Law Enforcement Agencies And Other Forces Of Bangladesh

[The Ronin]

 

[The Ronin]

https://www.facebook.com/BangladeshPoliceOfficialPage/posts/2982088865340769

 

[leonblack08]

Anti-Terrorism Unit of Bangladesh Police trained by Bangladesh Army in Sylhet. Source: Defres

 

[The Ronin]

https://www.facebook.com/DefsecaBD/posts/312509160308594

 

[DalalErMaNodi]

https://www.facebook.com/defence.research.org/posts/2537418433233172

 

[SpaceMan18]

https://www.facebook.com/defence.research.org/posts/2537418433233172

Sweet !

 

[The Ronin]

https://www.facebook.com/DefsecaBD/posts/329307681962075

 

[The Ronin]

বাংলাদেশ পুলিশের বর্তমানে যে ইউনিফর্ম রয়েছে তা পরিবর্তন করে নতুন ইউনিফর্ম তৈরির সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছে স্বরাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয়। ইতোমধ্যে নতুন ইউনিফর্মের কয়েকটি রঙ ও মানের ট্রায়াল চলছে। প্রায় মাস খানেক ট্রায়ালের পর মতামতের ভিত্তিতে চূড়ান্ত ইউনিফর্মে বেছে নেওয়া হতে পারে।

সংশ্লিষ্ট সূত্র জানায়, এক রঙের ইউনিফর্মের পরিবর্তে মিশ্র রঙের ইউনিফর্ম হতে পারে। একসঙ্গে পুলিশের সব ইউনিটের ইউনিফর্মের রঙ একই হবে। বাহিনীর ইউনিফর্ম পরিবর্তন নিয়মমাফিক কাজ। কয়েক বছর পরপরই ইউনিফর্মে বিভিন্ন পরিবর্তন আনা হয়। আবহাওয়ার ও বিশ্বের সঙ্গে তাল মিলিয়ে ২০০৪ এবং ২০০৯ সালে পুলিশের ইউনিফর্মে পরিবর্তন আনা হয়। এবার ধারাবাহিকতায় পরিবর্তন আনা হচ্ছে।

জানা গেছে, নতুন ইউনিফর্মে সবচেয়ে বেশি জোর দেওয়া হচ্ছে কাপড়ের মান। সেক্ষেত্রে উন্নত বিশ্বের ১০-১৫টি দেশের পুলিশের ইউনিফর্ম বিশ্লেষণ করেছে বাংলাদেশ। এসব দেশের পুলিশের কাপড়ের মান বিবেচনায় রেখেই নতুন ইউনিফর্মের মান নির্ধারণ করা হচ্ছে। নতুন ইউনিফর্মে হাফ ও ফুলহাতা শার্টের ব্যবস্থা থাকছে। এক্ষেত্রে গরমকালে হবে হাফ হাতা শার্ট, শীতকালে ফুলহাতা শার্ট।

ইউনিফর্মে মিশ্র রঙের বিষয়ে জানা গেছে, দেশের বিভিন্ন সময় অপরাধীরা মেট্রোপলিটন ও জেলা পুলিশের ইউনিফর্ম সহজে নকল করে পুলিশ পরিচয় দিয়ে নানা অপরাধ করে থাকে। ইউনিফর্মে মিশ্র রঙের হলে অপরাধীরা সহজেই ইউনিফর্ম নকল করতে পারবে না।

পুলিশের ইউনিফর্ম পরিবর্তনের বিষয়ে পুলিশ সদর দপ্তরের সহকারি মহাপরিদর্শক (মিডিয়া অ্যন্ড পাবলিক রিলেশন্স) মো. সোহেল রানা বলেন, ইউনিফর্ম পরিবর্তনের বিষয়ে ট্রায়াল চলছে। ট্রায়াল শেষে চূড়ান্ত সিদ্ধান্ত।

যে কারণে বদলাচ্ছে পুলিশের ইউনিফর্ম

বাংলাদেশ পুলিশের বর্তমানে যে ইউনিফর্ম রয়েছে তা পরিবর্তন করে নতুন ইউনিফর্ম তৈরির সিদ্ধান্ত নিয়েছে স্বরাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয়। ইতোমধ্যে নতুন ইউনিফর্মের কয়েকটি রঙ ও মানের ট্রায়াল চলছে। প্রায় মাস খানেক ট্রায়ালের পর মতামতের ভিত্তিতে চূড়ান্ত ইউনিফর্মে বেছে নেওয়া হতে পারে।

www.rtvonline.com

 

