Opinion

Bangladesh: Where 'blogger' has become a word worthy of death

In the drive to squelch expression, the institutions of the state themselves are failing society as the societal consensus on the importance of free speech weakens.

Mahmud Rahman is a writer and translator from Bangladesh who lives in California. He is one of 23 persons  who are facing possible contempt of court charges from the International Crimes Tribunal 2 in Dhaka for having signed a statement expressing concern over the same tribunal’s contempt of court sentence on the journalist David Bergman for some of his blog posts.

When I think about the state of free speech in the land of my birth, my memories take me back to 1970-71 when I was a higher secondary student in Dhaka, a time of upheaval when East Pakistan was making its way towards independent Bangladesh. Officially we were still under martial law, Ayub’s decade-long dictatorship deposed in favour of Yahya’s rule that came with the promise of elections. Political parties could organise, detainees were set free, the press could publish with fewer restrictions, and people began to launch new magazines and newspapers.

Spring of freedom

Every stripe of opinion found expression in print. Pushing aside the go-slow conservatism of existing newspapers, new ones emerged. Bengali nationalism, socialism, communism of various hues – all found expression in print. The main Islamist party’s paper acquired a modern press. Books were not that widespread, but you could easily get your hands on Russell and English socialists, and Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao. I remember engaging in a mix of agnostic, atheist, socialist, and liberal discussions.

There is something in that sort of  "spring" that beckons the young to amplify their voice. Two friends and I wanted to publish a magazine. We came up with a name – The Rebel – and of course, a logo. We split the writing among us. I can’t remember much other than we were inclined towards independence for East Bengal. Our perspective was no doubt seditious but we couched our language with a bit of caution. Did we even know that British-era laws required that publications be registered? In that climate, we felt the state wasn’t looking all that carefully.

That spring of freedom came crashing down with the onslaught of the Pakistani military. Overnight, newspapers were suppressed, with several having their offices burned down. Journalists were killed or brought in line. Many fled. Print shops destroyed books or magazines that had been in embryo. Our magazine never made it into ink.

It was a time of silence backed up with mass murder. Dissent retreated into other forms:  underground publications, verbal channels, or through the broadcasts of the Swadhin Bangla Betar Kendra. I recall walking the streets of Dhaka and wondering, upon passing military checkpoints, could the soldiers tell that you hated them? Could they read your treasonous thoughts?

Nine months later, Bangladesh won freedom. We would shortly ratify a constitution assuring citizens of freedom of speech and expression. Once again, despite the devastation, there was a spring of freedom. New publications emerged. That space too would not be stable, falling victim to a one-party state declared by the ruling Awami League, and later, through much blood and terror, the era of military dictatorships lasting over 15 years.

Each tyranny imposed new restrictions, but they also had at their disposal the old standbys: censorship and publications regulation laws inherited from the British, and from the Pakistani legacy, enhanced state control of radio, TV, and newspapers, bolstered by intervention from the intelligence agencies.

Every so often though, some type of spring has returned in Bangladesh, pressed on by upheavals against tyranny. The end of the Ershad dictatorship saw an outpouring of new magazines and newspapers. As soon as some were banned, others took their place. From 1991, elected civilian regimes followed but these also periodically placed restrictions on expression. And if the state lagged behind, thugs connected to ruling parties, Maoist remnants, or militants of political Islam would complete the circle. Taslima Nasrin was driven out in exile, blades were brought out to assault writers like Humayun Azad and Shamsur Rahman, and journalists were injured or killed for not bowing down.

Social media

Late in 2006, I returned to Dhaka for an extended stay to work on a novel. A year earlier when I was still in California, I had begun an irregular blog. Soon after my arrival, a military regime came to power, though this one had its khaki masked by a cabinet of suit and sari wearing civilians. With a state of emergency in place, censorship was re-imposed, politicians were thrown in jail, and during a brief rebellion, students and professors were tortured and imprisoned.

In the summer of 2007, Bangladesh had its own ‘cartoon crisis’ as Islamists were outraged by a mild cartoon that mocked a certain kind of believer.  Alpin, the cartoon magazine associated with the daily Prothom Alo, was shut down, the newspaper editor went on his knees before the imam of the main mosque in Dhaka, and the cartoonist, a young man by the name of Arifur Rahman, was tossed into jail. Soon afterwards the government banned the Eid supplement of Shaptahik 2000 for carrying a personal essay by Daud Haider who had been exiled in the mid-70s for writing that offended Islamic zealots.

