TRUTHFULNESS and accuracy are the means by which Human Rights (HR) organisations prove they are objective and impartial. Being truthful and accurate means never deliberately distorting or exaggerating information. A tradition of accurate factual reporting is deeply established among human rights NGOs and is one of the means they establish public trust and confidence. The above basic tenets are the guiding principles of all credible HR organisations.
Recently, ‘Odhikar’ has come under the limelight, both nationally and internationally, after it published a report giving a very specific number of casualties in the flushing out operation of the Hefajat-e-Islam supporters from Shapla Chattar on the night of May 5 by the combined forces of the law enforcing authorities. In fact, the opposition politicians, including a former President joined his former comrades who ousted him from Bangabhaban, in a ‘gaiabana janaza’ the following morning to pray for the alleged ‘thousands killed’ in the ‘genocide’. However, the finite number vis-à-vis the infinite number propagated by its detractors should have been respite for the authority, but the damage had already been done. The propaganda that ‘thousands innocent Muslims were slaughtered’ have contributed greatly to the loss of recently held five municipal elections for the government backed candidates in the country.
Since the casualty figures given by the government were much lower than the one published by Odikhar, as noted and opined in the DS editorial: “On July 10 the ministry of information, in a letter to Odhikar, wanted a list of the 61 deceased, along with their addresses and names of their parents. On July 17, Odhikar replied that it will submit such a list only if an independent commission is set up to investigate the incident, as there is no “victim or witness protection law in Bangladesh.”
However, we fail to understand whose “protection” would have been jeopardised if names of the deceased were given, not names of those who were the “sources” of information.
As a newspaper we ourselves have reported extensively on the matter and have found no evidence of 61 people dying during the event.”
As a newspaper, The Daily Star is undoubtedly second to none in the country in upholding the tenet of objective reporting and in this instance, its reporter was with the enforcing authorities during the whole operation and its number concurred more with the government’s one than that of the one given by ‘Odhikar.’
As a human right activist myself, I am very much aware of the factual evidence I have to submit when I communicate and send our report to international HR bodies, such as Amnesty International or UNHRC, in particular to solicit their supports in favour of the human right violations we deal with. A few weeks ago, when I wrote a piece for The Toronto Star, the largest newspaper of Canada, concerning the war crimes trials, the editor verified each and every information I provided in the piece multiple times with me before giving his nod to publish it.
While ‘Odhikar’ has every right to demand a judicial enquiry into the incident, it has no right to use that as a precondition to comply with the request from the accused, which in this case is the government. Moreover, people of the country possess hardly any trust on such commissions and its report, as was evidenced, for instance, from the reports of the judicial enquiry commissions formed in the aftermath of August 21 mayhem or Mymensingh cinema hall blast.
When the accuracy of reports is challenged, the first question that organisations need to ask is whether the challenge should be taken seriously. It is a common practice, anywhere in the world, for those who are allegedly responsible for human rights violations to rebut accusations by claiming that the NGO producing the information is biased, acting in bad faith, motivated by undisclosed interests or simply lying. Truthfulness and accuracy are particularly important for NGOs that report on violations and they must distinguish their work from propaganda and establish a reputation of objectivity.
So, it is imperative that the NGO must keep itself ready with factual evidences to substantiate its accusations. The risk is that NGOs become blasé when accuracy is challenged and do not react when faced with a serious claim and that is exactly what happened with ‘Odhikar.’ Moreover, in the case in question, the challenge has been even more as the NGO as a whole and the accused person in particular has a serious political baggage to carry. A JSD candidate in 1991 election, he obviously changed his political ship to become one of the highest ranking law officers of the country during the last BNP-Jamaat government. In the highly politicised and polarised Bangladesh, only a politically naïve would believe that such a position under any government would be awarded to someone without political loyalty to the party in power.
While the modalities of his arrest could be debateable, his placement on remand was absolutely unacceptable. ‘Remand in custody’ is a common judicial decision in every country. It simply means questioning the accused while in custody before sending to jail. However, in Bangladesh, torture in remand was, ironically, introduced by the last BNP-Jamaat government. Even politician of the stature of Tofael Ahmed, HR activist Shahriar Kabir and historian Muntasir Mamaun were tortired on remand. Such was its perversity that the former chief justice M Habibur Rahman wrote a piece entitled, ‘State is on remand’ during the last BNP-Jamaat rule. The HC decision to stay the remand for ‘Odhikar’s secretary is a decision of respite reflecting also the independence of higher judiciary. Over the years, I am yet to see a credible case resulting out of so-called disclosures obtained under duress while on remand.

The writer is the Convenor of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.