[saif]

Militarisation of police
Abdul Monaiem Kudrot Ullah | Published: 00:00, Nov 14,2023

IN THE aftermath of the ‘Global War on Terror’, many countries have witnessed a growing militarisation of their police forces to address a broad spectrum of security threats, from terrorism to organised crime. In the Americas, it provided an opportunity for external and aligned local knowledge producers within security institutions to reframe the security narrative through a militarised lens, focusing on the concept of ‘convergent threats’. However, the impact of this paradigm shift extended far beyond the Americas. South Asia, a region with a complex security environment, had its own unique experiences during this transformation. The influence of this global shift, along with the regional security challenges, set the stage for the militarisation of police forces here. It continues to influence various facets of the region’s security landscape. In addition to the militarisation of security forces, the role of police, particularly the Bangladesh Police, has become a significant factor. This article delves into how the militarisation of the Bangladesh Police, combined with allegations of human rights violations, contributes to the evolving security context in South Asia.


The militarisation of police is a complex and controversial topic that has implications for the quality of democracy, human rights, and public security. It involves the use of military equipment, tactics, personnel, and culture by law enforcement agencies, as well as the deployment of the armed forces for domestic policing. While this transformation can be seen as a response to evolving security challenges, it carries inherent risks for democratic governance. Some scholars suggest that it has a negative impact on policing because it creates community hostility and encourages police to see force as a central problem-solving tool. However, other scholars suggest militarisation is a positive development, as it could promote professionalism and accountability. To date, there has been little empirical work on the impact of militarisation on policing that could inform this debate.


The police capacity to organise and distribute state-sponsored violence as well as the ability to shape institutional appearances while doing so, impacts issues of civil rights, domestic order, and the quality of political life in a democracy. A recent American Civil Liberties Union investigation into police raids found that militarisation has occurred with almost no oversight. They studied more than 800 paramilitary raids and found that almost 80 per cent were for ordinary law enforcement purposes, like serving search warrants in people’s homes; only 7 per cent were for genuine emergencies, such as barricade or hostage situations. Most compellingly, the raids disproportionately targeted people of colour. The commoditised symbols of state violence are a part of everyday life for millions and are embedded within ideologies of nationalism and national security, supported and reinforced through consumerism. The consumption (figuratively and literally) within the confines of neoliberalism is disconnected from the actual course of state violence, facilitating their own pacification while giving consent to hegemonic control. In this sense, the population’s consumption becomes more than pacification and consent, but rather an active constituent in the production and reproduction of state violence, making it the accepted and banal violence of the spectacle.

There is a long history of military intervention in politics, and traditionally, police were subjected to the rules of business, where they were managed through a bureaucratic channel. However, in recent decades, there has been a growing trend towards civilian control over the military. This has been driven by several factors including the increasing involvement of the military in peacekeeping operations. In a democratic society, civilian control over the military is a fundamental principle. Elected leaders, including the president and prime minister, play a pivotal role in setting the strategic objectives and policies for military operations. This oversight ensures that the immense power of the military and police is wielded judiciously and in accordance with the rule of law. In recent years, several nations have witnessed incidents where civilian leaders have bypassed the traditional chain of professional command to directly contact the ranks and files of the forces. While these instances have often been driven by political, strategic, or personal motivations, they raise concerns about the erosion of the forces’ professionalism and adherence to constitutional norms.


This trend has been justified by the need to combat terrorism and other threats to public safety but raises important questions about the relationship between civilian authorities and the security sector and the implications for democracy, human rights, and social justice. However, critics argue that the militarisation of police has led to an increase in police brutality and a decrease in public trust. They also point out that military equipment is not designed for use in civilian law enforcement, and its use can lead to unnecessary violence and escalation. How can political leaders ensure effective oversight and accountability of the militarised police forces? How can citizens exercise their rights and freedoms without fear of repression or violence? How can the police and the military cooperate to maintain public order and national security while respecting their distinct roles and responsibilities?

Violence and force have played an important role in the establishment and defense of democratic values, and myths are used to justify the violence. The use of state-sanctioned violence by the police has a long history in the defense of those values, and myths have played a significant role in justifying their ability to use force to protect those values. Contemporary issues such as terrorism and violent protests regenerate several policing myths. The result is an increased application of patrol rifles to the standard equipment of street officers. This may be viewed as an amplified militarisation of policing. It might also be argued that police are acting in a rational manner to satisfy the expectations of their external environment.

