Crossfire
In Installation on extra judicial killings in Bangladesh
The Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) was set up on 26th March 2004 to curb corruption in Bangladesh. It consists of members of Bangladesh Police, Bangladesh Army, Bangladesh Navy and Bangladesh Air Force. RAB has increasingly been criticized for the extra judicial killings and torture that have taken place of people in custody. Human Rights groups maintain that over 1000 people have been killed by RAB since its inception. All such deaths have been attributed to gunfights between RAB and criminals where the people in RAB custody were caught in crossfire. No member of RAB has yet been killed in crossfire. Recently a high court bench passed a suo moto ruling, asking the secretary of the ministry of home affairs and RAB to explain a particular killing. The Chief Justice dissolved the bench immediately before the date for hearing (9 January 2010) of the government response - apparently for some administrative reasons. “Crossfire” is an exhibition of photographs where Bangladesh’s leading photographer Shahidul Alam, takes an allegorical look at the phenomenon. The constructed images use elements of real case studies to evoke stories that the government has denied.
A small time mugger caught red-handed. It didn’t seem a big deal. As the policedragged away the young man, he implored that they not inform his family ‘theydon’t know I do this’. He seemed more concerned about his reputation than whatthe police might do to him. It was when the people in the streets begansuggesting that maybe he should be ‘crossfired’ that the terror crept into hiseyes. It wasn’t the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) he had been arrested by, andit was a police station he was being taken to. He had probably assumed thatsome high up would call the local police station, or that he would pay somebribes, and he’d be out again, soon. If the police cooperated, maybe his familywouldn’t know. But crossfire was something else. He begged and he beseeched,but fear had gripped him. He knew it took very little for things to take aturn.
Crossfire. The word had crept into our vocabulary. Theidentical press releases with only names and locations changed. The mug shotsfrom the photo ops. Frantic family members trying to prevent the inevitable.The corpse at the morgue. The government statement linking the dead with drugsor ‘anti social activities’, were all familiar. I had been angered whenjournalist John Pilger described the initiator of RAB, Moudud Ahmed as a ‘decent, brave man’.
The law-maker was cultivating a disregard for justice.“Although technically you may call it extrajudicial-I will not say killing-butextrajudicial deaths. But these are not killings…whatever you call it-peopleare happy.”
The law minister was using the presence of a corrupt policeand a corruptible judiciary, to justify a vigilante force that he couldcontrol. Alive or dead. He could choose.
I wondered whose idea it was. Black outfit, sunglasses,black bandana. An executioner’s uniform. I remembered the constitution of myland.
“To enjoy the protection of the law, and to be treated inaccordance with law, and only in accordance with law”. Article 31.
“No person shall be deprived of life or personal libertysave in accordance with law.” Article 32.
This was what the law minister wanted to do away with. Atleast he had acknowledged its existence. The ‘crossfire period’ that HumanRights Watch described as being “Martial Law in Disguise” included two years ofeffective military rule. As democracy returned, the election pledge struck achord. To “stop extrajudicial killing, bring the perpetrators to justice, andestablish rule of law and human rights” was part of a campaign promise that ledto a landslide victory.
The new foreign minister promised ‘zero tolerance’ to deathin custody. The killings continued, but this time it was denied. “There is nocrossfire in the country. It has never happened” emphatically claimed the homeminister. The slumbering judiciary woke up and the bench passed a suo moto ruling, asking the secretary ofthe ministry of home affairs and RAB to explain a particular killing. Earlierin the incident, the family members had implored that their relatives not be‘crossfired’. It hadn’t helped. The court expressed concern that ‘extrajudicial killings’ continued even after the ruling. The bench was dissolved bythe Chief Justice immediately before the date for hearing (9 January 2010) ofthe government response - apparently for some administrative reasons.
So how does a photographer respond? Exposing the facts,presenting one’s arguments well, making sure the information reaches a wideaudience, is the best any journalist can do. What is left, when all of thatfails? The facts behind ‘crossfire’ is known. Despite the reluctance of manyhuman rights organizations and otherwise-active civil society activists tochallenge this injustice, people themselves and now even the judiciary haveprotested. Now that this apparently ‘independent’ judiciary has also beenneutered, what is left?
The intention of this exhibit, was therefore not to presentdocumentary evidence. There was plenty of that around and it had failed. Theshow attempts to reach out at an emotional level. I aim to get under the skin.To walk those cold streets. To hear the cries, see terror in the eyes. To sitquietly with the family besides a cold corpse. But every photograph is based onin-depth research. On actual case studies. On verifiable facts. A fragment of the story has been used to suggestthe whole. A quiet metaphor for the screaming truth.
