On April 18th, a tragic incident occurred in Madhukhali, Faridpur, where two construction workers were beaten to death by an agitated mob, suspecting them of setting fire to a temple. Several others were injured. Given that the majority in the region are Hindus, naturally, the mob was also predominantly Hindu. On the other hand, the two deceased being identified as Muslims added a 'Hindu versus Muslim' dimension to the incident. The rise of Hindutva politics in neighboring India and the brutality of the incident caused an uproar across the country. Initially, only vague details of the incident were available.

Recently, the Manabzamin and Ajker Patrika published on-the-ground reports about the incident. Early accounts had broadly labeled the incident as a "lynching," but detailed reports revealed different aspects. While a lynching did occur, it was preceded by other significant events.

There had been ongoing disputes between local union council member Ajit Kumar Sarkar and the construction workers since before Eid. There were demands for extortion; non-compliance was met with threats of violence. Ashraful Khan faced obstacles when he tried to transport construction rods. Ajit's people threatened Ashraful Khan and the other workers and left. On the day of the incident (April 18), under the orders of Ajit Kumar Sarkar, another person, Binoy Saha, along with a group, went to take the rods and got into a scuffle with the workers. That evening, the incident escalated. It is crucial to note that Ashraful Khan, who had resisted earlier, was killed on the spot during the mob violence.

The reports reveal that after the fire incident, the workers were also involved in extinguishing the flames. During this, some threw suspicion at them. Subsequently, all the workers were tied up. Ajit Kumar Sarkar arrived and locked the workers in a classroom. Another council member, Lincoln Biswas, also arrived. Ajit Kumar called Chairman Shah Asaduzzaman Tapon to the scene. The chairman began the assault after arriving, accusing them of daring to set fire to the temple and inciting a riot.

The beating began with Ashraful. Ajit Kumar also participated. According to the reports, the chairman was informed by Ajit Kumar, with whom the deceased worker Ashraful and others had prior conflicts. After they started the beating, the enraged crowd, who had been throwing bricks, joined in.

Both newspapers mentioned videos. One video shows construction workers being interrogated while bound. Ajit Kumar Sarkar and Chairman Asaduzzaman Tapon were seen interrogating the workers, eventually joining in the beating. Another video shows a few young men in a locked classroom beating the workers mercilessly with sticks and iron rods. Three young men in yellow, khaki, and blue t-shirts were particularly violent. The workers screamed while the agitated crowd outside the classroom cheered them on. The newspapers identified several individuals involved in the beating from their investigation.

The police arrived afterward. As they dispersed the crowd, two workers died.

From these reports, it's clear that disputes over construction work involving Ajit Kumar and his associates form the backdrop to the entire incident. As most locals are Hindu, both the 'worker' and 'Muslim' identities of the victims easily made them targets for the enraged crowd. Even though the workers were initially helping to extinguish the fire, the presence of Ajit Kumar's associates among those casting suspicious looks is hardly surprising. The reports suggest that Ajit Kumar was primarily responsible for the incident. This indicates that the scenario could have been calmed if Chairman Tapon and Ajit Kumar had not arrived; the assault likely wouldn't have started as soon. Initially, it was not a mass beating; only a few upper echelon individuals (close to the chairman and council members) participated with rods and sticks. The police were called later. It appears to be a planned murder, where a large participation of the agitated crowd was ensured.

The incident, from the fire at the temple to the lynching, is typical of experiences in Bangladesh and India, often explained only in terms of religion, class, or political affiliation. However, these don't fully capture the situation. Instead, interactions among local influential figures, the 'Hindu' identity of the agitated crowd, and the 'Muslim' and 'worker' identities of the victims need to be considered to understand the incident in Faridpur comprehensively.

The Faridpur incident is not yet over. Reports are emerging of police firing on public marches. Without swift legal action and the start of judicial processes, the impact will be far-reaching, spreading various suspicions and creating bitterness between the Muslim and Hindu communities in the area, putting the marginalized Hindu community at risk. Although we have never seen justice for such violence in Bangladesh, there appears to be a tacit approval from the power corridors.