The modern equivalent of Aladdin’s lamp of the Arabian Nights is the power that can be ignited to become wealthy without the help of a gene. Factors like the fear of being arrested in a false case, extrajudicial killing or the temptation of making a quick buck by providing unethical facilities are working just like the gene of Aladin. Indeed, power, corruption and wealth now work in tandem.

Benazir Ahmed, a former director general of the RAB and head of police, is the last person causing a stir over ‘Aladdin's lamp’ around the nation. He also holds the Rashtriya Shuddhachar Award.

Calling him the 'most powerful police officer' in Bangladeshi history would not be out of place given his appearance in a number of instances, including the 2013 expulsion of leaders and activists of Hefazet Islam from Shapla Chattar in Motijheel.

Therefore, what message conveys the Pandora's box named ‘Aladdin's lamp in the house of Benazir’, an investigative report published on Kaler Kantha on 31 March?

People are thinking about two things: what method did Benazir Ahmed use to get this money and did the ACC fail to collect information regarding the assets of an influential individual such as Benazir Ahmed, who led the state’s largest law enforcement unit throughout numerous significant incidents?

The reason provoked such thought is that it was not possible for him to purchase a tiny house in Dhaka with the income, bonuses and other financial benefits he received from the government during and after his career. Nevertheless, the information about his wealth that is accessible through media reports exceeds his lifetime earnings by hundreds or even thousands of times.

There are three ways to get rich at large: inheritance, large business or corruption. In Bangladesh, owning a flat in Dhaka city for two to three crore takas is a challenging feat for anyone, even with a large and well-paying government position, unless they have access to a substantial bank loan.

After living off of their salary alone, government employees have little opportunity to save much money. But a lot of third- and fourth-class workers have been acquiring luxurious apartments in Dhaka, private cars, resorts outside of the capital and bighas of agricultural lands. All of these stories have made headlines in the media. Numerous people have been taken into custody. But, a great deal of individuals continue to amass enormous wealth and prosperity through the misuse of power and corruption.

It is impossible to regard Benazir Ahmed’s occurrence as sporadic. This is merely a brief case study on an unethical economy. However, the incident differs fundamentally from the other incidents in the sense that Benazir Ahmed is a prominent figure, and in today’s journalism, where corruption and crimes of people associated with power are tried to be avoided as much as possible, the Pandora’s Box that the Kaler Kantho opened is certainly admirable.

This type of report offers hope to individuals who are concerned that there is no journalism, let alone investigative journalism, in the country. This kind of journalism will surely hit their mindsets. This kind of journalism has a lot on the line. However, it requires more.

There is no statement from the accused is the report’s only weakness though this report claims that Benazir Ahmed did not receive the phone call or even did not reply to messages. In such instances, two things typically occur. The first one is when the journalist calls the accused individual, they do not receive it.

And second, he claims the accusations made against him are untrue or false. The statement of the accused is, therefore, required by media ethics and structure, even though this type of derogatory speech is ultimately ineffective.
Such corruption reports highlight two problems.

Where is the zero-tolerance policy against corruption being implemented by the government? Is there a single state service institution—police included—that the administration can cite that has seen zero corruption or a significant decrease in corruption? Has corruption declined in any of the several government service organisations that have shifted to digital and internet-based operations?

When a crime is alleged or proven against a member of any force at any level, the force immediately says that neither the force nor the government will take responsibility for the person’s crime.

However, the question is: if there is a structural issue with any force or institution, if the system allows someone to get away with enormous wealth by intimidating others, misusing administrative power, or providing illegal favours to someone and getting away with it without much difficulty, then why are governments and institutions refusing to take responsibility for the crimes committed by anyone connected to that force or institution?
_________________________
The writer is a journalist