A nation’s strength cannot be measured solely by its economy, military power, or international influence. Its true strength and dignity depend on how responsibly it protects the lives, dignity, and rights of its citizens.

The reported execution of two Bangladeshi citizens in Saudi Arabia has raised difficult questions that cannot simply be brushed aside. According to published reports, serious concerns have emerged over whether the Bangladesh government or its diplomatic mission in Saudi Arabia was adequately informed before the executions took place. If Bangladesh learned about the executions only after they had been carried out, this would raise concerns not merely about diplomatic shortcomings but also about the effectiveness of the state’s system for protecting its citizens abroad.

The fundamental question is this: Who is responsible for standing beside a Bangladeshi citizen facing life and death in a foreign country? What role should the embassy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs play while a family anxiously hopes to save the life of a loved one? And if the state becomes active only after an execution has taken place, how meaningful can that intervention be?

Action After Death Is Not Enough; Efforts to Save Lives Must Come First

Saudi Arabia is one of Bangladesh’s most important overseas labour markets. Millions of Bangladeshis work there in pursuit of a better livelihood. They are not merely expatriate workers; they are among the driving forces of Bangladesh’s economy. Their remittances sustain families and help keep the national economy moving.

Yet when a Bangladeshi citizen faces serious criminal charges, undergoes trial, or risks the ultimate punishment of death, a critical question arises: how effectively does the Bangladeshi state stand by that citizen?

It must be remembered that a Bangladeshi citizen accused of a crime abroad does not forfeit the right to legal protection and a fair trial. If found guilty, the person may be punished under the laws of the country concerned. However, ensuring a fair opportunity to defend oneself, access to an interpreter and legal representation, and appropriate consular assistance remains critically important.

The state is not required to declare every accused citizen innocent without question. Its responsibility is to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the citizen’s legal rights are respected and that the judicial process is fair. This responsibility becomes even more significant when the potential punishment is death—an irreversible penalty.

If the Bangladesh government genuinely had no prior knowledge of these cases, why was it unaware? Does the relevant diplomatic mission regularly monitor serious criminal cases involving Bangladeshi nationals? Is there an effective monitoring mechanism for citizens facing the death penalty? If such a mechanism exists, how did it function in this case?

These questions demand answers. We need facts, explanations, and accountability—not perfunctory statements designed merely to close the matter.

Journalism Faces a Serious Test, Too

Another important aspect of this tragedy is the role of the media. Various claims, allegations, and speculations are circulating on social media. But how much reliable and comprehensive information has emerged about the identities of the two Bangladeshis, the charges against them, the judicial proceedings, the timing of the executions, and the role of the Bangladeshi diplomatic mission?

If the media fails to investigate these fundamental questions, it must also undertake a serious exercise in self-criticism.

Where are the families of the two citizens? What do their relatives know? Were they informed about the judicial proceedings? Did Bangladeshi authorities maintain contact with them? What is the Saudi authorities’ account of the matter?

These questions must be investigated through relevant documents, credible sources, and direct communication with the families and the authorities concerned.

The public deserves verified information, not a stream of speculation. Responsible journalism must establish the facts, scrutinise official conduct, and distinguish substantiated evidence from unverified allegations.

Diplomatic Weakness or a Lack of Political Will? Some argue that Bangladesh may find it difficult to take a firm position against a country as economically and geopolitically influential as Saudi Arabia. But does diplomacy, when a citizen’s life is at stake, mean simply accommodating the wishes of a more powerful country?

Diplomacy does not mean provoking unnecessary confrontation. But neither does it mean remaining a silent spectator in the face of a powerful state. The real test of diplomacy comes when a citizen is in danger and the government must respond with sensitivity, sound judgment, and effective action.

There have been discussions of past cases in which diplomatic initiatives, including compensation or blood-money arrangements where legally permissible, were pursued in efforts to secure the release of Bangladeshi nationals sentenced to death or to obtain a reduction in their punishment. Such arrangements depend on the laws of the country concerned, the consent of the victims’ families where required, and the applicable judicial process.

Nevertheless, these cases raise an important point: under certain circumstances, timely diplomatic engagement and legal assistance can create opportunities to save lives.

What efforts were made in the present case? When were they initiated? What communication took place between the relevant authorities? If there was an opportunity for intervention, was it pursued?

