Staff Reporter :
Economist Debapriya Bhattacharya on Saturday stressed the pressing need for a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, cautioning that without legal protection, fair justice, credible elections, and meaningful reforms cannot be ensured.
He made the remarks at the opening session of a civic dialogue on introducing such a law, organised by the Citizen Platform for SDG Implementation at the Bangladesh–China Maitri Conference Centre in Agargaon.
“For years, we have seen the necessity of a law that effectively tackles discrimination. The previous government initiated work on a universally applicable law but lacked the political will to implement it. This government, which has embraced the anti-discrimination spirit of the student movement, must act now the law is the demand of the hour,” he said.
Debapriya, convener of the Citizen Platform and chair of the session, highlighted that justice, elections, and reforms are three areas most dependent on protection against discrimination.
“To ensure fair justice, citizens must be safeguarded and their rights protected. Free elections require an inclusive environment supported by anti-discrimination measures. And reforms cannot succeed without universal rights,” he said.
He warned against selective advocacy, noting, “We cannot claim to fight discrimination while picking and choosing which forms to address. True universality must be restored.”
Citing multiple areas of vulnerability, Debapriya pointed to discrimination that blocks development and infringes on rights: children deprived of balanced and cultural education due to teacher shortages, limited mobility and opportunities for people with disabilities, restrictions on women’s freedom of movement and choice, denial of recognition for small ethnic groups, and regional disparities leaving communities excluded from development benefits.
“If elderly groups cannot be protected, can it truly be called an anti-discrimination movement?” he asked. He also condemned the use of violence to silence dissenting philosophical views, stressing that physical harm against individuals for their beliefs is incompatible with the principles of an anti-discrimination ethos.
