The proposed move to rename the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) as the “People’s Protection Force” comes at a time when questions about accountability and institutional reform for the organization remain at the centre of public discussion.
This can be a positive step only if it represents a genuine commitment to rebuilding trust between law enforcement agencies and citizens. However, a new name alone cannot erase the concerns and allegations that have surrounded the force over the years.
The history of RAB has included important contributions to tackling serious crime and maintaining security. At the same time, the force has faced widespread criticism and allegations related to human rights violations, including legitimate accusations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and abuse of power.
It goes without saying that accountability must remain a key part of any reform process. Without addressing these issues, changing the name of the institution would only amount to a change in appearance rather than any real transformation.
Any restructuring must, therefore, be accompanied by clear mechanisms for oversight, transparency, and accountability. Allegations of wrongdoing must be investigated thoroughly, and those responsible for violations must face appropriate consequences.
A security force earns public confidence not through its title, but through its conduct and commitment to the rule of law.
The name “People’s Protection Force” carries an important expectation: That the institution exists first and foremost to protect citizens. That promise must be reflected in training, operations, leadership, and internal accountability systems.
The public must see evidence that lessons have been learned and that past mistakes will not be repeated.
Institutional reforms are necessary in any democracy, particularly for agencies entrusted with significant authority, but reforms must go beyond symbolic changes.
A new name can mark the beginning of a new chapter, but only meaningful action, accountability, and respect for citizens’ rights can define it. Otherwise, the change risks becoming merely cosmetic rather than transformative.