Expecting the government to answer these questions is not unreasonable. On the contrary, citizens have every right to demand accountability regarding the state’s role in protecting their lives.

We Need Accountability, Not Merely Talk of “Learning a Lesson”

When responsible officials respond to such a tragedy by saying that lessons must be learned, an obvious question follows: What lessons? Why were effective safeguards not already in place? And if there were gaps in the system, who is responsible?

It is easy to talk about learning lessons after lives have been lost. The state’s responsibility, however, is to anticipate danger, identify citizens at risk, and ensure that necessary assistance is available before it is too late. Seeking explanations after an execution may be necessary, but it cannot replace timely efforts to save a life.

The responsibilities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cannot be limited to attending international conferences, holding diplomatic meetings, or issuing official statements. The life of an ordinary Bangladeshi worker abroad must matter just as much to the state as any other national concern. Protecting Bangladesh’s standing internationally is not simply about receiving recognition at state functions. It also means demonstrating the capacity and determination to stand beside citizens in danger.

Furthermore, if an elected representative describes the bodies of accused individuals as “the bodies of sinners” and opposes bringing their remains back to Bangladesh, such a position deserves serious scrutiny. An allegation of criminal wrongdoing does not erase a person’s entitlement to basic human dignity. Questions of guilt and punishment are one matter; treating the deceased with a minimum degree of humanity is another. Public representatives must understand and respect that distinction.

Are Expatriates Valued Only for the Remittances They Send?

When expatriate Bangladeshis send foreign currency home, their contributions are celebrated. They are described as the lifeblood of the economy and partners in national development. But when one of them faces danger in a foreign prison, confronts the possibility of execution, or urgently needs legal assistance, how sincerely does the state stand beside them? Are Bangladeshi expatriates important to the state only when they send remittances, or are their lives and dignity equally valuable? No government can guarantee that it will always prevent a citizen abroad from being punished under another country’s laws. Nor does Bangladesh exercise complete control over another country’s judicial system. However, it is entirely reasonable to examine whether the state made every possible effort to obtain timely information, provide legal assistance, engage diplomatically, and help ensure due process. That examination is now essential. What is needed is a transparent inquiry, clear explanations from the relevant authorities, and effective mechanisms to address similar situations in the future.

The Time Has Come to Defend the Dignity of the State

Bangladesh’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is important, and there is no reason to disregard the significance of that relationship. But the importance of bilateral ties cannot be used to obscure questions concerning the lives and dignity of Bangladeshi citizens. Bangladesh should seek a comprehensive explanation from the Saudi authorities through appropriate diplomatic channels, obtain relevant information about the judicial proceedings, assist the families concerned, and take effective measures to identify and support other Bangladeshis at risk of execution.

At the same time, the government should review how effectively its diplomatic missions monitor serious criminal cases, arrange legal assistance, and maintain contact with the families of citizens facing grave charges abroad.

We do not want unnecessary disputes with any country. Nor do we want diplomatic relations to suffer needlessly. But neither can we accept a situation in which the state remains silent or inactive on questions of its citizens’ lives and dignity simply because the country involved is powerful.

We must remember that a nation’s strength cannot be measured solely by economic growth, military capability, or international influence. Its true strength is revealed when a vulnerable citizen needs protection—when someone in danger in a distant land looks towards their own country as a last source of hope. If the state cannot reach that person in time, grand declarations about independence, sovereignty, and national dignity will do little to ease the grief of the bereaved family. The lives of Bangladeshi citizens are not less important than diplomatic convenience. Expatriates are not mere statistics, and their families are not insignificant afterthoughts. The responsibility of the state is not simply to mourn after a death, but to make every possible effort to prevent it.

What Bangladesh needs now is clear answers, effective diplomacy, and demonstrable accountability. If failures in protecting citizens’ lives are allowed to go unexamined, another Bangladeshi family may face the same devastating ordeal tomorrow.

A state’s dignity is measured not by the strength of its statements, but by the seriousness of its efforts to protect its people. Bangladesh must ensure that its expatriates are valued not merely for the money they send home, but also for the lives they deserve to live with dignity, security, and justice.

Author: Dr. Abul Hasnat Milton, Journalist, Political Analyst, and Editor-in-Chief,The Source News Bangla