On 19 March 2007, Bangladesh’s national television channel BTV announced in a news bulletin that the present government has “in principle decided to establish a National Human Rights Commission in the country”. This was announced during a regular weekly meeting of the Advisory Council which is chaired by Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed. All of the country’s national newspapers published the same news on 20 March 2007. Quoting the Press Secretary of the Chief Advisor, Mr. Syed Fahim Munaim, newspaper reports claimed that Bangladesh is now a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council and have been attached with the organization since 1983. Neighbouring countries such as India, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka have their respective national human rights commissions while Pakistan is on the way to establishing one. According to the proposal by the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Advisory Council has approved the proposal in principal. A committee has been formed headed by the Cabinet Division Secretary comprising of representatives from the ministries of Law, Home and Foreign Affairs. This committee will look at the human rights commissions in South Asia to sketch a possible structure and guidelines of the proposed Commission and will take suggestions from representatives from civil society. A report in the Daily Star also recalled that the formation of a national human rights commission was one of the election pledges made in part by the past government. A similar committee was formed on 10 December 2001. A final draft was then sent to the Cabinet Division on January 23, 2003; however, it had been shelved at the ministry since the cabinet sent it back on January 29 of that same year.
Although the government had put the idea on hold for several years, this week’s announcement is a welcoming message to everyone concerned about human rights issues in Bangladesh. At the same time, this “in principle decision of formation of a national human rights commission” has been commissioned by a government, which was born within a state of emergency, when all fundamental human rights remain under suspension. According to recent reports by local human rights groups, law-enforcement in the country has been militarized; deaths in custody, extrajudicial killings and brutal torture cases have been published almost everyday, while arbitrary arrests, detentions and denial of justice, even to human rights defenders have become a very common phenomenon. Naturally, one question arises, what is the real “principal” behind the government’s motivation? There are also supplementary questions such as is the government only going to make a new signboard of the national human rights commission, where “principles” are contradicted by human rights violations that go unchecked? In the past, the international community has observed that there is a gulf of difference between pledges and practice when it comes to the governments of Bangladesh.
In addition, the committee appointed to design the structure and guidelines of the commission is another surprise. An influential bureaucrat who is surrounded by three subjects has been given a forum to frame the human rights commission. These bureaucrats are often more concerned with keeping their jobs rather than ensuring an effective service to the citizens of the country, similar to the county’s magistrates and many of the states justices. Judges in Bangladesh are there to serve the government rather than upholding justice and rule of law in the country, while demonstrating a poor commitment to professional integrity. God only knows what sort of human rights will be given to the nation under the recommendations of such a committee.
The concerned professionals know how much commitment and what sort of mind set the bureaucrats of Bangladesh traditionally have had, especially, the official practices of the secretaries of the Home and Law ministries. According to the Bangladeshi system, all of these bureaucrats should have worked as magistrates in the early years of their respective career. Begging the question, what was their role and record in their positions that can qualify them to understand the concept of human rights? How much have they contribute to the protection and promotion of human rights? These bureaucrats have hardly cared to hear the pain and suffering of the victims of human rights abuses. If the government has any true commitment to ensure redress and justice to the victims of human rights abuses in the country, then, these persons can only be a part of the committee and must not be the propeller of it at all. It is a very serious concern that this commission may be nothing more than another bureaucratic mechanism that acts like a toothless tiger.
Moreover, the human rights commissions of South Asia are not the ideal examples of human rights bodies. Although it is not bad to learn from your neighbours’ experiences in combating human rights, the government must consider how much benefit have the people of South Asia received from their nations human rights protectorates. For example, how many South Asians have suffered uncountable and unimaginable types of violations including forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, death in custody, torture in custodies, rape in custody, and so on. Despite the existence of the national human rights commissions in those countries, the culture of impunity is deeply rooted there, similarly as it is in Bangladesh.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) therefore urges the Bangladeshi authorities to keep these thoughts in their minds. Human rights defenders working at the national and grassroots level along with victims of brutal human rights abuses should be included on the committee so that the real problem of human rights and the needs of the people are adequately reflected in its recommendations. We urge the Bangladesh authorities to clarify their level of commitment to human rights, especially since rampant human rights violations are occurring during the current state of emergency. The AHRC also urges the government of Bangladesh not to make a signboard based on an institution that only carries a name and does nothing more than stand idly by. This will only bring about further frustration amongst the victims of human rights violations and undermine the government’s credibility in bringing sustained peace and happiness to its own people.
