our legal framework. For example, the Crime Victims Compensation Act, proposed in 2007, remains a draft even after 17 years. The NHRC could consider taking the lead in ensuring reparative justice for victims of human rights violations.

Have human rights defenders been reduced to mere political pawns?

Not pawns, but human rights defenders were systematically restricted and silenced. The government allowed activism on certain "apolitical" issues—those involving non-state actors—but cracked down on work that exposed state complicity. NGOs working on sensitive issues like extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances faced defunding, deregistration, intimidation, and freezing of assets.

One does not have to look further than the retaliation faced by Odhikar. Its leaders were targeted, jailed and its operations crippled, sending a chilling message to others. Human rights organisations had to choose between reporting on the most pressing human rights violations or avoiding state crackdown. Most opted for the latter, perhaps as a matter of survival.

Considering such instances, what is your vision for the future regarding freedom of dissent and human rights in Bangladesh?

I dream of a Bangladesh where dissent is no longer criminalised but celebrated, and where human rights work is allowed to thrive instead of being self-incriminating. Human rights defenders should not have to navigate their work under the constant shadow of state retaliation. We must create a culture where questioning authority is seen as a vital part of our national integrity, not a threat to it. By making the seemingly impossible possible, the student leaders of the July uprising have given me the courage to dream the seemingly unthinkable. In our quest for accountability, we would do well to remember that any attempts to ensure justice must be fair, transparent, and in compliance with international human rights standards. Anything less would dishonour the legacy of those who shed blood for our collective freedom.​

Bangladesh elected VP of UN Human Rights Council

Bangladesh has been unanimously elected vice president of the UN Human Rights Council responsible for promoting and protecting all human rights around the globe.

The decision has been made on Monday, according to a statement of the Bangladesh Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva yesterday.

Bangladesh will be vice-president for entire 2025.

The bureau of the Human Rights Council consists of one president and four vice presidents representing each of the five UN regional groups.

This is the first time Bangladesh is going to serve as VP since the Human Rights Council was established in 2006.​

Bangladesh far from achieving equality
Says Rizwana at MJF event, blames lack of true democracy


Each segment of society should perform their responsibilities effectively to achieve gender equality. PHOTO: COLLECTED

The country is far from establishing equality and justice in society as it has never truly experienced democracy, said environment adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan, at a discussion today, marking Human Rights Day.

"Though human rights are recognised on paper, the understanding of these rights differs greatly between the privileged and the underprivileged classes," she said at the event organised by Manusher Jonno Foundation at the NGO Affairs Bureau auditorium in Agargaon, Dhaka.

People from indigenous communities, persons with disabilities, NGO workers, and numerous others participated in the discussion, raising various human rights concerns.

Rizwana, the chief guest, said, "While the masses are aware of their rights, we are far from having a responsive system."

She pointed out that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) lacks the empowerment to operate effectively.

"Our governments have always displayed an authoritarian tendency, showing reluctance to empower institutions or make them inclusive," she said.

Civil society, too, has been fragmented, hindering united resistance to oppression, she added.

Referring to violations of civil and political rights, including abductions and wrongful arrests, she said, "We have not been able to respond uniformly to such cases."

Rizwana also questioned the legitimacy of three consecutive elections, calling them fraudulent.

The adviser emphasised the need for constitutional safeguards to balance power and prevent one class from enjoying exclusive privileges while others are deprived.

She vowed to push for amendments to laws and policies to prevent activities harmful to the environment or human rights. "To achieve genuine human rights, we must remain vocal and proactive while ensuring supportive government policies," she said.

Shaheen Anam, executive director of MJF, stressed the need to eliminate human rights violations. "As we envision a new Bangladesh based on anti-discrimination movements, fundamental rights must always be protected," she said.

She said violence and hatred persist because the principles of international human rights have not been fully embraced in society. "We need to nurture a mindset of accepting differences from an early age," she added.

She also criticised the NHRC for being ineffective and called on civil society to be more vocal against violations. "Had we stood firmly, the scale of atrocities could have been reduced," she said.

Swedish Ambassador to Bangladesh Nicolas Weeks highlighted structural barriers such as stereotypes and limited access to resources as key factors behind inequality. "We need a civic space where people can share opinions and exercise fundamental freedoms," he said.

He called for greater transparency and accountability in governance.

