It may not be a police state but at times a section of the law enforcers gives the impression that it is, by all means, one. There is a long list of wayward behaviours by the men in uniform. In some cases, their savagery puts the entire force to shame. The list certainly is long. Beginning with the rape and murder of Yasmin and Seema, the incidents of shooting of Limon Hossain in his leg by cops and unleashing of brutality on Abdul Kadar at Khilgaon Police station by its then officer-in-charge (OC) only project a most negative image.
Add to this the latest incident of police atrocities meted out to a young man named Abu Syed aged 30. On Wednesday night, following his arrest a sub-inspector and an assistant sub-inspector of Jessore Kotowali Model Police Station, according to reports, demanded Tk 0.2 million as bribe money from him. On refusal, the young man was hung upside down and beaten severely. On leaning about the incident, members of Syed's family rescued him in exchange for Tk 50,000.
One of the constables at the police station reportedly confirmed that the incident did indeed take place. Surprisingly, though, the officer-in-charge (OC) had no knowledge of this. He referred to another sub-inspector for factual information. But that sub-inspector was rather eager to emphasise that he was not involved in the matter. But he heard about the arrest. However, he was not in the know what really happened following his arrest.
Clearly, there is an overt attempt to trivialise the episode. That one of the accused to have meted out atrocities to Syed would deny his part is understandable. But why would others at the police station including the OC try to avoid giving information on the incident? Particularly, the OC cannot disown any untoward incident. Had he been aware of his charge, he should have made every attempt possible to know what exactly happened, how and why. After all, he is the boss and he has to be accountable for his subordinates' actions in relation to members of the public.
Lack of interest on his part is indicative of a motive -if not ulterior, at least suspect, no doubt. Now the police have formed a committee to look into the matter. People in such a situation can hardly repose confidence in any departmental probe. If the report is correct, the police have committed double crimes. First, they have dishonoured their uniform by demanding money like anti-social extortionists. Then they have tortured the young man on refusing to pay the bribe money.
It is a serious allegation and should be looked into by a neutral body. A judicial enquiry would be deemed fit to do justice to the matter. There is indeed problem with the mindset of the police. Had it not been the case, the man in charge would have enforced enough discipline in the contingent under him to ensure that they respected police code of conduct and human rights. The police ought to be there to protect the weak against oppressors. But when they take the role of oppressors themselves as if they are the lord of the land and can dictate terms, the mentality of a police state is exposed.
This is contrary to the service they ought to render for the people. They have no right to judge on their own who is a criminal or not, least of all to punish anyone. Their job is to bring perpetrators of crime or violators of law before the court for trial. Handing summary justice is not within their jurisdiction. It is indeed a daunting challenge to instil in them the high ideal of service to the people.
- Friday, 22 November 2024 |
- Today's FE |
- e-Paper |
- Beta Website
