Madhabdi rape: Will justice prevail or be forgotten again?

Recently, in Narsingdi’s Madhabdi upazila, a father watched his teenage daughter being dragged away into the night. The next morning, she was found dead in a crop field. Between those two moments stretched the familiar distance between crime and consequence in Bangladesh—a distance measured not in miles but in indifference. The question here is not whether the authorities will go through the motions of justice. They most likely will. The real question is whether justice will ultimately prevail.

Bangladesh has been here before. Too many times. In 2020, the gang rape of a woman in Noakhali sparked nationwide protests after a video of the assault went viral, which eventually forced the then government to introduce the death penalty for rape under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act. It was hailed as a turning point by some who believed that harsher punishment would deter criminals. The law changed. The frequency of rape incidents, however, did not.

The Madhabdi case carries additional layers that make it more uncomfortable. There have been allegations of prior sexual violence, and of local arbitration. There have been claims of threats to leave the area as well as whispers of political shielding. All of this sounds painfully familiar. When rape becomes a “matter” to be settled locally, often through informal arbitration led by influential figures, the crime is transformed from a violation of a human being into a negotiable dispute. Money changes hands, silence is purchased, and the message that predators get is that power can be leveraged to manage consequences.

We often hear that families do not report rape because of social stigma. That is true. But it is also incomplete. Many families do not report because they know what awaits them if they do: endless court dates, social ostracisation, character assassination of the victim, financial exhaustion, threats from the accused. In rural and semi-urban areas, where political patronage networks frequently intersect with law enforcement and local governance, seeking justice can mean inviting retaliation, as it did in the case of the Madhabdi teenager. That detail should haunt us.

We must confront an uncomfortable truth attached to this pattern of violence: rape in Bangladesh is not only a crime of individual pathology; it is often a crime of impunity. The perpetrator calculates risk. If he believes that his political connections, local influence, or financial leverage can neutralise the law, the deterrent effect of even the death penalty becomes abstract. A harsh sentence written in the statute book means little if the path to that sentence is obstructed by delay, compromise, or intimidation.

It is common knowledge that the judiciary is heavily burdened. Hundreds of thousands of cases remain pending in courts across the country, including thousands under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act. Special tribunals were established to expedite these cases, but delays remain chronic nonetheless. Trials stretch for years. For victims, each adjournment is another wound. Public outrage, meanwhile, is seasonal. We trend for a week, we light candles, we march, we post hashtags. But then another headline replaces the last, and we forget. This collective amnesia is perhaps the most dangerous thing.

When the death penalty for rape was introduced in 2020, many warned that punishment alone would not solve structural problems. They were right. Data since then has shown that rape incidents have not declined in any meaningful measure. Harsh punishment without the certainty of conviction is a hollow threat. Criminological research across jurisdictions consistently shows that the certainty of punishment deters crime more effectively than the severity of it. If the probability of conviction is perceived as low, the fear of death becomes distant.

There is also the matter of local power structures. In many areas, informal arbitration remains a parallel justice system. It can resolve land disputes or family conflicts, but when it ventures into criminal territory, it can be an instrument of coercion as well. The Madhabdi case suggests that local figures attempted to mediate or suppress an earlier assault. If true, this is not an isolated aberration. In the past, the media has often reported instances where rape survivors were pressured into “compromise,” sometimes even forced into marriage with their rapists. What does it say about a society when a teenager is assaulted, threatened, abducted in front of her father, and murdered, all within a context of prior warnings?

Reportedly, the police have since arrested several suspects, including the prime accused. But arrest is not justice. Justice requires a transparent investigation, protection for witnesses, forensic integrity, and a trial conducted without any external interference. Justice also requires accountability for anyone who attempts to shield the accused or obstruct due process. If local leaders in Madhabdi indeed facilitated intimidation or financial settlement, their liability must be examined with the same seriousness as the primary perpetrators. Otherwise, we are merely pruning branches while watering the roots.

There is also a deeper cultural dimension. Patriarchal attitudes continue to shape social responses to rape in our country. Victims are frequently scrutinised. Their mobility is questioned, their clothing discussed, and their character dissected. Even when outrage erupts, it often centres on the brutality of the act rather than the everyday entitlement that precedes it. Boys grow up watching how power operates. They observe how influential men remain untouchable by the law. They internalise lessons about dominance and consequence.

Will the Madhabdi case prove to be a difference? The answer is that it depends less on public emotion and more on institutional resolve. If the investigation remains insulated from political pressure, if forensic evidence is properly collected and preserved, if the prosecution is diligent, and if the trial is concluded within a reasonable timeframe, then perhaps this case could become a good precedent. Otherwise, the case risks joining the ever-expanding archive of grief and fading into oblivion. So, what shall it be?

H.M. Nazmul Alam teaches at the International University of Business Agriculture and Technology (IUBAT). He can be reached at nazmulalam.rijohn@gmail.com.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.