Dhaka is Bangladesh’s economic engine, administrative centre and principal gateway to opportunity.
Yet for millions of residents, everyday life increasingly involves a calculation of risk.
Can one travel safely after dark? Can a woman return home without fear? Can a small business operate without extortion? Can citizens expect impartial policing and justice without money, influence or political connections? These questions concern not merely crime, but governance, fundamental rights and the meaning of development itself.
It would be inaccurate to declare Dhaka the world’s most criminal city.
Nevertheless, comparative indicators raise concerns about public safety.
Numbeo’s 2026 city rankings, which largely reflect user perceptions and reported experiences rather than independently verified crime rates, assign Dhaka a crime index of 62.2 and a safety index of 37.8. Manila scores 64.6 and 35.4; Colombo, 42.6 and 57.4; and Singapore, 22.5 and 77.5. These figures cannot establish a definitive ranking of actual criminality, but indicate concern about perceived safety in Dhaka.
Reported crime figures reinforce the need for attention. Dhaka Metropolitan Police statistics reported in July 2025 recorded 121 murder cases, 33 robbery cases, 248 mugging cases and 1,068 theft cases across 50 police stations during January-June 2025.
Approximately 70 extortion cases were filed monthly. These are reported cases, not necessarily proven offences.
The problem cannot be addressed through policing alone. Public safety depends on an interconnected governance system encompassing prevention, impartial investigation, prosecution, judicial resolution and victim protection. When these functions fail, the law loses credibility.
Citizens need confidence that the law applies equally and criminal influence cannot defeat accountability.
Reactive raids and arrests cannot substitute for neighborhood policing, professional investigations, forensic capacity, witness protection and coordination between police and prosecutors.
Delayed trials, weak evidence and intimidation can discourage victims from reporting offences.
Fragmented responsibilities for transport, roads, lighting and public spaces compound these weaknesses.
The consequences become clearer when crime statistics are translated into human experience.
A mugging may deprive a daily wage earner of a month’s income; a robbery can destroy a small trader’s working capital; and extortion increases business costs while diverting resources from productive investment.
Harassment on public transport may restrict a woman’s mobility, education or employment.
Fear of returning home after dark can limit access to work, healthcare and social life. These harms diminish human comfort, dignity and freedom.
Human comfort should be recognized as a fundamental outcome of development and a practical test of good governance.
It includes security, freedom from intimidation, access to essential services and the ability to travel, work and participate in community life without undue fear.
It also encompasses psychological well-being: people should not have to organize daily routines around the possibility of assault, harassment, extortion or retaliation.
Governance should enable citizens to trust that their rights and safety will be protected.
Human dignity is closely related but distinct. Comfort concerns the conditions in which people live; dignity concerns their recognition and treatment as persons of equal worth.
A person may enjoy material prosperity yet suffer indignity through humiliation, discrimination or arbitrary coercion.
Conversely, a person with limited means can live with dignity when treated fairly and protected by law.
A street vendor and a business owner, a domestic worker and a senior official, an influential citizen and a socially marginalized person all deserve equal protection, irrespective of wealth, occupation, gender, political affiliation or personal connections.
The state’s responsibility extends beyond maintaining administrative order and providing infrastructure; it includes creating conditions in which people can exercise rights without fear of arbitrary power.
Impartial protection and accessible justice allow disputes to be resolved lawfully.
When institutions fail, insecurity weakens trust and encourages people to seek protection through wealth or connections. Formal equality then becomes unequal citizenship in practice.
This danger is particularly evident in mobism: collective intimidation, coercion or punishment outside lawful procedures. Peaceful assembly and collective civic action are legitimate.
Mobism emerges when a group uses numerical strength, threats or violence to impose its will, obstruct lawful activity, humiliate individuals or bypass due process.
A crowd’s size confers no legal authority, and anger does not establish an allegation’s truth.
When accusation becomes punishment and intimidation replaces lawful adjudication, individuals become vulnerable to coercive power without meaningful protection.
Mobism can paralyse life and livelihoods even without continuous violence.
A trader threatened by a crowd may close a shop; a worker may abandon employment; a transport operator may suspend services; a student may avoid an institution; and a citizen may remain silent rather than express a lawful opinion.
Markets are disrupted, customers stay away, incomes decline and property may be damaged. Others change their behavior simply because they fear becoming targets.
The costs are economic, psychological and social: livelihoods become uncertain, freedom contracts and confidence deteriorates.
When groups can intimidate others without accountability, informal coercive power begins to displace lawful institutions.
Citizens may conclude that safety depends less on rights than on connections or the ability to command protection.
A lawless environment therefore cannot credibly be described as one in which people enjoy dignified and comfortable lives.
People who fear violence, harassment, extortion or retaliation cannot fully enjoy the freedoms development should secure.
The burden is unequal. Wealthier households may purchase guards, private transport and secure accommodation.
Low-income workers, street vendors, domestic workers, students and informal-sector employees have fewer alternatives.
Businesses may close early, spend more on security or avoid investment; workers may lose income by declining late shifts; and women’s employment opportunities may be restricted by safety concerns.
Commuters, students, traders and temporary workers also mean residential population alone cannot capture exposure to urban risks.
Public safety should be treated as essential development infrastructure, alongside roads, electricity, education and healthcare.
Infrastructure creates opportunities, but effective institutions determine whether people can use them safely and fairly.
Economic growth without security may increase output without improving citizens’ lived experience.
Formal rights without effective protection may promise equality while leaving intimidation to determine who can exercise those rights.
Dhaka needs a public-safety strategy integrated with its development agenda.
Authorities should publish regular, disaggregated information on reported offences, investigations, prosecutions, convictions and unresolved cases, distinguishing reported crime from proven offences and explaining changes in registration.
Independent oversight should assess response times, investigation quality, victim protection, lawful conduct and case outcomes, not merely arrest totals.
Authorities should also consult residents, especially women, informal workers and vulnerable communities, whose experiences may be missed by official records.
Public reporting should protect privacy, enable independent scrutiny and identify whether complaints are resolved fairly, so performance is measured by safer lives rather than activity alone.
Organized extortion requires evidence-based financial investigation and prosecution, including accountability for those who finance or protect criminal networks.
Urban planning should improve lighting, pedestrian safety, transport regulation and emergency response.
The justice system needs stronger forensic services, witness protection, legal aid and timely procedures.
Peaceful civic action must be protected, while intimidation and violence are addressed through impartial enforcement and due process.
Development and good governance must be assessed not only by economic performance and infrastructure, but by whether people experience safety, fairness, respect, comfort and peace of mind.
A genuinely developed society must secure both the material means of living and the institutional conditions for living with comfort and dignity.
Density is not destiny. Economic growth is not security, and infrastructure is not synonymous with effective governance.
A city cannot claim meaningful development when citizens must purchase privately what the state is obligated to protect publicly.
When lawlessness and mobism intimidate citizens, disrupt livelihoods and replace due process with fear, development remains fundamentally incomplete.
The ultimate test is whether people of every background can exercise their rights, pursue their livelihoods and live with dignity and the freedom to live without fear.
(Author: Professor of Canadian University of Bangladesh)