The deeply polarising effect of politics in Bangladesh
has been felt in various domains, the media included. As Bangladesh prepares
for another round of general elections to the national parliament at the end of
2013, political discord and disharmony are rising. The years since the last
general elections in 2008 have been politically stable since the Awami League
(Awami League), the party that led the country’s movement for liberation from
Pakistan, has secured alongside its allies, an impregnable majority in
parliament. But there has not been any manner of political concord. Opposition
boycotts of the proceedings of parliament and allegations of unfair pressures
on political and civil society elements inclined towards the opposition, have
been frequent.
In June 2011, the Government of Sheikh Hasina Wajed
piloted the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution through Bangladesh’s
parliament, providing another potential flashpoint for acrimony as elections
near. Among other things, the Fifteenth Amendment does away with the process of
conducting national elections under a neutral caretaker government. It reaffirms
Islam as state religion, but then enshrines the values of secularism and
freedom of faith. It officially raises Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the status of
“father of the nation”, mandates that his portraits will be displayed at key
sites of the Bangladeshi state and the offices of its main functionaries, and
incorporates into the official text of the constitution, two historic speeches
that he made in March 1971 as Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan. It
institutes strong safeguards against regime change not based on an explicit
electoral mandate. Finally, it effectively makes itself a permanent feature by
stipulating that “basic provisions of the constitution are not amendable”.
The AL has worked on the premise that its comfortable
majority, secured in the December 2008 elections, is a mandate to restore what
it portrays as the underlying values of the Bangladesh war of liberation: modernity,
secularism and equality. It also saw the electoral verdict as sanction to
conclude the unfinished agenda of its earlier term in office: bringing to
justice the assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Verdicts had been handed down
after a trial that began in 1997, more than two decades after the killing. But
a change in government in 2001 resulted in the trial process being stalled at
the appeals stage. All appeals were finally exhausted only after an elected
government under the AL assumed office in January 2009, with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s
daughter, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, only one among two members of the immediate
family to survive the mass murder of 1975, winning a second term as Prime
Minister.
Of the nine individuals convicted of Sheikh Mujib’s assassination,
all five within reach of Bangladesh’s legal system, were executed in January
2010. Even the many who oppose the death penalty on principle, recognised that accountability
was long overdue for an act of brutality that included the killing of Sheikh
Mujib’s nine-year old son. The AL reasoned that the executions were an
important part of the country’s reaffirmation of its foundational values. The
main opposition parties, the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) remained
discretely silent, choosing a quiescent mode of expressing dissent when the
public mood and media commentary seemed overwhelmingly to favour the executions
of individuals who enjoyed the BNP’s protection through the years it was in
power.
The media in Bangladesh made note of the symbolic
quality of the event and its value in reaffirming the nation’s commitment to
the rule of the law. Among all Bangladesh’s newspapers, the English-language
daily New Age had perhaps the most
distanced and critical attitude. The “political debates over the murderous
ouster of (the) Mujib regime”, it commented editorially, “would not be buried
with the burial of the bodies of the convicts”. Rather, for this to happen,
“society would require threadbare discussions and informed debates on the political
events leading to the murderous political misadventure, its political and
cultural consequences and the ways of freeing (Bangladesh’s) history from the political
hangover that the misadventure had caused 34 years ago”.
Daily Star, Bangladesh’s largest-circulated English daily, had a
more positive assessment:“It was for this nation, simply and very logically, a
return to the great idea that rule of law matters, that justice is all, that
anyone who commits a crime should not expect to get away with it. Indeed, now
that the legal process has ensured a restoration of the principle of justice,
it is time for all citizens, irrespective of political belief or party
affiliation, to reflect on the dark shadows that for long impeded our march to
a better and an egalitarian future”.
The January 2010 executions may have been one point of
closure, but several issues in the country’s contested past continue to cast
their shadow. Through 2009 and the following year, when the Sheikh Hasina
government made clear its intent to bring to trial those guilty of the worst
abuses during the 1971 war of liberation, there were hopes that a new consensus
would emerge on the four decade-long history of the country since independence.
