On 17 November, the High Court asked the government and Rapid Action Battalion to explain, within 48 hours, the shooting and killing of two brothers in Madaripur, asking why the deaths should not be ruled extra-judicial (details). Responding to this, the Home Minister said, ‘We are not carrying out any crossfire right now. No such incident took place since our government assumed office’ (details).
We note that the 48 hours expired on the 19th, the day when ‘rule of law’ supposedly returned because the Appellate Court upheld death penalties for the convicts of the 15 Aug massacre. We hope that Bangladesh started its journey towards the rule of law with the verdict (it was not a closure), but a state that summarily executes its citizens is not one where there is rule of law. Shada Kalo is kind enough to not call the Home Minister a liar. We believe Awami League is in violation of its election pledge.
This blog, and our parent organization Drishtipat, is unequivocally opposed to extra judicial killing (whether called crossfire, gun fight, or something else). However, there is a legitimate debate to be had over how we can stop them. Over the fold is a conversation among some UV bloggers. We would be interested in your opinion.
Blogger 1:
There exist High Court benches who are ready to declare crossfire illegal. But would such a decision be supported by the public? Would it be supported by the urban-based English-speaking crowd who make up Daily Star’s clientele?
Blogger 2:
Relying on judges to make political decisions seems to me just slightly less dangerous than relying on khaki saviours. Banning crossfire/remand, like having secularism/Bismillah in the constitution, has to be done through the political process.
Blogger 3:
Is cross fire judicially approved? When government law enforcement officers say, ‘I was fired upon and I had to shoot back in self defence’, what can you say? When it becomes a trend, supreme judiciary can only censure govt for hoodwinking the law of the land.
Blogger 4:
Crossfire definitely goes against the spirit of the law. It’s fine by the letter for the policeman to claim that, but if it’s a recurring situation, then it’s a problem. If it always seems to happen at the same time (late at night) every time, then there’s a pattern to what should have been a random event. Surely the judiciary members are smart enough to distinguish between smoke and clouds.
There are solutions to policemen claiming “I was fired upon” — corroborative witnesses, mandatory cameras in vehicles/helmets (fake videos will abound, but at least we’ll have some footage) and others that might be the stuff of Digital Bangladesh.
Blogger 1:
All important matters are political. The High Court is both the keeper of our Constitution and the arbiter of the instrumentalities of violence used by the executive branch. The decision to stop crossfire would be entirely within its ambit.
Blogger 2:
It’s important to not confuse things here.
1. Courts can definitely issue rulings on crossfire.
2. Crossfire is a bad thing that should stop.
But from this, it doesn’t necessarily follow:
3. Courts are the best mechanism to stop crossfire.
Until the society has accepted that extrajudicial killing is wrong, even if the one being killed is a heinous criminal, governments will always be tempted to take the short cut of crossfire. At a practical level, if courts step in to stop crossfire as it is done now, and nothing else changes, the executive arm of the state will find some other mechanism to carry out the same policy of extrajudicial killing.
It’s in that sense i am not sure courts can make much difference here. Media, on the other hand, is much more powerful in this respect.
Blogger 1:
Shutting down crossfire is just the first step. The next will be holding someone in RAB liable for the crossfire. That’s when the government will really sit up and take notice. I agree that the executive branch would be the preferable agent for this action. But if they won’t act up, then I think the courts have to step up. I only wish the media would make a bigger fuss about this whole issue.
Aside from the damage to our moral fabric and the concept of rule of law, crossfire is the single largest impediment to greater investment in our police forces. We already have the practice of remand to get confessions from suspects. Now, crossfire removes any remaining incentive to invest in police training and infrastructure, to build sophisticated DNA labs that can garner scientific evidence, and to train police officers to have the knowledge of case law and procedure to follow up on criminal cases and ensure conviction of criminals.
The sooner we stop this practice, the better it will be for the long-term health of our nation.
[Reply]
” How do you stop crossfire ?”
- By establishing a fully independent judiciary .
In fact the whole justice system is in a big mess. Try making a GD or lodge a complain in a police station ! That’s where the trouble starts. Police force’s failures probably prompted creation of RAB. Even if we do not like , RAB has enjoyed some kind of support from section of general mass. It’s more likely that people were looking for a respite from Police torture in RAB.
It may soon turn into a political tool. RAB has already secured Independence Day Award, Few Peace prizes and I would not be surprised if Ms. Sahara recommends them for a Nobel prize !!
[Reply]
Sorry, it’s not Peace prizes, It’s Police Medals.
[Reply]
How do you stop crossfire? By getting AL GOVT to admit that there is crossfire.
Crossfire has become a political ping-pong created by AL, and now backfired into AL. I always said, one of the Best thing BNP govt did was introduce RAB and despite AL’s blasting of RAB itself during BNP time, RAB still remains the best sting BD has since chanachur.
[Reply]
Ending crossfire is a simple political decision.
AL has upheld the culture of crossfire killing, as a law enforcement tool. Crossfire is the quickest way to control law and order instead of properly training and modernizing the police personnel.
Shikh Hasina needs to engage herself with the same zeal she demonstrated in pursuing the killers of her family members.
[Reply]