The army has remained deployed on Bangladesh’s streets for more than a year, filling the vacuum left after the police force collapsed in the wake of the 5 August uprising. Despite being given judicial powers, their role in law enforcement has increasingly come under scrutiny.
On 29 August, in Dhaka’s Kakrail area, Gono Adhikar Parishad activists clashed with Jatiya Party supporters. The army and police jointly baton-charged protesters, leaving more than 50 injured. Among them, party president Nurul Haque Nur was severely wounded and admitted to Dhaka Medical College Hospital’s ICU.
Party leaders alleged that their activists were “deliberately tortured” under army supervision.
Gono Adhikar Parishad General Secretary Rashed Khan said, “This attack was not just to disperse. Even if they wanted to disperse, the army-police could have hit hands or legs. Why did they hit the head, the eyes, the chest?”
The incident has reignited debate over how the army exercises its expanded authority — and whether its actions are consistent or politically influenced.
Strict in Some Cases, Soft in Others
The Kakrail clash is not the first time the army’s conduct has been questioned.
Gopalganj, 16 July: Army-police opened fire during hours-long clashes after Awami League supporters attacked a Jatiya Nagorik Party rally. Several people were killed.
Khulna, September 2024: A Hindu youth, Utsav Mondal, was beaten by a mob inside a police station over blasphemy allegations. Although soldiers were nearby, they did not intervene decisively. Mondal was later rescued in critical condition.
Human rights defenders argue that this inconsistency undermines public trust.
> “Sometimes they are going to the extreme, while at other times they are standing by helplessly or sidestepping. This inconsistent approach by the army is raising many questions among the public,” said rights activist Nur Khan Liton.
Why Such Different Reactions?
Bangladesh’s military has often been deployed in times of disaster or unrest, but rarely has its role been debated so intensely.
Retired officers say the problem lies in the absence of clear command.
“There’s a lack of unified command — of what kind of action should be taken in what situation,” said retired Major Emdadul Islam. “In the same situation, there should not be different types of responses. Either give clear instructions, or bring the soldiers back to the barracks.”
Who Is Responsible?
When the army was granted judicial authority in September 2024, the interim government pledged they would return to barracks within six months. But a year on, with police still unrecovered and unrest continuing, withdrawal has been deemed impossible.
Analysts argue responsibility lies with policymakers rather than soldiers.
Prof Dr. Kazi Maruful Islam of Dhaka University explained, “The real crisis lies with those making the decisions. The interim government has no transparent, clear stance on how to control mobs, political parties, or protest groups. Because of this lack of clarity, application varies — and controversies arise.”
Mixed Messages
The Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) has remained largely silent. After the 29 August clash, it issued a statement defending the soldiers’ actions as part of the interim government’s “zero tolerance” policy on mob violence.
Yet the government itself joined political parties in condemning the violence against Gono Adhikar Parishad, including the assault on Nurul Haque Nur.
Analysts say these contradictory statements are fueling “conspiracy theories” and further eroding public confidence in how law and order is being maintained.
