A recent incident in Chauddagram, Comilla, has stirred the conscience of the nation. An elderly man was publicly humiliated with a garland of shoes, an act that has deeply moved the people of Bangladesh, regardless of his identity, his alleged crimes, or his past. This reaction underscores a simple truth: mob justice can never align with a society’s moral fabric. While crimes demand justice, it must follow lawful procedures. Taking the law into one’s own hands to inflict such humiliation is indefensible.

Later, it was revealed that the man is a freedom fighter and a leader of the ruling party’s Krishak League. Despite serious allegations against him, including murder, the media focused primarily on his status as a freedom fighter. This raises a critical question: why did this identity take precedence?

Political Retribution or Obscuring the Truth?

Abdul Hai Kanu, a former central member of Krishak League, has a controversial record. He and his family are accused of wielding undue influence in their locality, reportedly creating a gang to maintain their dominance. Allegations range from political oppression to acts of violence against opponents, particularly during his tenure as a local political leader.

Yet, the media coverage of his public humiliation prioritized his freedom fighter status, almost implying that this identity was the reason behind the incident. But was this the case? Available evidence suggests that the humiliation was less about his role in the Liberation War and more about his actions as a politician and local enforcer. The narrative being shaped by the media seems to ignore these nuances, framing the incident solely as an attack on a freedom fighter.

Freedom Fighters Beyond Reproach?

The emotional resonance of the term “freedom fighter” in Bangladesh’s history cannot be overstated. However, does this identity absolve one of other roles or actions? Over the 53 years since independence, many freedom fighters have been implicated in corruption, violence, and crimes, even facing judicial penalties. Their crimes were not committed as freedom fighters, nor does their service in 1971 shield them from accountability.

The darker chapters of post-independence Bangladesh include episodes of repression and injustice perpetrated by individuals who were also freedom fighters. Whether during the excesses of the Rakkhi Bahini or the one-party BAKSAL regime, political figures and their actions have not always aligned with the ideals they once fought for. Acknowledging this reality is crucial to avoid creating a false dichotomy where freedom fighter status becomes a shield against all criticism.

The Role of Media: Objective Reporting or Misleading Framing?

The media’s role in such incidents is to present the facts in context. In Kanu’s case, portraying his humiliation as an attack on a freedom fighter detracts from the broader issue: the lawlessness of mob justice and the need for a fair judicial process. This skewed framing is not an isolated instance. Similar narratives have emerged before, where unrelated identities were emphasized to shape public sentiment.

For example, in a recent political rally incident, another freedom fighter, Abdur Rahman, was assaulted after chanting slogans in favor of a controversial political leader. Media reports highlighted his freedom fighter status and his use of the slogan "Joy Bangla," implying these were the reasons for the attack, ignoring the broader political context.

Justice Beyond Identity

The assault on Abdul Hai Kanu was unjustifiable—not because he is a freedom fighter, but because no one deserves such treatment, irrespective of their identity or alleged crimes. If he is guilty of murder or other crimes, justice must be served through legal means. Mob actions like this degrade society, fostering chaos and eroding the rule of law.

The media must resist the temptation to use emotive identities like “freedom fighter” to frame incidents. Such narratives not only mislead the public but also obscure the actual context of events. In this case, the real issue was the public humiliation of an elderly citizen—an act that is reprehensible on any moral or legal grounds.