Attempt to Murder Who is responsible for- state, statute or stupid? By -Sohrab Hussain


After the khadiza issue has been blurred, it will be a little surprising if next episode does not come forward to maintain the chain of torturing women!! As the audiences of the climax, we see the apparent appearance, not the player who reels off staying behind the scene. We criticize the criminal, bystander and women who took the selfie but never think of what factors have dried up and killed our minimum perception and sensation as a human being. To unfold this folder, we need to analyze facts and acts of the actors who are responsible for making the script of such attempt to murder by some means. The politicians make the laws, the best weapon, to shape the internal and external behavior of the people and ensure what will be their character and they how will behave with their surrounding people. No doubt, the laws must have two aspects named internal to develop benevolent qualities and external to punish the offenders who distinctly invariably infringe laws as crimes are rooted to human mind and thought. But legal positivist theorist john Austin defined ‘law’ we believe, make and inflict on as an explicit or implicit supreme command of highest authority backed by sanction and punishment, not divine or moral precepts or law that means to deal with only external behavior of its subject. If the law is defined as command or sanction of supreme authority given by the Austin it cannot incorporate forgiveness, kindness or generosity as a part of the law. Thus, the moral features, which are forgiveness to people who offend, support to people who are vulnerable, appreciation of people who are politically engaged even if they dissent, tolerance of different ways of living, can be incorporated in law through only policy, not as the law. This concept says that law can impart some moral aspects but it can no way work on human mind to create morals. Therefore, if it is so then law would not prevent crimes as this concept limits the scope of law within the visible features of crime, not its invisible sources; misery, revenge, greed of power, seizure and falsehood etc. When law denies the moral stance of a person which protects him from wrongdoings it dysfunctions or even sometimes malfunctions, in some extent. It opens the door of crimes through which criminal characteristics are lodged in the human mind.  If law does not have any realistic approach along with rationalistic  it cannot bring the honesty, modesty, morality, neutrality, respect to opposite gender, which restrain a man from the violation of laws in general. Gradually, the men who make the laws and the men, for whom they are made, who break the laws come to a common point to protect their interest illegally that makes a strong block exercising extreme political power. Now focusing on this point, analyzing the recent incident of attempt to murder of an undergraduate college girl in Sylhet, a living example and reflex of tortured people in Bangladesh, we can eye and try to come to a logical conclusion that would drive us to our right destination. As I said earlier we censure the bystander who captured the killing moments, the visitors in hospital who selfied with the wounded girl and by making the law, we claim punishment for their inhumanity. But question is why did they do so? Does a strict law can prevent, protect a women from violence though all internal and external factors do not come under due consideration? of course not, why? Just read the mindset of the bystanders, whose silence shattered our heart, they why remained silent. As political sanctuaries shelter their activists against all legal actions for committing crimes, the stabber, the sign of political culture in Bangladesh, an activist of student wing of a ruling party, a fustigated lover and political figure, did show up in audacity to kill the girl. Since the dawn of democratic journey in Bangladesh, people have been experiencing political affiliation for what any help against political power or figure would backfire and risk their life. Just this factor overlapped the selfishness, dishonesty, inhumanity, which were ensured by enforcing laws and policies and awed them to stand against a political leader. For vivid example, this political upstart was fustigated by local people and then, he made a case against them blaming that he was victim of Jamat-Shibir who intentionally did torture him for political interest. This factor obliged the bystandard to capture the killing moment to unmask the political malpractice in the country, not to protect her from being killed though that was not righteous job at all. What could I do if I were there? Probably did nothing. Because the laws are made to fade out morals to desertify their heart not to feel except own interest which pushes young to be greedy, empowered and engaged with politics. How can a strict law prevent further incidents when production machine, though strict laws are made for punishment, has not yet been stopped? It was the misfortune of Badrul as killing moments had been recorded; if moments were not captured he could easily divert this event to political spot line but he could not do that. What about the script makers, the politicians who are pouring the water upon the seeds of bad character? For sweeping out inherent, instinct qualities, the political parties should own this liability for tempting to break the laws and hide the flaws. For sure, no law would be able to touch the hair of these politicians at all except good people do come forward. Something worthy to mention here that all basic laws are of colonial period and were made to reconstruct and demoralize our social norms and result different rivals and rise social conflicts after inflicting on those laws, the laws which are now obsolete. But we need the laws which represent us, construct our long aged norms of honoring women, family bond, care about old people and the laws which shape both internal and external behavior of a man and it should be the ultimate goal of law. The definition of law should be the ‘law’ which creates internal benevolent qualities in human character to control external behavior and it is possible when good people will come to the law and policy making position and of course, you should be the first one, who has goodwill, to insert the concept of morality to create the humanity among the people and thus, perfect the law that will prevent crime from the sense of creating morality and controlling criminality.
The writer is LL. M. student of Department of Law, University of Dhaka.