I have been kept from blogging for the last few weeks for a variety of reasons. First, soon after returning from Dhaka, I fell ill with the flu and it took me about a week to recover after a week of coughing and general feverishness. And then, I got busy with organizing this conference on climate change on campus. Of course, there are papers and whatnot due over the course of the next few weeks, but do expect me to write on these pages more often than I have recently (as low as that bar is…), particularly as February 21 approaches.

In the mean time: I find many arguments for torture in the Bangladeshi context (see comment section in the link) to be appalling. The argument of “what if a bomb were to go off killing thousands (or even tens of people) if you didn’t torture” just don’t apply here. The best argument that can be made is that the security apparatus has limited resources and certain ends, and these ends have to be met under the constraints of the limited resources, and torture seems to be the shortest route. If one were to argue at the level of crass utilitarianism the way that such arguments are made (and I am in no way prepared to concede that this is the level at which the arguments is to be played out) , then one is must, to defend the pro-torture position, ask what the ends really are, whether torture really gets you there, and whether alternative routes that are claimed to be unavailable (such as people using their heads a little better) are really so. I think any honest discussion will find that torture of the kind that is alleged to have happened to Tasneem Khalil, or for that matter, to Tarique Zia, or Ghiasuddin Mamun fails even a first-pass cost-benefit test. Can someone tell me what the ends are of such torture - except to intimidate, and to punish without trial or evidence? Let’s assume that the ends are legitimate - information - does torture really get you accurate and credible information? And let’s say it does (and there’s enough evidence out there that it doesn’t), then how does torture stack up against alternatives? Everyone claims to know that these political figures were corrupt. And yet when it comes to getting evidence for it, we have to depend upon torture! Paper trails, people, paper trails… If your best case for torture is that you are too lazy or inefficient or ineffective to find inevitable paper trails - then I am sorry, you do not have a very good case at all.

The discussion though, must go beyond that. The truth is that we have not internalized the value of human dignity and human life. That’s where the discussion should be, but rarely is.

And this lack of internalization that manifests itself in torture is not just a problem we face because we have a military government. It’s a little disingenuous to claim that things would be much better had we been under the BNP or AL.