Boraigram during the hartal called by BNP after the murder.Photo: STAR

The murder of Boraigram Upazila chairman, who was also a local Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader, allegedly by the ruling party activists while he was leading an anti-government demonstration, has stunned all democracy loving people across the political spectrum. Even Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has expressed her determination to punish the killers regardless of their political identity.
The public in general want to see that any killing, politically motivated or otherwise, is seen as a killing pure and simple and is tried in court as a criminal act under law. And the law-enforcers' duty is to identify and arrest the criminals and start the process of bringing them to justice.
That is how cases of murder are dealt with under any civilised democracy. Though what is noted above is but a very normal expectation in a society that is governed by law, the irony is, in present-day Bangladesh, this is also the most unusual thing to expect. And that is basically due to a wrong kind of polarisation in society along the partisan faultline. The partisan approach is the prism through which everything under the sun is coloured and assessed.
So, when we hear that the prime minister is adamant about punishing the murderers of Boraigram upazila chairman without considering their political allegiance, the public naturally feel greatly reassured.
We would like to believe that the Boraigram murder is going to be a case that will not be looked at from the partisan angle. And unlike many other similar incidents of killing of political import under successive governments in the past that were denied justice, if only because of the partisan outlook of the rulers in office, given the prime minister's stance, there is then reason to believe that the present case, after all, is going to get justice.
Now, will the law enforcers and other government agencies involved in the lower stratum of the administration translate the head of the government's desire into action?
And it will really add a new and positive dimension to the case, if the local wing of the ruling party or its student or youth front has no axe to grind in the tragedy. However, the main opposition BNP, whose local party leader has been killed, has a quite opposite view of the whole incident.
The BNP leaders have put the blame squarely on the local Awami League and its front bodies, the Chhatra League and Jubo League activists for the murder. They have even suggested that the murder has a link to the release from jail of some local political activists following the president's clemency to them. Those activists were convicted in a political murder that had taken place earlier.
Under any circumstances, it is the responsibility of the police to find out the truth behind the killing and disclose the identity of the murderers.
Now the question is; what were the apparent reasons that propelled those involved in the tragedy at Bonpara Bazar to go so far as to physically annihilate Sanaullah Noor, who was also an elected public representative of the upazilla? What could be gathered from the reports in the newspapers on the day following the tragic incident is that the killers swooped on the procession that Sanaullah Noor was leading on the way to reach the point where they would hold a previously announced rally, as part of the main opposition's month-long anti-government agitation programme.
Under democracy a political party, group, or individual has the constitutionally sanctioned freedom and right to give vent to their views openly, gather, take out processions and hold rallies. And in a pluralistic democracy, the main function of the opposition is to criticise the party in position and in this way make appeals to the people to rally around their cause. And this is also the rule of the game in every democracy. So, what went wrong at the Bonpara Bazar area that a public representative was brutally beaten up on the highway, and that too in presence of the law-enforcing agency?
The police's version about their failure to prevent the bloody incident from happening, and saving the life of Sanaullah Noor, was that the organisers of the procession did not inform the police of their programme in advance. Even if one takes the police's version at its face value that does not in any way justify their failure to prevent the killing from taking place before their own eyes.
There is also nothing in the media reports to say that the political activists in the procession had gone violent or done anything repugnant to draw the wrath of their rival political activists.
What then was the police doing when a popularly elected upazila chairman was being beaten up mercilessly in a public place? Was it not their responsibility to protect such an important person like upazila chairman of the locality?
Since neither the members of the ruling party nor the members of their student or youth front, nor any other party/group has taken any side or claimed responsibility for the bloody incident, to all intents and purposes, the murder was committed by hooligans who have no connection with any political party. In that case, the police should have known the identity of the masterminds of the tragic murder and they should have been able to intercept in time to foil their plot to strike down the upazila chairman in question.
There are many unresolved questions surrounding the Boraigram murder. But it is again the police who have to find the answers and resolve the murder case. And it all depends on the political will of the prime minister to see that justice is established in the end.

Syed Fattahul Alim is a senior journalist.