Renaming Rab as SRB is not reforming

A post-uprising government’s recognition that retaining the Rapid Action Battalion (Rab)—a security force that has earned global notoriety for its egregious disregard for human rights—is no longer tenable is a welcome first step towards restoring the rule of law. According to an official release, the cabinet on Monday approved a draft law titled “Special Response Battalion (SRB) Act, 2026,” which, if enacted, would effectively rename Rab as SRB. But rebranding without substantive internal reforms falls short of the expectations of human rights advocates and the victims of past abuses committed by Rab.

Reportedly, the new force would be a specialised unit of the police—essentially the same status Rab had on paper. Like Rab, SRB would continue to be headed by a serving additional IGP and remain under the command of the IGP. The draft law also provides for the transfer of Rab’s manpower, orders, powers, facilities, funds, assets, accounts, records and other property to SRB. Most strikingly, members of the armed forces would continue to serve in SRB on deputation. Cases filed by Rab would also continue as though they had been filed by SRB. Existing Rab regulations would likewise remain in force, with necessary adaptations, until rules for the new force are framed. In other words, what we are seeing is textbook repackaging, which could allow the force to continue operating with little or no meaningful accountability.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Read more

Rab’s rebranding is not the answer

These, one may recall, are precisely the concerns that led the United States to impose sanctions on senior Rab commanders as well as the force itself. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which investigated killings and other violations committed by security forces during the July uprising, recommended, among other measures, “dissolving the Rapid Action Battalion and return personnel not involved in serious violations to their respective units.”

The proposed law and the conversion of Rab into a new force through the wholesale transfer of existing personnel, including those serving on deputation from other forces, clearly depart from these recommendations. Thousands of victims of abuses allegedly committed by Rab members, including so-called “crossfire” killings and enforced disappearances, are still waiting for justice and compensation. Allowing personnel implicated in such abuses to continue their law-enforcement roles under a new institutional identity would be deeply unjust. The policing duties assigned to SRB also appear inconsistent with the rationale for creating a specialised force, which should be assigned clearly defined special duties.

The government, in response to concerns of abuse, may argue that it has introduced a safeguard by proposing a multiparty grievance-redressal committee to handle complaints. But this mechanism is also problematic. Unless the committee is genuinely independent, adequately empowered and protected from the influence of security forces, it is unlikely to provide credible investigations or effective remedies.

Read more

Why changing Rab's name or repackaging it is not enough

We, therefore, call upon the government to undertake broader consultations on the draft legislation and make necessary changes before proceeding. Such consultations could include open hearings before the parliamentary standing committees. The abolition of Rab must be substantive, not cosmetic. It must be accompanied by credible accountability for past crimes, justice and reparations for victims, and safeguards against the continued militarisation of a civilian law-enforcement institution.