Police high-handedness against opposition

But where was the provocation? By all accounts, they did not disrupt peace nor were their any visible signs of attempted disruption. Secondly, police did not issue any prohibitive order in anticipation of trouble, so that in their perception no particular threat to peace existed. Then why on earth did the police resort to such violent tactics? We can assume that the police acted either on orders from the top or on their own. If the former is true, then we put a simple question to the government -- why deny the opposition their legitimate rights to assemble, hold rallies and express their dissent in a peaceful way? The government owes an explanation to the people.

Secondly, if the assumption that the police acted on their own holds true, then are we to believe that the police can do whatever they will and can get away with their excesses without having to account for it?

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

We believe though, the police couldn't have acted the way they did without an obvert or covert nod of approval from the political leadership at some level.

The overriding consideration ought to be that if the opposition is denied its legitimate space to function within the bounds of Constitution, democracy is denigrated into a veritabl autocracy of the majority.