Protests Escalate in Bangladesh

Since early February this year, the streets of Dhaka have been filled with protesters. Tens of thousands of voices merge in roaring chants. Along the roadside, protesters perform poetry, songs, and theatre pieces. Candles and torches illuminate the faces of old and young, rich and poor. Amidst the crowd, a tailor sets down his treadle sewing machine and begins to sew strings of Bangladesh’s national flag. The protesters have gathered to issue a call to the country’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to deliver justice to eleven defendants who are accused of raping and massacring scores of Bangladeshis during the 1971 Liberation War, the country’s bloody struggle to separate from Pakistan.

The tribunal was set up in March 2010 under the authority of the current Awami League government of Bangladesh, fulfilling a popular promise given during the 2008 election campaign. Plans for the tribunal had first been discussed in 1973, but the series of coups and autocratic rulers that followed long prevented their realisation. In the early 1990s, a prolific writer by the name of Jahanara Imam forged a movement demanding a trial for those war criminals who still resided in Bangladesh with impunity. Her demands proved popular – people soon held mock tribunals in the streets – but the government charged the “mother of martyrs” with sedition. Today, the ICT has finally become a reality.

On trial are Bengali men accused of aiding the Pakistani army in massacring unarmed citizens, and of raping women and children. During the Liberation War, up to three million people were killed and 250,000 women were raped. Such systematic brutality would not have been possible were it not for the collaboration between local militias and Pakistani troops. ’Rajakers’ – Bengali collaborators – believed Bengalis were promoting a Bangladeshi identity ahead of an Islamic one, and fought to protect theocracy. Eight of the defendants are members of the Islamist party Jamaat-e–Islami, which was opposed to the nationalist movement of the 1971 war. While the party was first banned after Bangladesh gained its independence, it was officially reinstated in the late 1970s and has entered mainstream politics. Other defendants are members of the current opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Accused war criminals held office in Bangladesh’s government as recently as 2006.

In January 2013, the ICT issued its first verdict. Abul Kalam Azad was sentenced to death in absentia for crimes against humanity. In early February, another defendant, Abdul Quader Mollah, who is colloquially known as the “Butcher of Mirpur”, was sentenced to life imprisonment for his involvement in two massacres that left 344 dead, and for the rape, arson, and murder of several prominent nationalist activists and their families.

On the day of Mollah’s sentencing, members of Jamaat-el-Ismali called a national strike and condemned the ICT as a politically biased ploy to destroy the government’s opponents. However, many Bangladeshis considered the verdict against Mollah too lenient. Some found the verdict so inexplicable, they spread conspiracy theories about a possible secret agreement between the Jamaat party and the government to spare Mollah from the worst punishment.

Why demand capital punishment? Mollah’s life sentence will in fact only imprison him for fourteen years. Beyond this, many Bangladeshis fear that war criminals will utilise their economic wealth and political clout to navigate the corrupt judicial system and gain release  within a few months. As leading members of political parties, once released these men could then continue to participate in public life, even return to government positions. As a result, critics have depicted the protest as a bloodthirsty mob with little care for due process. Protesters reply that they are simply asking for severe crimes to receive severe punishment, in accordance with national law. They have seen many sentenced to death for lesser crimes.

Organized by the Bloggers and Online Activists Network, protests against judicial leniency soon spread throughout the country and it has now become the largest protest movement in Bangladesh in decades. Since its inception, ‘Shahbag’, as the movement is now known, has developed its demands. An ultimatum to the government has been issued that calls for maximum punishment for war criminals and a banning of the Jamaat-e-Islami. Some have demanded Bangladesh become a secular state, in line with its 1972 Constitution. Boycotts against all Jamaat-affiliated institutions have been called for. Share prices of Bangladesh’s largest bank, owned by Jamaat, have plummeted.

One pro-Shahbag blogger, Ahmed Raijib Haider, was left dead outside his home on the 15th February. Still, most Shahbag protests remained peaceful, protected by the police. But tensions have been rising. Opponents to Shahbag now claim that the secular protests constitute a government-sponsored campaign against Islam. This has compelled many young Jamaat supporters to violence and several Hindu villages have been torched. Jamaat protesters themselves are being killed in violent clashes with the police who battle to contain this highly polarised country.

In relation to the size and remarkable demands of the protests, Western media coverage has been minimal. Within the first week, most corporate media remained silent. The “Global Voices” website published reports, translated from Bengali blogs, that provided a local perspective. The BBC published a piece on the demonstrations, which was later edited after readers complained about historical inaccuracies. CNN, in another piece, lumped pro-Jamaat protesters together with their political opponents, conflating highly polarised reactions to the ICT verdict. Reports from the Guardian and New York Times broke the silence two weeks into the demonstrations. News of Bangladesh’s struggle increases as death tolls have risen in recent days, but much of the world has missed the colourful 20 day sit in that instigated these events.

Since the beginning of the protests, previously critical outlets like “The Economist” and “Human Rights Watch” have been slow to report Bangladesh’s uprising, in its peace and its violence. The basic demand of the people – to gain acknowledgement of the crimes committed against them – is often muffled. Judging by recent violence, the demand may be buried by the cries of new atrocities. The terrain for Bangladesh’s people to be heard remains uneven. Readership is constricted by language, money, power and sheer exposure; asymmetries that could heavily shape outcomes in the nation. Whose voices are heard directly affect the hundreds of thousands of people in Bangladesh who are now waiting for their judicial system to hold war criminals accountable for acts committed almost half a century ago.

By Becka Hudson

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.