I remember writing a few blog posts commenting on these issues. I remember going over my words carefully, weighing the implications of every sentence. The climate forced extreme caution. One did not know who might come knocking: the police or Islamists. Thankfully no one did.

The military made a mess of things and soon bowed out. Politicians were freed, newspapers again found their voice, and a new election was held. Talk shows erupted. New blogging platforms emerged, and hundreds of people wrote posts. Then came an eruption of people joining social media: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.

Stifling dissent

There are more people in Bangladesh today expressing themselves publicly, whether it be with blogs, newspaper articles, or posts and comments on social media. What used to be simply talked about has now found their way into print and video. Those inclined to policing mentalities – and our society is rampant with this – are horrified. Isn’t this Anarchy and License? But the reality is that no one can control anything.

For example, Islamic preachers have long sermonised against Jews, Hindus, atheists, and women. Despite the law saying you cannot offend religious sensibilities, the authorities have not  cared about minority sensibilities. You can find these rants now on YouTube.

Atheists too have found a platform in a society that tends to be hostile to unbelievers. Some among them provide reasoned arguments if they are inclined to argue and educate, others rant or mock. Some voices counsel that this might not be the wisest of strategies in this society, but in the current era of technologically raised voices, who’s to decide anything? Youthful bloggers, incensed by Islamist-instigated crimes, whether in Bangladesh or worldwide, are often inclined to use sharp words. And sometimes be offensive.

There are plenty of offensive words coming from all directions. But only the Islamists respond with murder.

To them, "blogger" has become a word worthy of death. In 2013, Rajib Haider was murdered in the streets, other bloggers assaulted, and news emerged of a hit list. In the last few months, Avijit Roy and Washiqur Rahman were hacked to death in the streets of Dhaka. On social media, fundamentalists openly applaud such murders. Others who are not willing to openly support freelance murder believe the state should carry out executions: Islamist forces demand the death penalty for blasphemy.

Ultimately, though, it is the state that has to ensure a free environment. But instead of setting an example, unfortunately it is the state itself that’s taking significant steps to curb freedom of expression.

There is a new instrument in its hands: Section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006. Using this law, the government has imposed bans on YouTube, ordered blogging platforms to remove posts, and jailed people for Facebook posts, such as some that insulted the Prime Minister. The law is written broadly, people can be arrested without warrant, and it’s a non-bailable offense.

In other instances, TV channels have been pressured, talk shows on TV have been warned not to bring in certain guests, and a climate of self-censorship has descended among writers and journalists. People are afraid.

Once you encourage such an atmosphere, everyone wants to get in on the act and impose new kinds of censorship.

Courts have brought contempt of court charges against journalists, bloggers, and even mere signatories to a petition. And recently the police issued an order that any TV play or movie that portrayed police will have to get permission.

What’s next? Orders against portrayals in stories and novels? In my fiction I have portrayed police. Should I worry? Never had I dreamed that imaginative depictions would require permission.

Free speech

In today’s tech-enabled world, how much silencing is realistic? Unless you cut off the internet or have resources to control it like China, what can Bangladesh do? True, the state is investing a lot of money on hi-tech surveillance, but surely they cannot imprison everyone. People can still find their ways to platforms outside the control of the state. You might ban a physical book, or force the publisher to take it back. But what’s to prevent the text from becoming available online? How many sites can be blocked? Then people will find ways to email attachments. Word will inevitably spread.

There is another worrying concern. During times of unified opposition to military regimes, Bangladeshis have rallied around a consensus that recognizes the importance of free speech. In other times, such as now, when politics is fractured along major and minor divides, this consensus weakens considerably. When the ruling party bans opposition papers or suppresses opposition editors or journalists, their supporters applaud, justify, or go silent. Should the opposition come to power, they would act similarly and it is their supporters who would support their decrees. Meanwhile, Islamist forces demand blasphemy laws to silence certain kinds of people, and secular nationalists believe religion-based politics can be defeated with bans.

Murderers must be brought to justice and more killings thwarted, but extremism is the far end of the spectrum. So much more needs to be done than mere law enforcement. In the drive to squelch expression, the institutions of the state themselves are failing society. It is unclear how this will change until a new ‘spring’ emerges again. Under the pressures of today, voices in favor of justice, tolerance, fairness, and truth must refuse to be stilled. Restrictive laws and legacies inherited from the past – colonial, Pakistani, our own home-grown tyrannies – need to be challenged.

The country must not allow itself to be cowed into silence.

***

Also See: Statement by Concerned South Asian Journalists on David Bergman Case

This was first published in Kafila

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.