Don’t help bury inconvenient truths
A probe committee usually represents a mechanism for discovering the truth, but in most cases across our public system, it means paperwork that often serves no purpose or never even sees the light of day. When a scandal or accident or crisis occurs, we see that a committee is formed, time passes, memories fade, and the probe report, if it appears at all, is rarely acted upon. Unfortunately, the example set by Jahangirnagar University (JU), one of our leading public educational institutions, failed to mark a departure from this tired pattern.
In the wake of the student-led mass uprising that toppled the Awami League government last year, the university administration was in a feverish mood to address a backlog of grievances ranging from plagiarism and sexual harassment to unnatural deaths and murder on the campus. The authorities have since established at least 39 committees to investigate these incidents. On the surface, this might look like a rigorous house-cleaning. If we look deeper, it proves to be nothing but a rote ritual.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
Despite spending nearly Tk 40 lakh on "sitting allowances"—a fee paid to committee members simply for turning up—less than half of these bodies have submitted their reports. And there's been a disturbing asymmetry: when the accused are students, the wheels of justice apparently turn with surprising speed. Inquiries into the students were completed, and punishments were meted out. But when the probe involved teachers, the process allegedly slowed. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the law department. For months, students have demanded the resignation of two associate professors, accusing the pair of a campaign of "physical and mental torture." Separately, another probe body was formed against a teacher after a student alleged that he had published her academic article under his own name without permission. One year later, the matter remains unresolved. Students allege the administration frequently forms probe bodies only to delay or bury investigations without taking meaningful action.
The vice-chancellor, however, argues that the administration is overwhelmed by complaints spanning 54 years. This is a convenient shield. The delays speak less of administrative burden than of a lack of intent. In Bangladesh, the idea of probe committee has long been a favoured tool not to reveal the truth, but to buy time until the public loses interest. The students who led the uprising demanded a departure from the impunity of the past. Instead, they are witnessing its replication in different forms. We urge the JU authorities to expedite all pending probe-related works and provide justice or solutions without delay, regardless of the identity of the accused involved.
Comments