The Bangladeshi government reportedly spent at least Tk 8 million on treatment in Thailand for a man officially recognised as injured during the July 2024 uprising. However, conflicting accounts of when and how he sustained his injuries have raised questions about the verification process that led to his recognition and access to state-funded medical assistance.
Mohammad Rayhan, from Char Thengamara village in the Kalkaní municipal area of Madaripur district, has been included on the official list of July uprising fighters and reportedly receives a regular government allowance. Local residents allege that he was injured not during the student-led uprising but in a clash between two local groups on 8 August 2024, when a bomb he was carrying allegedly exploded after being struck by a brick thrown by an opponent.
Rayhan’s family, however, maintains that he was injured on 5 August during a confrontation involving police and the Chhatra League near Shakuni Lake in Madaripur town. The conflicting accounts have prompted questions about the circumstances of his injuries, the evidence used to establish his eligibility for official recognition and the procedures followed to approve his treatment abroad.
Local residents challenge his account of the injuries
According to local resident Mohammad Shahin, a clash between two rival groups broke out in Char Thengamara on 8 August 2024. Rayhan allegedly had a bomb in his hand when a brick thrown by an opposing party struck it, causing an explosion that left him seriously injured. He was subsequently taken to hospital for treatment.
Shahin said the incident stemmed from a local dispute rather than the July uprising. He questioned how Rayhan could have been recognised as an uprising fighter if, as local residents claimed, his injuries resulted from the confrontation on 8 August.
Jahangir Molla, a resident of South Rajdi village in the municipal area, also disputed Rayhan’s reported status. He said Rayhan had been injured during a clash between local groups but had subsequently been recognised as someone wounded during the July uprising.
Several other residents reportedly supported this account, saying they had not seen Rayhan injured during any programme or demonstration associated with the movement. They maintained that he was hurt in the local clash on 8 August. Some residents also said he was known in the area by the nickname ‘Bomb Rayhan’, citing allegations that he had carried bombs during local disturbances.
These statements have not been independently established as conclusive evidence of the circumstances surrounding Rayhan’s injuries. Nevertheless, the discrepancies between the residents’ accounts and the version given by his family warrant scrutiny of the relevant medical records, witness testimony and official documentation.
Family maintains he was injured on 5 August
Rayhan’s family insists that he was injured on 5 August 2024, near Shakuni Lake in Madaripur town, during a confrontation involving police and the Chhatra League. According to the family, he was taken to Dhaka for treatment following the incident and later received government medical assistance as someone injured during the July uprising.
Kamrul Hasan, secretary for members of the Madaripur district unit of the Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal and an active participant in the July movement, disputed the family’s account. He said no clash involving police and the Chhatra League had taken place in the Shakuni Lake area on 5 August 2024.
The medical records cited in the report indicate that Rayhan was admitted to the National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Rehabilitation (NITOR), commonly known as Pangu Hospital, in Dhaka, on 8 August 2024.
The admission date has become a key point of contention. Local residents have questioned why Rayhan was admitted to hospital on 8 August if he had been injured three days earlier, as his family maintains.
However, the date of admission alone does not establish when or where an injury occurred. A proper assessment would require the hospital’s admission documents, clinical observations, details of the injuries and accounts from people who witnessed the incident.
Rayhan’s mother, Jaheda Begum, initially said her son had been injured in a confrontation near the lake on 5 August. During a subsequent conversation, however, she acknowledged the clash on 8 August, according to the report.
His father, Badsha Hawlader, also reportedly admitted that a mistake had been made in connection with his son’s case. He confirmed that Rayhan had been admitted to Pangu Hospital but said he did not know how his son had subsequently obtained treatment abroad or what procedures had been followed.
The differing accounts have left the circumstances of Rayhan’s injuries unresolved and raised questions about the information submitted when he applied for recognition as a July uprising casualty.
Verification process under scrutiny
The Ministry of Health’s relevant committee was responsible for verifying individuals recognised as injured during the July 2024 uprising. At district level, the deputy commissioner served as the committee’s chair, while the civil surgeon acted as member-secretary. Two student representatives also participated in the process.
Hafez Hasibullah, a student representative involved in the verification process, said information had first been checked at upazila level before being forwarded to the district committee. He said the district-level representatives had largely signed off on the basis of the information provided to them.
Hasibullah also said several agencies, including the National Security Intelligence (NSI), the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and the Detective Branch of the police (DB), had been involved in investigations or verification relating to the cases.
Shariful Abedin Kamal, Madaripur’s civil surgeon and member-secretary of the relevant verification committee, said the list had been uploaded online from Dhaka and that local officials had signed it.
The statements raise questions about how responsibilities were divided between the central and district authorities, and how individual applications were assessed. In particular, it remains unclear which documents or findings supported Rayhan’s inclusion on the official list and whether the reported discrepancies in his account were examined during the verification process.
Although the involvement of several government agencies has been cited, the available information does not identify the specific evidence used to approve Rayhan’s status. Nor does it establish whether any inconsistencies were detected before his name was included in the official gazette.
A review of his original application, medical records, verification documents and relevant administrative approvals would help clarify the basis for the decision.
Government reportedly spent Tk 8 million in Thailand
Multiple sources cited in the report said the government had spent at least Tk 8 million on Rayhan’s treatment in Thailand. He is also reportedly receiving a regular allowance as a gazetted July uprising fighter.
The report does not provide a detailed breakdown of the expenditure, the precise treatment he received, the date of his referral abroad or the documents authorising the allocation of public funds. The full circumstances of the funding therefore remain unclear.
Government support can be vital for people who suffer serious injuries during political unrest. Specialist treatment, rehabilitation and long-term medical care can place a substantial financial burden on patients and their families. For that reason, a reliable system for identifying genuine casualties is essential.
At the same time, public expenditure requires transparent documentation and effective oversight. Authorities need to establish that recipients meet the relevant eligibility criteria and that funds allocated for medical treatment are supported by appropriate records.
If the allegations concerning Rayhan are substantiated, the case could raise broader concerns about the reliability of the verification process and the allocation of public assistance. However, the allegations should not be treated as proven before the relevant evidence has been examined and an impartial investigation has been completed.
Rayhan unavailable for comment as inquiry is promised
Rayhan reportedly left the area after the allegations became public. Repeated attempts to reach him by mobile phone were unsuccess
