The whole country watched in  horror and indignation the police  viciously beating up the chief whip  of the opposition party in front of  the national assembly complex, on  the morning of first day of 48- hour  hartal. After the first round of  beating, he tried to run, flee and  hide across the street inside a NAM building. But there was no letup in  police brutality. He was pulled out, dragged back and beaten, punched and kicked some more. He was left unconscious on the street, beaten  and bloodied, battered and  bruised. This whole sordid episode  was shown repeatedly on the TV  news. Officers Harun and Biplob, the two  allegedly responsible for  administering the merciless  beating, were matter of fact and  blasé about the ruckus incident.  Their claim was that the BNP - MPs, led by the chief whip, were  attempting to vandalise vehicles  and cause mayhem and  lawlessness. It was their sacred  duty to protect public life and  property. So they took counter  actions. There was altercation,  followed by physical scrap between on duty police and the chief whip,  who then fell, and was mildly  bruised, they asserted. They  denied complicity in the heinous  act; downplayed the severity of the action with lack of moderation on  their part, despite pictures to the  contrary. They ostensibly knew  they have the patronage of ruling  party bigwigs.   Speaking of safeguarding life of  the citizens, how about the  wellbeing of the chief whip?  Aren’t the police responsible to ensure  that their spiteful and shoddy  action does not harm him or  endanger his life and limbs? Do  they not have an obligation to  guard and protect an elected  lawmaker, especially the chief  whip of a major political party  albeit of the opposition party? During the Vietnam War, an  infamous quote from a US army  officer in 1968  about a provincial  capital was, ‘It became necessary  to destroy the town to save it.’  Likewise these ruling party- propped, backed and instigated  police had to use sadistic, violent  and excessive force to beat the  chief whip into a pulp as a pretext  for their ridiculous and incongruous claim to protect the life and  property of the citizens. The ruling party spin doctors were  in full intensity and vigour trying to equivocate to explain the inhuman police action against the  opposition party chief whip. They  spoke in the same unpersuasive,  Machiavellian and disingenuous  tone in the parliament, news  conferences and in TV talk shows.  Their prevarication took two  parallel tracks. One was the staunch validation of  the police action. The utterances of a ruling party MP on evening TV  talk shows, and Awami League  Joint General Secretary Mahbub-ul- Alam Hanif in the news conference  seem to fall in this category. Hanif  assigned the fault squarely on the  victim. The tone of his statement  that the chief whip had incurred  minor injury in a scuffle with on- duty police officers performing  their professional chores is nothing new. This has become customary  for him and most people are not  surprised by his insensitive and  distasteful comments.     The MP, on the other hand, in the  past came across as a level-headed person with strong but semi- sensible description of party point  of view and stance. At the TV talk  shows on the evening of the  fateful attack he seemed to show  his true colours either on his own  volition or at the instruction of  party high command. From a mild  mannered party-hack, he seemed  to transform into a wild and  unsavoury defender of the  indefensible and unwarranted  strong arm police action. This gave me the impression of a Dr Jekyll  and Mr Hide transformation.  The second path of the  government hedging was to  express feeble, unconvincing and  conceited regret at the nasty event with lots of ifs and buts. These ifs  and buts and such measured,  prepared and fabricated comments included the assertion that the  chief whip was mostly or equally  responsible for the severe beating  he received. Their calculated and  disconcerting contention provided  a classic example of blaming the  victim. The Prime Minster, Suranjit, Ershad, Ashraful, Nasim and others have expressed such qualified and  unfeeling regret.  This reminds a bit about the unfair  and callous acts against Limon,  starting from RAB shooting that  maimed him and the subsequent  harassment to hide the butchery.  The difference in the abuse and  harm is in degrees, but there is a  pattern. The similarity of the crude official behaviour does not end  there. Like the Limon debacle, the  police have also registered a case  against the chief whip. At the same time they have refused to accept a  case by BNP lawmakers against  police atrocities.  