Policing or order-making practices to discipline society and tackle crime goes beyond the typical work of constabulary forces. The coercive character of protest policing is a tangible problem in Bangladesh. Since the resurgence of contentious politics in the 1990s, major issues in protest policing have been officially recognised, and eventually addressed by public authorities with an agenda of reform. However, the excessive use of force by the police, even in the face of predominantly peaceful protests, lingered on well into the past decade, leaving behind dozens of dead citizens and thousands injured. Among the different aspects of militarisation, the growing reliance on less-lethal weapons, on the one hand, and police knowledge conditioned by classical crowd theory, on the other, encourage, if not propel, coercive styles of policing at public protests in Bangladesh. Police militarisation increases the police’s perception of threat as well as their coercive capacity, thereby increasing their willingness to repress. Police militarisation increases the likelihood of government repression, specifically through extrajudicial killing and torture.


South Asia is a region that faces multiple and complex security challenges, such as violent extremism, insurgency, separatism, ethnic conflict, organised crime, and state fragility. These challenges are often interlinked and transnational, posing threats to regional and global stability. The US-led global war on terror brought increased attention and intervention to the region, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the US and its allies launched military operations against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The global war on terror also affected relations and rivalries among South Asian countries, such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, as well as their interactions with external factors such as China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The war also provided an opportunity for an epistemic community of security experts and practitioners to promote a militarised security epistemology that framed South Asia’s security problems as convergent threats of terrorism, insurgency, and crime. This epistemic community consisted of actors from the US and its allies, as well as local actors from South Asian countries who shared a common worldview and interest in countering these threats. They used their knowledge and influence to shape the security discourses and policies of South Asian governments and international organisations.

The adoption of a militarised security epistemology by South Asian actors had several consequences for the region’s security governance and violence. On the one hand, it enabled some countries, such as India and Pakistan, to enhance their military capabilities and gained legitimacy by portraying themselves as partners in the global war on terror. On the other hand, it also contributed to the escalation and perpetuation of violence in the region, as military solutions often failed to address the root causes and grievances of the affected populations, violated human rights and international law, and provoked backlash and resistance from non-state armed groups. Accordingly, the region’s military institutions, particularly in highly violent contexts such as those of India and Pakistan, have been able to tap into this reframing, contributing to enhanced domestic influence, international legitimacy, growing budgets, and external deployments. This highlights the resilience of their militaries, including their capacity to update their long-standing ‘professionalism of internal warfare’ as well as the resulting ability of ‘military role expansion’.

In India, the post-9/11 period saw a recalibration of the security apparatus. The military is now seen as a valuable player in countering terrorism. India’s experience with insurgency in Kashmir and its ongoing struggle against various extremist groups led to a reassessment of its security policies. This reshaping of military power allowed India to not only address internal threats more effectively but also position itself as a global player in counter-terrorism efforts.

In Pakistan, the impact of the global war on terror was equally profound, albeit with a different set of challenges. The military, a powerful institution in the country, found itself playing a central role in the fight against extremism and terrorism. This shift in focus and resources towards counter-terrorism operations reshaped Pakistan’s security landscape and, in turn, its relations with the United States and other global actors.


In Bangladesh, the role and posture of the police have evolved significantly. The Bangladesh Police, once primarily focused on maintaining law and order, has increasingly taken on a militarised attitude. This transition is rooted in the need to combat various security challenges, including terrorism and extremist threats. The empowerment and militarisation of the police have allowed them to play a more central role in addressing these challenges. The police have been equipped with advanced weaponry and tactical training, positioning them as a key element in the country’s counter-terrorism efforts. This shift has raised concerns, both domestically and internationally, regarding the potential misuse of power and allegations of human rights violations. As the Bangladesh Police assumed a more prominent role in maintaining internal security and counter-terrorism operations, there have been allegations of human rights violations. Reports of extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and excessive use of force have raised serious concerns both within the country and on a global stage. These allegations have had diplomatic repercussions and have strained Bangladesh’s relationships with key international partners. The experience of Bangladesh is not unique in the region. Other South Asian countries, including India and Sri Lanka, have faced similar challenges, albeit in different forms. They underscore the challenges of striking a balance between security imperatives and respecting human rights, a balance that South Asian nations continue to grapple with.