Corinne Henchoz Pignani, Chargée d'Affaires of the Swiss Embassy, urged patience while working towards a fairer society.

"Right now might be challenging, but don't lose the vision," she said, referencing the Human Rights Day slogan: Our rights, our future, right now.

Sara Hossain, executive director of BLAST, emphasised the unique challenges faced by the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

"The CHT has distinct characteristics, and its policies require a unique approach," she said. Unresolved court proceedings are stalling progress in the region, she added.

Prof Sharmind Neelormi of Jahangirnagar University and a member of the White Paper Commission also spoke at the event.​

‘Independent body needed to protect human rights defenders’


VISUAL: STAR

ASM Nasiruddin Elan, director of Odhikar who has suffered prosecution during the ousted Awami League regime, talks about his experience and the overall state of human rights defenders in Bangladesh, in an exclusive interview with Noshin Nawal of The Daily Star.

Could you tell us about your journey with Odhikar and the challenges you have faced during your years of advocacy?

My journey with Odhikar has been filled with challenges, but it has also been one of deep purpose. Odhikar has always stood for factual documentation of human rights abuses, focusing on issues like extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. However, this work came at a significant personal cost.

One of the turning points was the aftermath of the Hefazat-e-Islam rally on May 5-6, 2013. That night, a joint force carried out an operation under the cover of darkness, and widespread reports claimed that many people had died. Given Odhikar's mandate, we felt it was our responsibility to investigate these claims.

We conducted a fact-finding mission and published a report in June that year. The report revealed that 61 percent of the claims were related to extrajudicial killings. At the time, the government categorically denied any casualties. However, later, they contradicted themselves and admitted to an obscure and insignificant number of deaths.

The information minister at the time, Hasanul Haq Inu, via an official letter on his behalf, asked for the names of the deceased. We declined as sharing this information could lead to further victimisation of the victims' families. Instead, we proposed forming a judicial inquiry committee, led by an independent judge. The government ignored this suggestion, and shortly thereafter, charges were filed against us.

What happened after the charges were filed? How did the state respond to your findings?

The charges were filed very quickly. Adilur Rahman Khan, Odhikar's secretary, was the first to be detained on August 10, 2013. He was picked up from his home, and for a time, we had no information about his whereabouts. Later, it became clear that the Detective Branch (DB) of police had taken him.

Not long after, I was named as the second accused in the charge sheet. I surrendered to the court on November 7, 2013, and was sent to jail. We were accused of publishing false information under the ICT Act, 2006. In jail, the environment was hostile, with officials making it a point to mock us. I vividly remember a newly appointed deputy jailer sarcastically asking what the state of human rights in the country is if the human rights defenders are in jail.


ASM Nasiruddin Elan, left, with Adilur Rahman Khan as they are escorted by the police at a Dhaka court. FILE PHOTO: COLLECTED

How did the judicial process unfold, and what were the key challenges you faced?

The judicial process was incredibly biased. Initially, the case was stayed in the High Court, but after the Covid pandemic, the stay was lifted, and the trial moved forward with undue haste.

The case was eventually transferred to the Cyber Tribunal where it became evident that the government was exerting significant pressure to secure a conviction. The judge handling the case indirectly stated that the report should be removed from Odhikar's website, showing a clear intent to suppress documented evidence rather than address the substance of our findings.

Despite insufficient evidence, both Adilur and I were sentenced to two years in prison and fined Tk 10,000 each. The rushed nature of the trial, combined with the pressure on the judiciary, demonstrated how deeply compromised the system had become.

The Hefazat rally report seems to have been a catalyst for these events. Could you elaborate on its broader implications?

The report was a significant moment for Odhikar. It directly contradicted the state's narrative and highlighted the need for accountability. But instead of addressing the findings, the government attacked us.

The charges and subsequent trial were not just about silencing Odhikar, they were about sending a message to anyone who dared challenge the state's version of events. This was not only an attack on our organisation but also on the broader principles of freedom of expression and the right to truth.

The reality was that our report was factual and based on verified data. The state's response was not about the report's accuracy—it was about silencing Odhikar and discouraging others from documenting human rights abuses.

You mentioned suppression of evidence and pressure on the judiciary. What does this say about the state of institutional integrity at the time?

