The Inspector General of the Bangladesh Police, Nur Mohammad, was quoted in various national newspapers on 22 July 2007 as accepting the poor reputation of the force and extent of political interference in policing there. “The police could not perform their duties in the past due to political interference,” the IGP reportedly told officers at the inaugural function of Panchalaish Model Police Station in Chittagong. He admitted that, “Earlier, we could not work independently when ‘vested quarters’ even interfered with the appointment of officer-in-charge in police stations where ‘their’ approval was a must.” He blamed political leadership for “tarnishing the image of the police” and said that “radical changes” had been initiated to address the problem, while asking officers to work with sincerity and honesty for the welfare of the common people.
The inspector general deserves to be commended for this honest appraisal of the extent of political control in the police force of Bangladesh, which although well known to people throughout the country had in the past not been acknowledged by the force itself. The fact that the police also are looked upon badly by the general public is now on record and cannot be denied.
The statement of the inspector general is first and foremost an occasion for all concerned persons in Bangladesh to discuss openly the thorough politicisation of their public institutions, not least of all the police. His comments give rise to many interesting questions: how is it that politicians have been able to interfere in the ins and outs of policing in the country? Why has it not been possible to prevent their interference? Have the police attempted to resist their interference, or have they gone along willingly for their own personal benefit? What concrete measures can be put in place to monitor and prevent such interference in the future? The detailed picture of the real problems relating the degeneration of the policing can only be exposed if people in Bangladesh take up such questions for discussion very openly and over a sustained period of time.
However, the admission that the police have been subject to all forms of outside interference does not excuse the police themselves from responsibility from their atrocious reputation. That there is immense corruption and abuse of power in the police in Bangladesh is known and that the police benefit from it and contribute to it is also known. The Asian Human Rights Commission has documented and reported upon literally hundreds of cases that speak to this reality. It is fully aware, for instance, of how police take money from ordinary persons in order to record their complaints, or arrest persons whom they know are innocent and then demand money from them in order to release them, on threat of lodging fabricated cases against them if they fail to produce the money. It has even heard of cases in which the police have negotiated over the extent to which they will or won’t torture a detainee, depending upon how much they are paid. And it is aware of the extent to which the police are capable of covering up their crimes.
By way of example, just three days after the police chief gave his speech, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Farook of the Uzirpur police station, Barisal district, went to arrest Jelal Uddin for allegedly defaulting on a loan: the creditor had lodged a complaint against him, although the question of whether or not he could pay by instalments was at the time under dispute. The police came in the early hours and dragged the unfortunate debtor from his bed. The 65-year-old father held the legs of ASI Farook and begged him not to arrest his son. In reply, ASI Farook allegedly kicked the old man in his chest, killing him on the spot. When contacted about the incident, the Uzirpur police chief denied this account, saying that the man died from a heart attack on learning that the police had come to arrest his boy. Eyewitnesses have disputed the police version.
Cases such as these are not a consequence of political interference: they are a consequence of a culture of violence and gross abuse that is prevalent throughout the police force in Bangladesh. One of the reasons that this culture persists is that the notion of command responsibility, of authority and liability through a clear and well-defined hierarchy, does not exist in Bangladesh. As such, the inspector general feels free to speak openly about the damage caused to his institution by politicians while implicitly denying that he or his subordinates have any responsibility for the sorts of incident that went on in Barisal a few days ago.
This is the gap between what has now been admitted and reality that must be filled by many louder questions and far greater public discussion. Neither the police chief nor any other of his officers is free to excuse themselves from the killings, torture, forced disappearances, crossfire incidents and corruption that go on routinely throughout Bangladesh. The Asian Human Rights Commission thus urges all concerned persons, particularly lawyers, journalists, human rights defenders and other concerned professionals there to take the good opportunity presented by the inspector general’s speech to discuss the issues of policing there and search for ways to get the country out of the hole into which the police and politicians together have dragged it.