There were realistic expectations that this in turn would be an antidote to the
divisions that have plagued civil society and the media community, especially
since the murder of Sheikh Mujib and most of his family. The institution of the
International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) soon afterwards and the opening of the war
crimes trials were thought to be the occasion for finally bringing all
unsettled disputes of ideology to consensus
The ICT has since had a troubled course, belying some
of the hopes with which it was set up. On 2 October 2011, New Age ran an article on its op-ed page titled “A crucial period
for International Crimes Tribunal”. The author David Bergman, is the New Age editor for special
investigations, a British national resident in Bangladesh since 2003, with a long-standing
interest in the Bangladesh war of liberation. The ICT took objection to certain
of the points made in the article and three days later, issued a notice asking
why the writer, along with the editor and publisher of the newspaper, should
not be cited for contempt.
Particular sections of the article that found mention
in the notice, referred to the public mood which seemingly had prejudged the
guilt of some of the individuals up for trial before the ICT, as also the
procedural weakness of seeking convictions merely on the basis of single witness
testimonies on events four decades past. The article also pointed out that the
ICT had allowed fifteen unsigned witness statements out of the forty-seven that
the prosecution had moved for. It raised questions about the ICT’s rigour in
assessing all witness depositions before purported offences were taken
cognisance of.
No contempt involved in demanding fair play
Nurul Kabir, the editor of New Age, presented a detailed response to the ICT on 23 October 2011,
speaking of the wide range of issues involved in establishing accountability
for crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of liberation. Far from seeking to
dishonour the procedures adopted by the ICT, he said, New Age had been consistently engaged in “truthful coverage of the
proceedings of the historically important trial”. The occasional “critical
analysis of the mode of operation” of the ICT was published with a view to strengthen
the judicial body’s effort at promoting “the proper administration of justice”.
The article called into question by the ICT, Kabir averred, was published in an
identical spirit of constructive criticism, to identify certain decisions which
had been “made in deviation, most likely unintended, from the standard
procedure of conducting the trial”. In the light of the “unambiguous support
that New Age (had) provided over the
years to the cause”, its readers would be left in little doubt that the intent
of the impugned article was to “help the Tribunal modify its course for the
greater credibility of its conduct”.
Kabir recalls that soon after he presented his
defence, he was complimented by the ICT on the wide range of his legal
knowledge and the skill with which he had made the case for critical scrutiny
over its proceedings. However, when the judicial body rendered a final
determination on the matter in February 2012, it was in a tone of marked
asperity. The three media persons held liable for contempt were discharged,
though not without the judicial body observing in its obiter dicta that the article in question was indeed contemptuous.
The New Age editor and the author of
the impugned article were issued a grave “caution” by the ICT and told to be
more mindful of the spirit and process of the law. In sharp contrast to its tone
when hearing Kabir’s oral testimony, the tribunal held the editor ignorant of
the “procedure of law”. Despite this, the ICT observed that the newspaper
editor chose not to engage an attorney and argue his own defence. Though the
ICT did not view the journalist’s seeming reluctance to express any form of
regret with favour, it had decided to discharge him as a gesture of its
magnanimity.
Since the hearings of the ICT commenced, there have
been reservations voiced over procedure and also its potential contribution to
national reconciliation. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon described the
process as “essential” when he visited Bangladesh in November 2011, but
international human rights bodies have been careful to underline the need for
appropriate procedures and assurances of fairness. A leading figure of the
civil society effort to document war crimes and build a broad consensus on the
need for the trial, M.A. Hassan, has conceded that the manner in which it has
been undertaken, is “fragmented”. “We have not being able to touch the tip of
the iceberg even, because 95 percent of the crimes were committed by the
Pakistani army”, he says.