The judiciary and law enforcement agencies were deeply compromised. The judiciary, instead of upholding the principles of justice, acted under government influence. Law enforcement was weaponised to detain and intimidate human rights defenders. The entire system was used to silence dissent and maintain control. It became clear that institutions meant to protect citizens were instead serving the interests of the regime.

Could you share your experience regarding how you were treated in jail and during the hearings, particularly by the police?

It was extremely humiliating. After the sentencing, even before the formal verdict was fully announced, the courtroom was effectively controlled by law enforcement. They immediately restrained both me and Adilur, physically holding us down and not allowing us to interact with our supporters or even say a proper goodbye. Four police officers grabbed each of us, pushing and dragging us out of the courtroom as if we were violent criminals, which we were not.

Once we reached the prison transfer centre, I remember how I was shoved into the vehicle with such force that I stumbled and fell inside. There was no regard for our dignity or basic human decency. This behaviour was not only degrading but also violated our constitutional rights to dignity and personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 31 of the constitution.

What rights and methods of protection are currently available to human rights activists in Bangladesh? Do you think they are sufficient?

There is no dedicated institutional mechanism or framework in Bangladesh to protect human rights defenders. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in the past 15 years has only been a pawn, a recommendation-making puppet without any purpose.

Internationally, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders provides a set of guidelines and protections, but these are not formally implemented in our country. Activists like us are left vulnerable to harassment, legal persecution, and even physical harm. The state does not ensure adequate safety measures for human rights defenders. On the contrary, it often creates an atmosphere of fear. Activists are frequently targeted with surveillance, arbitrary detentions, fabricated charges, and smear campaigns. The lack of accountability within the law enforcement agencies exacerbates this issue.

In short, the protections that currently exist are far from sufficient. Activists need legal, institutional, and social safeguards to carry out their work without fear of reprisal. Until then, the challenges we face will continue to deter many from standing up for what is right.

Recently, there has been much discussion about violence against minorities, particularly Hindus. How do you view these narratives in the context of your experience as a human rights activist?

The issue of violence against minorities is complex, and much of the narrative surrounding it has been shaped by disinformation. While there were genuine incidents that required attention, many claims were exaggerated or manipulated for political purposes.

For instance, certain actors, both domestic and international, have used these narratives to portray Bangladesh as a country of systematic minority persecution. This disinformation often overshadows the real issues, making it harder to address the root causes and creating unnecessary divisions within society. There are more known incidents of attacks on persons for their political liaisons which are later mispresented in media platforms as minority attacks. The most pervasive issue here is politicisation of communities.

Recently, India has shown significant negativity towards Bangladesh's interim government, largely due to its vested interests and historical affiliation with the ousted Awami League government. The Awami League maintained close ties with India, often aligning with its strategic and political goals. Many Bangladeshis view India's actions as interference, given the widespread sentiment against undue external influence in domestic affairs. India's dissatisfaction stems from losing its reliable ally in the Awami League, prompting attempts to delegitimise the interim government. However, most Bangladeshis do not endorse India's approach, seeking a more balanced and independent foreign policy.

As Bangladesh transitions away from fascist rule, what steps are necessary to rebuild trust and protect human rights?

As per Odhikar's reports, 1,581 people including children were killed, over 18,000 were injured and 550 people sustained injuries that damaged their eyesight during the July uprising. These numbers are expected to be much higher as the tally continues. We as a nation cannot allow a repeat of such instances. Rebuilding trust requires systemic reform. The judiciary and law enforcement must be depoliticised and operate independently. Without this, it will be impossible to ensure justice and accountability.

Disinformation must also be addressed. The state and civil society must work together to promote factual narratives and counter exaggerated claims. This includes fostering communal harmony and addressing any genuine grievances through transparent processes.

Human rights defenders need to be protected. Our work is essential for holding power accountable and ensuring that the voices of the marginalised are heard. Creating a safe environment for this work is crucial for Bangladesh's progress.

What are your reflections on this moment in Bangladesh's history?

If Bangladesh is serious about ensuring human rights, it must establish an independent body to monitor and protect human rights defenders. This body must have the authority to investigate threats, offer legal aid, and ensure that law enforcement agencies do not act as instruments of repression. Without such a mechanism, human rights work and workers in Bangladesh will remain in danger, and the principles of justice and accountability will continue to suffer.​