In the last decade, over 1,600 places of worship were vandalized. A typical pattern of violence has been observed in most such cases: Some defamatory messages hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslims go viral on Facebook, mainly through a hacked Facebook ID of a local person belonging to a Hindu community, and the aftermath is the destruction of an entire Hindu village.
The question is, even if the account is hacked, what gives the local community the legitimacy to engage in such mass destruction? Who determines the limit of the freedom of speech? Also, what are the boundaries or borders of religious sentiments?
Likewise, the planned incidents of placing the Qur’an on the puja mandap in Comilla, the attacks on the Hindu community in Shalla, Shunamganj, or the Saha community in Narail through rumours on Facebook also get the mental and unofficial legitimacy to carry out planned attacks against the Hindu community.
In most places, during these attacks, the local administration is seen to be inactive. Law enforcement agencies are seen nearby without taking proper action. Is our local administration bothered enough to take proactive steps during these incidents? Or is it a collective state of denial in ignoring the violence towards minorities? Surprisingly (or rather not), we see no proper steps to hold the local government accountable for failing to stop the attacks immediately.
Grabbing the Hindu community's lands has been the most common motive behind their systematic oppression. The Enemy Property Act initiated by the Pakistani government, and the successive Vested Property Act, has been commonly used to grab Hindu property. According to various reports, about 30% of the Hindu households (including the missing families), or 10 of 34 Hindu homes, have been victims of the EPA/VPA.
The EPA/VPA has been an effective tool for forcing Hindu communities to migrate from their motherland. In response to the demands of various human rights organizations, the current government amended this act to the Vested Property Return Act of 2013, which enables confiscated properties to be reclaimed by their original Hindu owners. However, minorities have not experienced the benefits of this revised act yet.
The recent arrests of the accused over the alleged rumours of hurting religious sentiments were mostly made through the recent incarnation of the Digital Security Act. This is undoubtedly a timely measure from the government at a time when we are practically living in a digital space. But the concern remains on how the act has been implemented.
There is a long-ongoing demand from the political opposition, civil society, free thinkers, and human rights activists to review the DSA in order to prevent its misuse. The international community, including the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN independent experts, the European Union, and journalists in Bangladesh, has repeatedly requested the authorities to review the DSA for its stifling of free speech.
Also, the Foreign Donations (Voluntary Activities) Regulation Act 2016 introduced tighter controls on financing and enhanced processes for NGO registration, delaying project approvals, slowing down implementation, and severely restricting international engagement with local civil society organizations.
As foreign assistance has dwindled in the country, CSOs have maintained engagement with the government on “safe and soft” issues instead of advocating for minority rights. The ruling party has made several promises to protect minorities before the 2018 election, including the enactment of the Minority Protection Act, the formation of the National Minorities Commission, the promulgation of the Inequality Abolition Act, implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, and the setting up of an independent commission for plain land indigenous people.
But, unfortunately, we do not see any improvement regarding the rights of minorities; instead, the situation has intensified if anything.
The only visible joint initiative from the government surrounding recent incidents was filing cases against unidentified accused, allocating money for the affected families and reconstructing Hindu houses and temples. But these are not doing any help to stop the spread of communal violence.
The Bangladesh Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council (BHBCUC) and other CSOs like the Citizens Platform have been demanding for a separate minority rights commission. But don’t we have an existing National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that is entirely dedicated to acting as a watchdog for the human rights situation of Bangladesh? What role is the NHRC playing in these situations?
The government formed the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to address human rights issues and provide policy recommendations to the government to improve things. Since its establishment, the commission has struggled to overcome significant administrative, legal, and political challenges. The activity and role of such a state institution are confusing as well.
When it comes to allegations of human rights violations against law enforcement agencies; the NHRC claims that its hands are tied in investigating itself, and it can only ask for reports from the government. It refers to section 18 of the 2009 act, which outlines the procedure to be followed in case of “disciplined force” -- that the commission can ask for reports from the government, make recommendations, etc.
The National Human Rights Commission Act 2009 states that the commission should be an independent statutory body.
But the NHRC is not entirely separate.
If a separate minority rights commission is established, most likely it would function like the existing NHRC. That surely will not make any difference. Rather than setting up a separate minority rights commission, it is essential to strengthen the current NHRC. It is necessary to review the administrative, regional, and political challenges it is facing. Public consultation with Civil Society is needed to nominate the executive body candidates.
Law enforcement and other agencies should fully comply with the NHRC when requesting classified reports on human rights abuses. The commission should be able to run independent inquiries on the cases of human rights violence. In reality, no commission can take immediate measures on the minority attacks or violence using social media. It is the local administration who must take full responsibility and be held accountable if they fail to stop such repetitive occurrences.
Nisharga Pratim Bhattacharjee is a development professional.