Working with the Peruvian curator Jorge Villacorte and theresearch team of Momena Jalil, Tasnzim Wahab and Fariha Karim, we have tried tocreate a physical experience that aims to evoke rather than inform. The solidresearch both by the team and external organizations is available in the publicdomain. The Google map acts as an interface with the public whereby people canadd information based upon their personal experiences, and is an organic repositoryfor local knowledge that rarely gets to surface in the conventional informationflow. It is an attempt to continue living as human beings.
"It will be suicidal for the nation and the society toallow the law enforcement agencies to decide who should be killed on criminalcharges." Supreme Court Judge(http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/01/14/news0130.htm)
Crossfire. The word had crept into our vocabulary. Theidentical press releases with only names and locations changed. The mug shotsfrom the photo ops. Frantic family members trying to prevent the inevitable.The corpse at the morgue. The government statement linking the dead with drugsor ‘anti social activities’, were all familiar. I had been angered whenjournalist John Pilger described the initiator of RAB, Moudud Ahmed as a ‘decent, brave man’.
The law-maker was cultivating a disregard for justice.“Although technically you may call it extrajudicial-I will not say killing-butextrajudicial deaths. But these are not killings…whatever you call it-peopleare happy.”
The law minister was using the presence of a corrupt policeand a corruptible judiciary, to justify a vigilante force that he couldcontrol. Alive or dead. He could choose.
I wondered whose idea it was. Black outfit, sunglasses,black bandana. An executioner’s uniform. I remembered the constitution of myland.
“To enjoy the protection of the law, and to be treated inaccordance with law, and only in accordance with law”. Article 31.
“No person shall be deprived of life or personal libertysave in accordance with law.” Article 32.
This was what the law minister wanted to do away with. Atleast he had acknowledged its existence. The ‘crossfire period’ that HumanRights Watch described as being “Martial Law in Disguise” included two years ofeffective military rule. As democracy returned, the election pledge struck achord. To “stop extrajudicial killing, bring the perpetrators to justice, andestablish rule of law and human rights” was part of a campaign promise that ledto a landslide victory.
The new foreign minister promised ‘zero tolerance’ to deathin custody. The killings continued, but this time it was denied. “There is nocrossfire in the country. It has never happened” emphatically claimed the homeminister. The slumbering judiciary woke up and the bench passed a suo moto ruling, asking the secretary ofthe ministry of home affairs and RAB to explain a particular killing. Earlierin the incident, the family members had implored that their relatives not be‘crossfired’. It hadn’t helped. The court expressed concern that ‘extrajudicial killings’ continued even after the ruling. The bench was dissolved bythe Chief Justice immediately before the date for hearing (9 January 2010) ofthe government response - apparently for some administrative reasons.
So how does a photographer respond? Exposing the facts,presenting one’s arguments well, making sure the information reaches a wideaudience, is the best any journalist can do. What is left, when all of thatfails? The facts behind ‘crossfire’ is known. Despite the reluctance of manyhuman rights organizations and otherwise-active civil society activists tochallenge this injustice, people themselves and now even the judiciary haveprotested. Now that this apparently ‘independent’ judiciary has also beenneutered, what is left?
The intention of this exhibit, was therefore not to presentdocumentary evidence. There was plenty of that around and it had failed. Theshow attempts to reach out at an emotional level. I aim to get under the skin.To walk those cold streets. To hear the cries, see terror in the eyes. To sitquietly with the family besides a cold corpse. But every photograph is based onin-depth research. On actual case studies. On verifiable facts. A fragment of the story has been used to suggestthe whole. A quiet metaphor for the screaming truth.
Working with the Peruvian curator Jorge Villacorte and theresearch team of Momena Jalil, Tasnzim Wahab and Fariha Karim, we have tried tocreate a physical experience that aims to evoke rather than inform. The solidresearch both by the team and external organizations is available in the publicdomain. The Google map acts as an interface with the public whereby people canadd information based upon their personal experiences, and is an organic repositoryfor local knowledge that rarely gets to surface in the conventional informationflow. It is an attempt to continue living as human beings.
"It will be suicidal for the nation and the society toallow the law enforcement agencies to decide who should be killed on criminalcharges." Supreme Court Judge(http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/01/14/news0130.htm)
