What home adviser said about Lalmatia incident is wrong and why the laws matter

The recent assault on two young women in Dhaka's Lalmatia was not just a case of mob violence. It was a glaring example of systemic misogyny and ignorance embedded in our society. 

And what is more shocking is the government response: an almost tacit seal of approval by Home Affairs Adviser Lt Gen (retd) Md Jahangir Alam Chowdhury – calls for whose resignation have only grown only to be left ignored by the so-called pro-people government.

It all started when two young women were brutally attacked by a group of men in Lalmatia for smoking in a public place. The justification? A so-called concern over public smoking – a concern that only arises when they see a woman smoking. 

Addressing the incident, the home affairs adviser said, "As you know, smoking in public is prohibited for both men and women. It's a crime, and everyone should adhere to it." 

He also alluded that the women – who had been slapped, kicked and punched in public – had provoked the incident by "smoking cigarettes".

But was he selective in which law he prioritised? 

As per the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Notification of 12 March 2015, Bangladesh's tobacco control laws do prohibit smoking in certain public places and public transport. 

These include educational institutions, libraries, hospitals, cinemas, exhibition centres, theatres, enclosed restaurants, children's parks, covered sports and exercise areas, and single-cabin public transport. 

No designated smoking areas can be marked in these places, ensuring that such environments remain smoke-free for public health and safety.  

However, in larger public buildings, if feasible, an open space within the premises may be designated as a smoking area. 

Similarly, for public transport with multiple cabins, such as trains, steamers, and ferries, a separate smoking zone may be designated at the far end or in an open space, but it cannot be located within the main passenger-carrying compartments. 

This regulation ensures that smoking is confined to specific areas where it minimally affects non-smokers while maintaining public health standards.

A tong shop (small roadside tea stall) – which is where the attack took place – does not explicitly fall under the list of prohibited public places mentioned in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Notification. 

The law specifically bans smoking in enclosed spaces such as educational institutions, libraries, hospitals, cinemas, and single-cabin public transport. 

Since tong shops are typically open-air establishments, they do not fall under these restrictions unless they are enclosed within four walls.  

"According to the law, a tong shop or any open space cannot be considered a prohibited public space for smoking," said Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua, a Supreme Court Lawyer. 

Even if smoking in a tong shop were considered a violation under the broader definition of a "public place," the punishment outlined in Section 7(2) of the same law states that offenders will face a fine of up to Tk300, with repeated violations leading to double the penalty progressively. 

Nowhere does the law permit citizens to take matters into their own hands and physically assault someone for smoking as a form of enforcement.

More importantly, there isn't a gender-based distinction. It applies to men and women alike, as the home affairs adviser so shrewdly pointed out. 

Weaponisation of morality: Are Bangladeshi women now under attack?

But then what about the physical attack?

The Bangladesh Penal Code is explicit when it comes to assault. 

Under Section 352, using criminal force on another person without grave provocation is punishable by up to three months of imprisonment or a fine. 

More importantly, under Section 354, any act of assault intended to outrage a woman's modesty is a criminal offense, punishable by up to two years in prison.

"Physical assault falls under several sections of the Bangladesh Penal Code, including Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, and 327. These cover various degrees of bodily harm, with Section 324 and 325 addressing cases involving dislocation or severe injury," said Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua. 

"Depending on the severity, these are non-bailable offenses. The person who initiated the assault and later incited the mob, along with those who participated in it, are all offenders under these legal provisions," he said.  

"The way they chased the women goes beyond just physical assault - it can also fall under 'attempt to murder' as per Section 307. Since such an attack could have resulted in a fatal accident or severe injuries leading to death, this charge is also applicable," he added. 

By this definition, the attackers in Lalmatia are not just self-righteous citizens enforcing a non-existent law - they are criminals who committed a punishable offense.

And yet, instead of addressing the real crime here - the violent assault - the home adviser chose to equate public smoking with the act of physically attacking women.

Instead of immediate legal action, the focus shifted to public smoking as if that somehow justified the violence.

The home adviser, by consciously not acknowledging the criminal assault and diverting attention to smoking and the month of Ramadan (which wasn't when the incident happened), effectively legitimised the attack.

The worry grows when there's a sense that perhaps those entrusted with our security don't fully grasp the laws themselves.

Adding to that, this incident is a reflection of a much larger issue: the entitlement men feel over women's bodies and choices.  

Women are constantly policed - how they dress, where they go, what they do - and any deviation is met with hostility.

Would this attack have happened if it were two men smoking? Unlikely.