Does Fighting Crime Justify Violating Human Rights?

The neutrality of the international human rights system and its ability to respond fairly to global crises are facing serious challenges. At a time when state violence, discrimination, attacks on vulnerable groups and violent suppression of public protests are taking place in many parts of the world, questions are being raised about the silence and priorities of organisations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Police use of tear gas and stun grenades against young people and students protesting in France, mass arrests of pro-Palestinian protesters in London, the detention and pushback of Muslims and Bengali-speaking people in India after labelling them as “Bangladeshis” or “anti-state”, police action against protesters in Delhi, and the failure to create effective international pressure over civilian deaths in Gaza have all drawn concern. Against this backdrop, critics argue that HRW has remained largely silent while focusing heavily on the legal detention and prosecution of people accused of specific crimes in Bangladesh.

They argue that ignoring state repression and violations of basic rights in major democratic or strategically influential countries while portraying reasonable measures to maintain law and order in Bangladesh as human rights violations goes against the principle of impartial human rights protection.

Recent events in several countries show the scale of the human rights challenges. In France, police have used force to contain large student protests, including the use of tear gas against hundreds of thousands of protesters. Schools were reportedly occupied or blocked, and hundreds of students and police officers were injured in clashes. The protests were against government policies and education reforms. Although the police action attracted international attention, critics say there was no strong response from major international human rights organisations.

A similar situation was reported in London, where police arrested hundreds of people who were peacefully protesting outside Parliament against the killing of Palestinians and carrying placards. Critics say such actions raise serious questions about freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly.

There have also been repeated reports of police action against protesters in Delhi and allegations of mistreatment in India’s border regions. Around 150 poor workers and members of minority communities, mainly Muslims, from places including Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, Assam and Odisha were reportedly detained without due legal process and allegedly pushed towards Bangladesh through informal border routes. There have been allegations of physical abuse by the Border Security Force (BSF), confiscation of mobile phones and identity documents, abandonment in muddy border areas and other alleged violations of international standards.

In Odisha’s Sambalpur, a Bengali migrant worker employed as a mason was allegedly beaten with iron rods and suffered a broken hand after being labelled a “Bangladeshi” despite reportedly having Aadhaar and voter identity cards. The incident has reportedly caused fear among minority communities.

In Delhi, young people protesting peacefully and demanding the resignation of India’s Election Commission also faced allegations of police action without prior warning, including baton charges and the use of hot water. Internet services were reportedly disrupted, while female journalists on duty alleged that they were dragged by male police officers and subjected to serious physical and sexual harassment. More than 750 protesters were reportedly detained. Critics say international human rights organisations did not take visible action over these incidents.

Despite such allegations of state repression in different parts of the world, HRW’s attention has largely focused on efforts in Bangladesh to bring members and alleged supporters of the ousted political establishment under the law.

During Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule, Bangladesh witnessed allegations of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, torture and suppression of dissent. Following the fall of her government amid a mass uprising, restoring law and order and preventing further violence or destabilising activities became major responsibilities of the new government.

The article argues that the Awami League and its 14-party alliance partner Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JSD), which it alleges were responsible for repression over the past 15 years, are now being treated as a banned political group involved in alleged conspiracies. It further alleges that some members have remained in Bangladesh and held secret meetings or engaged in activities against the state after receiving funds or instructions from abroad.

Against this backdrop, the article describes alleged secret meetings at the JSD office in Dhaka to plan sabotage, an alleged plan for violence in Barishal and the arrest of Awami League activists in Dhaka under anti-terrorism laws as legal measures aimed at maintaining public security and law and order.

The article questions HRW’s judgment when it describes court-ordered remand of suspects accused of involvement in possible sabotage or of using the slogan “Joy Bangla” as an “attack on civil and political rights” or a “crackdown on opposition.” It argues that people detained on the basis of evidence and specific allegations should be provided legal protection and brought before the courts, but such arrests should not automatically be described as arbitrary detention.

The article also raises questions about the neutrality of international human rights organisations, particularly in relation to Gaza. It argues that the prolonged conflict, severe humanitarian crisis, shortages of food and medical supplies and large-scale civilian deaths have exposed the limits of the international human rights response. Critics say HRW has largely confined its role to documenting and reporting violations in Gaza instead of exerting stronger pressure in support of international law and humanitarian protection.

The article cites the resignation of Omar Shakir, former director of HRW’s Israel and Palestine division, as an example of alleged political pressure within the organisation. After nearly a decade at HRW, Shakir reportedly resigned after a major legal report on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland was allegedly blocked by the organisation’s new leadership. He said the decision was not made because of a lack of evidence or legal basis, but because of concerns over possible political reactions and political pressure. The article says Shakir subsequently lost confidence in the organisation’s impartiality and its handling of evidence. Milena Ansari, an assistant researcher in the same division, also resigned after the incident.

The article argues that organisations that fail to take effective action or create meaningful international pressure during the humanitarian crisis in Gaza should not unfairly challenge legal measures taken against people accused of crimes in Bangladesh. It also refers to views expressed by political analysts who argue that some Western media and institutions are influenced by geopolitical interests and double standards, remaining silent when their political or strategic allies are accused of wrongdoing while using human rights issues as a tool in other cases.

International relations experts in Bangladesh, according to the article, say organisations that present themselves as defenders of human rights should maintain universal neutrality. They argue that raising controversy over arrests based on specific allegations in Bangladesh while failing to take effective action over student protests in France, mass arrests of anti-war protesters in London, alleged mistreatment of Bengali and Muslim communities at the Indian border, or the humanitarian crisis in Gaza damages the credibility of such organisations.

The article concludes that legal measures taken to protect a state’s security, sovereignty and public order should not automatically be portrayed as violations of human rights. It calls on international organisations to abandon selective approaches and follow universal human rights standards. Otherwise, it argues, their credibility and public acceptance will continue to decline.