The home minister dutifully went  to the hospital to visit police  officers supposedly injured in the  clash. One or two of them must  have been fatigued and exhausted from the strenuous and tiresome  beating and kicking they inflicted  on the chief whip. They need rest  and recreation as well as  hospitalisation to recoup the  energy so that they are sufficiently rejuvenated to take similar  ruthless actions in the next  opposition - constitutionally  granted - protests and agitation. The sad fact is the police have  largely become a party apparatus  for opposition bashing rather than  a state machinery to control the  law and order situation. The two  policemen in question, according  to press reports, belonged to  Chatra (student) League during  their university days. They  apparently hold the same  allegiance, if not the formal  attachment. As such they,  especially one, has remained  unscathed, despite credible  allegations of corruption, bribery  and various misdeeds. The  indication is that for unruly and  overzealous people, once a Chatra  League cadre is always a Chatra  League cadre. The prevalent  Chatra League chaos and  lawlessness apparently began way  back and is still continuing in full  swing.     The Home Minister went to visit  the hospitalised police officers to  express solidarity and compassion  and perhaps convey words of  encouragement. She did not have  the decency to visit the seriously  injured opposition chief whip.  Neither did anybody from the  government or the ruling party.  The lack of civility, care and  concern is not only astonishing; it  belies the norms of a civilised and  democratic society. The Home Minister, who like Hanif  talks mostly in arbitrary, tenuous  and curious manner, and often  makes preposterous and  unsubstantiated claims of success,  seemingly laid the groundwork for  the brutal police assault. First by  not arranging adequate training  for crowd control nor providing  proper guidelines to act sensibly,  moderately and proficiently;  second, by announcing that her  government and law enforcers  would not permit picketing,  procession or gathering during the  hartal. Interestingly, anti-hartal gathering  and demonstrations by Chatra  League and ruling party allied  organisations were allowed to  proceed unabated without  hindrance or interference. This sort of duplicitous mindset has sadly  become a common practice. Now the chief whip is in pain and  distress in a hospital. The police  officers involved have faced no  disciplinary actions so far and the  official machinery is hard at work  defending and protecting the  perpetrators of the dreadful act.  The state minister for home affairs has sanctimoniously declared that  government cannot take punitive  actions against members of an  organised force without proper  investigation. So the government has formed a  three-member police inquiry  commission to probe the matter. It  is likely that this committee will  come up with a report that satisfies the government bigwigs. Police  probing the police is full of  loopholes and conflict of interests.  The committee task has already  been prejudiced by the biased and  one-sided statements by the home  minister and other official and  party big shots. We cannot expect  much, let alone a neutral and  objective report, from this  committee. The multiple committees formed  by RAB and other law enforcers  cooked up reports that maliciously  blamed Limon for his injury and  loss of leg. One other committee  came out with an inconclusive and  vague report. Something similar, at best some excessive force coupled  with chief whip’s complicity, is to  be expected from the police  committee. The need is the  formation of a neutral and credible judicial inquiry committee with no  conflict of interests. That may be  too much to ask from this  aggressive and harsh regime. The government party would want  all to believe that the chief whip  has brought it upon himself by  attempting to vandalise vehicles,  obstructing police work, cursing  profanely and throwing a punch  and a brick at the police. Ministers, their party law makers, hacks and  functionaries have been repeating  this unsubstantiated and unnoticed description like parrots. It would  seem that this fabricated and  fictitious narrative and fudging has been prepared and passed on from the top echelon. This party-line  propaganda would like you to  believe what they say, rather than  what we saw. We saw and heard one police  officer berating the chief whip by  threatening to slap him and break  his teeth, followed by furious and  ferocious attacks. There is a lesson  to be learnt from this horrendous  act and apparent government  obfuscation and cover up. The  lesson for us commoners is that it  is a despicable act that has been  repeated by successive regimes,  each time with greater rage and  malice. The lesson the opposition  parties is learning is both perverse  and significant. And that is to  repeat it when they will be in  power on the future opposition  group. The vicious cycle will be  repeated ad-nauseam. And where is the Speaker in all this brouhaha and vicious police  assault on a prominent opposition  party parliament member? After  all, the speaker is the guardian of  all parliamentarians, government  and opposition or in between. He  has largely remained inactive and  silent. He said something about  seeking a clarification and then all  quiet on the speaker front. This is  the same gentleman who angrily  denounced criticism and  threatened to quit recently. Now  that he had the chance, in fact the  solemn duty to act to uphold the  sanctity of the parliament and  ensure safety of a member, he  seems to be missing in action. This  is sad but not entirely unexpected.
