Was the Bagerhat administration just waiting for Fatima's death?

The tragic death of seven-year-old Fatima Akhter in a pond near the Hazrat Khan Jahan Ali (R.) Shrine in Bagerhat cannot simply be dismissed as an accident, especially given the numerous warning signs that preceded this incident. There have also been previous occurrences of fatalities.

The Sadar Upazila Nirbahi Officer of Bagerhat stated that measures would be taken to ensure the crocodile pond is not left unprotected. A decision is forthcoming. The pressing question remains: why has no effective action been implemented thus far? Was the Bagerhat administration merely waiting for the unfortunate demise of young Fatima?

On April 8, a crocodile was reported to have dragged an injured dog into the pond, with the dog's remains later retrieved from the site. This incident sparked widespread concern throughout the nation.

At that time, it was revealed that the dog was not the only victim; two individuals had previously lost their lives to crocodile attacks.

On April 15, Views Bangladesh released a news article titled 'Not only dogs, but also two people were dragged into the pond by the crocodile.' Prior to this, on April 13, another article was published by Views Bangladesh under the title 'How long will the pond with the crocodile remain unprotected?'

Despite these alarming incidents and the subsequent media coverage, it was observed that no security measures had been established around the pond. Children and teenagers were seen playing in the water, while others were bathing or washing their hands and faces. Everyone was aware of the crocodile's presence—locals, the administration, and the shrine authorities alike. Yet, the crocodile pond remained outside the designated security zone.


Following the incident involving a dog in the pond, Atia Khatun, the Executive Officer (UNO) of Bagerhat Sadar Upazila, was tasked with leading the investigation committee. In a news article titled 'How long will the crocodile-infested pond remain unprotected?' published by Views Bangladesh, the UNO remarked, 'This situation involves religious beliefs. Numerous individuals bathe and come into contact with the water based on these beliefs. They even transport water in bottles. In this context, if an abrupt prohibition is enforced, the devotees of the shrine may react negatively.'

She further stated, 'Nevertheless, we have resolved to designate a specific area for individuals to bathe or collect water, where the crocodile will not be able to access.'

However, the implementation of the UNO's statement did not occur until after Fatima's tragic death. During this interval, Fatima lost her life.

Following her death, the crocodile was extracted from the pond on Wednesday (June 3) and relocated to the Khulna Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Center.

Previously, a crocodile had dragged baby Fatima from the women's ghat of the pond at approximately 8:30 pm last Monday (June 1). Her body was subsequently recovered.

This raises the question: was the death of two individuals and a dog in the pond not a warning to exercise caution regarding the crocodile? Or was the administration merely awaiting Fatima's demise?

Fatima's death is not an isolated occurrence. The pond at the shrine is notorious for such incidents. Allowing individuals to enter the water without protection, despite being aware of the risks, reflects a profound irresponsibility on the part of the Bagerhat administration.

It may be argued that the religious sentiments of the devotees were a consideration. However, why was the crocodile only removed from the pond now? While the issue of religious sentiments is significant, it is contingent upon the circumstances. There can be no sentiment greater than the preservation of human life. If the administration believes that safety measures have not been implemented thus far due to apprehension regarding the devotees' reactions, then this is a clear acknowledgment of administrative failure. The state's responsibility is to protect human lives. It is not the state's responsibility to kill someone based on their faith.

The crocodile was removed from the pond after Fatima's death. Couldn't this step have been taken earlier? If the pond had not been left unprotected or if the crocodile had been removed, Fatima would not have died there.

Fatima's incident cannot be dismissed as just an accident. This will hide the negligence of the district administration. There have been previous cases of deaths due to crocodiles in that pond. Also, despite warnings in the media, no effective action has been taken. As a result, the Bagerhat administration has no chance of avoiding responsibility for Fatima's death.