One of the main challenges of militarised law enforcement is the coordination and command of different forces that may have different objectives, norms, and training. The chain of command is the hierarchical structure that defines who has authority and responsibility over whom in an organisation or operation. In a militarised policing context, the chain of command may be unclear or contested, especially when there are multiple agencies involved, such as civilian police, military police, army, navy, air force, intelligence services, etc. This may create confusion, conflict, or inefficiency in the response to security threats or public order issues.

Another challenge is the tug of political control over the militarised forces. It is not just about day-to-day operations but extends to the broader security policies and strategies. The military and the police often possess different perspectives and priorities, and these can sometimes clash with those of civilian leaders. When these disputes spill into the public domain, it can undermine the image of civilian control and create confusion and mistrust among the public. Political control refers to the ability of civilian authorities to oversee, direct, and hold accountable the security forces under their jurisdiction. Political control is essential for ensuring that the security forces act in accordance with the law, respect human rights, and serve the public interest. However, political control may be undermined by several factors, such as corruption, collusion, co-optation, or coercion by powerful actors within or outside the security sector. Moreover, political control may be challenged by the security forces themselves, who may resist civilian oversight, demand more autonomy or resources, or even attempt to overthrow the government. As police forces become increasingly militarised, there is a risk that they may begin to operate independently, bypassing the chain of command that is meant to ensure political control over the use of force. This can lead to unaccountable actions, human rights abuses, the blurring of lines between domestic law enforcement and military operations, and, in extreme cases, even challenges to the democratic order. It is important to ensure that the militarised police force is subordinate to the civil code and that it does not interfere in domestic politics. This is especially important in counterinsurgency operations, where the military and police may be given broad powers and may be operating in remote or insecure areas.


The issue of bypassing the chain of command also poses a major challenge to civilian control over the forces. This can happen when the head of the government/state or other civilian leaders give orders directly to battalion commanders or other field officers without going through the normal channels of command. This can undermine the authority of the military and police leadership and make it difficult to coordinate operations effectively. There are a number of reasons why civilian leaders might choose to bypass the chain of command. In some cases, they may believe that professional leadership is not doing enough to address a particular problem. In other cases, they may be trying to exert their own authority over the forces. Whatever the reason, bypassing the chain of legal command can have serious consequences. In the 1989 invasion of Panama by the United States, president George HW Bush personally called General Maxwell Thurman, the commander of the US Southern Command, and ordered him to launch Operation Just Cause without notifying or consulting his secretary of defense or joint chiefs of staff. The invasion was intended to overthrow General Manuel Noriega, who was accused of drug trafficking and human rights abuses. In Colombia, for example, president Álvaro Uribe frequently gave orders directly to battalion commanders in the fight against the FARC guerrillas. This led to a number of problems, including the killing of civilians. In El Salvador, president Mauricio Funes bypassed the chain of military command in 2012 when he ordered the military to arrest a number of retired Generals who were accused of human rights abuses during the civil war. This move was criticised by some who argued that it was an attempt by Funes to intimidate the military. In Mexico, president Felipe Calderón bypassed the chain of military command in 2006 when he launched a major offensive against the drug cartels. This offensive has been criticised for its heavy-handed approach and for the high number of civilian casualties.

So, what can be done to address these challenges?

First and foremost, there must be a robust legal and institutional framework in place that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the police and the military in a democracy. This framework should emphasise the principle of civilian control and accountability for the use of force. Second, open and transparent dialogue between civilian leaders, the military, and the police is essential. These discussions should focus on developing security policies that are aligned with democratic values and that respect human rights. Lastly, it is imperative that the public remain informed and engaged in these discussions. A well-informed citizenry can act as a check on potential abuses of power and ensure that the principles of democracy are upheld.

In conclusion, the militarisation of police forces presents a formidable challenge to political control in democracies. Striking the right balance between ensuring security and upholding democratic values is not an easy task, but it is a fundamental one. It requires a concerted effort from governments, security forces, and civil society to ensure that our democratic institutions remain strong and resilient, even in the face of evolving security threats. Therefore, the militarisation of police poses significant risks for democracy and human rights if it is not accompanied by clear and effective mechanisms of command and coordination among the security forces and political control by the civilian authorities.

Abdul Monaiem Kudrot Ullah is a retired captain of Bangladesh Navy.

Militarisation of police

IN THE aftermath of the ‘Global War on Terror’, many countries have witnessed a growing militarisation of their police forces...

www.newagebd.net