Odhikar, a leading human rights monitoring and
campaigning body, has cautioned against the manner in which prosecution teams
have been conducting themselves in the full glare of the media. “Witnesses were
seen giving testimonies to teams in the presence of television cameras, which
were later broadcast. The investigation must protect the rights of victims and
witnesses, including their privacy and above all, safety”. Odhikar has drawn
attention to the need for a witness protection programme. International
observers have also cautioned that “trial by media” could jeopardise chances of
fair judicial procedure and undermine public faith in the integrity of the
trial.
Despite these well grounded reasons for close public
scrutiny over the judicial process, there is within the ruling dispensation in
Bangladesh today, an inordinate sensitivity towards any manner of criticism of
ICT proceedings. And this is a sentiment often enough, articulated through sections
of the media. In February this year, the Qatar-based satellite news channel
Al-Jazeera broadcast a report on the ICT proceedings, focusing particularly on
the trial of Ghulam Azam, former head (or ameer)
of the Jamaat e-Islami, a political party committed to religious precepts. Azam’s
opposition to the Bangladesh’s freedom was an openly-stated commitment and
following the end of the war of liberation, he spent many years in exile before
returning three years after Sheikh Mujib’s assassination. The Jamaat has since
become a significant element in Bangladesh politics, often in partnership with
the BNP. Though its ability to win seats in Parliament on its own political
programme is virtually negligible, it can often serve as the swing element in
various constituencies. And its international linkages have ensured it a vast
resource base. The Jamaat is also known to operate through a number of business
front organisations, including banks, that enhance its political clout.
In opposition circles, the prosecution of Gholam Azam,
now ninety years old, is seen as a means of quashing dissent. Within AL
circles, it is seen as a long overdue process of accountability against a political
element that has leveraged international connections, including in the oil-rich
kingdoms of the Arab world, to sustain an undeserved prominence within local politics.
Al-Jazeera’s reporting on the ICT was seen as an
element within the broader geopolitics of Islam. Daily Star responded within a day quoting a number of legal
authorities, journalists and historians, in a news-report that concluded that Al-Jazeera
could “provoke instability in Bangladesh”. This was a riposte, direct and intended,
to the Al-Jazeera reporter’s concluding lines, which said: “Whatever the
decision this court comes to, it will have dramatic consequences. It may bring
justice to many but at the price of throwing Bangladesh into further political
instability”. The following day, the newspaper ran an editorial which opened
with a strong affirmation of the right to freedom of opinion, but went on to
express “consternation” at the Al Jazeera report “saying that the ongoing war
crimes trial in Bangladesh will push the country into political instability”.
The editorial concluded by exhorting all “established international, regional
and national news organisations to avoid unnecessary speculations (sic) and
understand the fundamental purpose of international war crimes trial”.
Senior journalists that this mission met in Dhaka
spoke of the ICT as a very sensitive process. The Al Jazeera report may have
been overly critical and needlessly supportive of Islamist groups. A contrary
opinion within the media community in Dhaka, held the fuss rather misplaced.
The Al Jazeera report was no more than three minutes long and the editorial
outrage that it provoked may have been, they commented, more an index of extreme
insecurity than anything else.
In April 2012, the ICT summoned the editor and a
reporter of the Bangla daily Sangram
after it had published a report, sourced to a group of lawyers in the district
of Feni, criticising the decision to take on board fifteen witness testimonies
gathered by a police official as evidence in the trial of another Jamaat
leader, Delawar Hossain Sayedee. After hearing their defence, the tribunal ordered
the two journalists detained till it rose for the day. Since the contempt
matter was taken up towards the end of the day’s deliberations, this did not
mean more than a half-hour’s detention for the journalists, within the ICT
premises.
Journalists in Bangladesh are worried that under the
law that invests the ICT with its powers, all its verdicts can be appealed before
the Supreme Court. A conviction for contempt, which could run upto a year’s
imprisonment, a fine of BDT five thousand, or both, cannot be appealed. Spokespersons
for the ICT that this mission met, concede that this is an extraordinary
judicial authority which for precisely that reason, they are committed to using
sparingly and leniently. They are insistent though, that media commentary that
undermines faith in a process that the people regard as a vital part of coming
to terms with their history, cannot go uncensored or unremarked.
