Rule of Law vs. Public Sentiment: The Heated Debate Over a Rickshaw Puller’s Actions

A rickshaw puller beat up members of the banned organization Hizb ut-Tahrir with a stick. Later, the police arrested him, but after his arrest, an advisor managed to have him released. Now, many people see the rickshaw puller as a hero, as if he has accomplished something extraordinary!

Many believe that the rickshaw puller did the right thing by beating up the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Since Hizb ut-Tahrir is a banned organization, they argue that his actions demonstrate patriotism. Therefore, they believe his arrest was unjust.

Their main argument is that, during the rule of the Awami League, Chhatra League openly attacked students, and other affiliated organizations oppressed ordinary people. The police remained silent and did not take any action against them. In many cases, the police even acted as their accomplices. So why was a common citizen arrested today when he took action against members of a banned organization like Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Now, the question arises—if the police remained indifferent to the unlawful activities of Awami League activists in the past, why was the rickshaw puller arrested today? If criminals were not arrested before, why should a patriotic citizen be arrested now? This is the perspective many people are expressing.

However, the key takeaway from this discussion should be that one wrongdoing cannot justify another. If we acknowledge that there was no rule of law during the Awami League's tenure, then the priority now should be to correct that mistake and establish true rule of law.

The administration must be allowed to function impartially. No wrongdoing should be legitimized by citing past injustices. The law must be equal for all—this is the fundamental principle of justice.