THE March 3 protest at Lalmatia that Bangladesh Against Rape and Harassment held was not just a response to a single event but the culmination of growing disappointment with the government鈥檚 failure to protect women from escalating violence. The demonstrators, predominantly woman activists and concerned citizens, burnt an effigy of the home affairs adviser, making it clear that they hold him responsible for the increasing impunity that perpetrators of gendered violence enjoy. The immediate catalyst for that day鈥檚 protest was the government鈥檚 inaction against man, reported to be a local extortionist allegedly affiliated to the Juba League, the youth wing of the Awami League, who incited a mob attack at Lalmatia. But, the deep grievance is systemic 鈥� a state apparatus that selectively applies the laws to uphold patriarchal control.
The attack, which took place on March 1, saw a mob of more than 20 men physically and verbally assault two university students for smoking at a tea stall. Witness accounts suggest that the assault was not spontaneous but was incited by the local people with political connections.
Rather than addressing the assault that took place in daylight, the home affairs adviser opted to deflect, choosing to fixate on a trivial legal debate over smoking in public space. This calculated evasion signals something more insidious than mere negligence. When criminal offences against women are ignored, minimised or justified through diversionary tactics 鈥� it signals more than administrative failures 鈥� it becomes clear that the state apparatus is serving patriarchal interests. His diversionary tactic, by framing the attack as a matter of smoking regulations, is an attempt at shifting blame onto the victim and make a distraction from the real issue: the government鈥檚 refusal to protect women from orchestrated public violence.
From a legal standpoint, the case is starightforward. The Penal Code explicitly criminalises assault, with Sections 354 and 509 prescribing penalties for 鈥榓ttacking women with the intent to outrage their modesty or insulting them through words or gestures.鈥� In contrast, the Smoking and Tobacco Products Usage (Control) Act 2005, even if applicable to the situation, carries a minimal fine of Tk 300 for a first offence. The home adviser鈥檚 decision to highlight the latter while ignoring the violent crime that was at the heart of the incident is not an oversight. It is an ideological statement. By refusing to acknowledge the severity of the attack, he has effectively sanctioned a mob violence as a legitimate form of social control over women.
This selective application of the law is not incidental. It is a deliberate function of patriarchal governance. In societies where gender-based violence is normalised, the government does not need to explicitly endorse such acts. It merely needs to look the other way. Feminist scholars have for long identified this pattern: the institutions that claim neutrality often serve as enforcers of patriarchal power by regulating women鈥檚 behaviour under the guise of morality, public order or legal technicalities. When women are harassed or assaulted in public space, their actions 鈥� how they dress, where they go and what they say 鈥� are scrutinised rather than the violence inflicted on them. In this case, the focus on smoking is an extension of this logic: a manufactured excuse to shift blame away from the perpetrators and onto the victims.
The media鈥檚 role in perpetuating this deflection is equally alarming. Some mainstream media outlets framed the protest as opposition to anti-smoking remarks rather than as a demand for accountability in gendered violence. This is not an accidental misinterpretation. It is an insidious tactic designed to delegitimise the movement. By reducing the protest to a trivial issue, the media not only discredit the activists but also protect the government from scrutiny. Such coverage is a strategic manoeuvre that reinforces patriarchal narratives by positioning women鈥檚 demands for justice as irrational, excessive or misplaced.
The disproportionate backlash against this particular demonstration further exposes the government鈥檚 priorities. Bangladesh Against Rape and Harassment has been protesting for weeks, yet it was only when this specific protest took place that the government and media machinery moved to discredit it. The pattern is clear: when movements challenge the government鈥檚听 indifference, they are met not with overt repression but with more insidious forms of suppression 鈥� misrepresentation, strategic indifference and institutional gaslighting. These tactics allow the state to maintain plausible deniability while they ensure that women鈥檚 demands for justice are rendered invisible.
The implications extend far beyond this single incident. If a non-issue such as smoking can be weaponised to justify a mob violence today, any pretext 鈥� clothing, speech or presence in public space 鈥� can be used to rationalise attacks on women tomorrow. This is the slow erosion of women鈥檚 autonomy, masked as legal and moral discourse, but fundamentally rooted in the patriarchal imperative to regulate and control female bodies. When institutions refuse to hold perpetrators accountable, they embolden further acts of violence and simultaneously gaslight the victims into believing that their suffering is unimportant, exaggerated or even self-inflicted.
The home adviser鈥檚 refusal to act is not just a personal failure. It is a structural necessity for the perpetuation of patriarchal rule. His continued presence in office despite repeated displays of indifference to gender-based violence is not incidental. It is part of a broader system that safeguards male dominance. His inaction is an endorsement of mob justice, a quiet assurance to perpetrators that their action will be tolerated, if not outright ignored.
This moment demands more than passive outrage. It demands accountability. The government must explain why laws are selectively applied, why perpetrators walk free and why the people seeking justice face obstruction and vilification. The home affairs adviser should answer for his address, not just in this incident but in the systemic failures that enable such violence.听And the public, particularly the media, must refuse to be complicit in the quiet perpetuation of patriarchal violence by misrepresenting the movements that seek to dismantle it.
听
Rafia Tamanna is an editorial assistant at 抖阴精品.
