On 5 May 2013, the heart of Dhaka’s financial district—Shapla Chattar—was engulfed in chaos. Hefazat-e-Islam’s mass rally spiraled into violent clashes with law enforcement, prompting some political and religious actors to dub the incident a “massacre.” A decade later, calls for investigation have resurfaced, amplified by a renewed push from Hefazat leaders and allied media personalities like journalist Mahmudur Rahman. Jamaat-e-Islami’s student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir, has launched solidarity campaigns, including human chains and public protests.
This sudden resurgence of interest comes amid striking developments. At the helm of this revival stands the interim administration of Dr. Muhammad Yunus. On 2 March 2024, interim government Chief Advisor Dr. Muhammad Yunus met with UN Resident Coordinator Gwyn Lewis and Senior Human Rights Advisor Huma Khan, urging the UN to formally document what he called “killings” at Shapla Chattar. Remarkably, just ten days later, arrest warrants were issued by the International Crimes Tribunal for nine individuals—including Sheikh Hasina and Ganajagaran Mancha leader Imran H. Sarker—based on a case filed by Hefazat.
Dr. Yunus’s Deputy Press Secretary, Abul Kalam Majumdar, added fuel to the fire. In a 3 May Facebook post, he claimed that 58 individuals were shot dead during the 2013 operation—reviving a controversial narrative long dismissed by courts and investigators alike. This storyline, however, didn’t originate in 2024. The first seeds of this narrative were sown by Adilur Rahman, now an advisor in Yunus’s cabinet and head of the rights organization Odhikar. On 10 June 2013, Odhikar published a bilingual “fact-finding report” claiming that 61 people were killed in the police crackdown and another 2,500 went missing. The report quickly became the basis for sensational coverage by both domestic and international media.
However, when the Ministry of Information formally requested a list of the alleged victims on 10 July 2013, Odhikar refused. Their obstinate silence raised eyebrows. In response, the police filed a general diary on 10 August, followed by a raid on Odhikar’s office. Adilur Rahman was arrested, and multiple laptops and CPUs were seized. Forensic analysis revealed a supposed list of the 61 “victims.”
What followed was a methodical investigation. Authorities discovered that four of the “deceased” were alive, seven had died in unrelated incidents, five names were repeated, eleven entries were fictitious, and seven included false data. Moreover, 27 names were marked “yet to confirm” but still counted as fatalities in the report. The evidence clearly pointed to a fabricated document designed to damage the state’s image and foment unrest. The findings culminated in a formal charge filed in Dhaka’s CMM Court on 4 September 2013. The Cyber Tribunal accepted the case (No. 01/2013) on 11 September 2013. Despite being arrested on clear evidence, Adilur Rahman was granted bail within two months, while his associate Nasir Uddin Elan secured anticipatory bail. Legal proceedings were sluggish. The tribunal framed charges on 8 January 2014, but Adilur challenged this in the High Court, securing an eight-year stay. Only on 9 January 2017 was the stay vacated, after which he appealed to the Appellate Division—a process that dragged on for another four years. On 18 August 2021, the appeal was rejected, finally allowing the case to proceed.
Over a span of ten years, the case saw testimonies from 22 out of 28 witnesses. Four witnesses had died, and neither Adilur’s wife nor his employees agreed to testify. During the trial, both Adilur and Elan remained out on permanent bail, using every legal avenue to delay proceedings. At last, on 14 September 2023, Dhaka’s Cyber Tribunal delivered its verdict: both Adilur Rahman and Nasiruddin Elan were sentenced to two years in prison and fined BDT 10,000 each. However, the current Yunus-led interim government has since revoked the ruling—an act viewed by critics as political appeasement.
The long judicial odyssey made one fact crystal clear: the narrative of a “massacre” at Shapla Chattar was based on lies and misinformation. At no point in the 10-year legal saga could Adilur or any Hefazat representative produce a credible list of 61 fatalities. No reputable media outlet corroborated the claim. Yet the issue is being resurrected, serving two thinly veiled objectives: first, to placate hardline Islamist factions by reviving Hefazat; and second, to exact political vengeance against the Awami League and its allies for pursuing war crimes trials.
Time alone will reveal the extent to which this sinister gambit succeeds. Whether this cynical ploy succeeds remains to be seen. But what is clear is that under Yunus’s interim stewardship, Bangladesh’s justice system and historical truths are increasingly at risk of being rewritten to suit partisan ends.