Amar Desh faces continuing persecution
One newspaper that faces constant threats and legal harassment
is Amar Desh, which was in 2009, bought
over by technocrat Mahmudur Rahman and transformed into a platform for critical
reporting and analysis of the current government’s actions. Mahmudur Rahman who
worked as advisor on energy policy and chair of an investment promotion body
under the BNP government voted into office in 2001, denies any political motive
in buying up the newspaper. Amar Desh,
he says, was in financially straitened circumstances in 2009 and staff were
anxiously looking for an infusion of investor funds that could keep the
newspaper afloat. Mahmudur Rahman at that point liquidated his holdings in a
ceramics business and put some part of the money into the revival of Amar Desh.
In December 2009, Amar
Desh carried a story, credited to special correspondent, M. Abdullah, about
a transaction with a U.S. oil company, concluded on the specific recommendation
of a top policy adviser to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed. Abdullah was
attacked within days of this report appearing in the vicinity of his office in
the Kawran Bazar area of Dhaka. The windshields of his car were smashed by the
attackers. The journalist only managed to escape serious physical injury by sprinting
the short distance to the safety of his office. A few days later, the first of
many defamation cases was filed against Amar
Desh, naming its editor and publisher as principal respondents. Mahmudur
Rahman secured anticipatory bail protecting himself from arrest in theses
cases, but on 11 February 2010, he was attacked in Dhaka. Though not injured,
the car in which he was travelling was badly damaged.
Mahmudur Rahman’s application for a change of
ownership filed with the consent of the former owner of Amar Desh in March 2010, was rejected on the grounds that the
numerous criminal cases he faced made him ineligible for ownership stakes in
any form of new media. In June 2010, the government of Bangladesh cancelled the
“declaration”, or the registration under local law of Amar Desh, on grounds that it was in breach of law in having no
authorised or identifiable publisher. The order closing down the newspaper
followed the formal receipt of this recommendation from the Special Branch of
the local police establishment.
Mahmudur Rahman managed to fight off the closure
order, securing a stay from the High Court division of the Bangladesh Supreme
Court. Domestic law also empowers the Bangladesh Press Council (BPC) to
intervene and restore the registration of newspapers when there is valid ground
to suspect malafide in any
termination of the permission to publish. In June 2010, Mahmudur Rahman was
arrested on the basis of a complaint reportedly extracted from the earlier
publisher of Amar Desh, which alleged
that the story published on the energy deal with a U.S. oil company, was
without basis or foundation. His arrest was effected at the Kawran Bazar office
of Amar Desh by squads of uniformed
and heavily armed police, at just the time that the day’s edition was being put
to press. Kawran Bazar being a node of the media industry in Dhaka, a number of
news crews quickly assembled at the Amar
Desh office, transmitting the spectacle in real time to numerous viewers. Condemnations
from the media community followed instantly.
The police station that Mahmudur Rahman was taken to,
became the venue of a spontaneous political protest by the BNP and other
elements of the political opposition. Mahmudur Rahman was held in custody as
multiple cases were registered against him. Though eligible under most charges
he faced, he failed to secure bail. In August 2010, he was handed a conviction
by the Supreme Court , along with reporter Walullah Noman and the publisher of Amar Desh, on charges of contempt. The
contempt petition was moved by two members of the bar after Amar Desh carried a story on April 21
suggesting that the Supreme Court bench was predisposed towards making
decisions favourable to the incumbent government.
Waliullah Noman was given a month in prison and a fine
of Bangladesh Taka (BDT) 10,000 (USD 150 at then prevalent exchange rates), and
Mahmudur Rahman, six months in prison and a fine of BDT 100,000. Publisher
Hashmat Ali was fined BDT 10,000. Two other staff members of Amar Desh were discharged after they
tendered full and unconditional apologies.
This was reportedly the first conviction for contempt
handed down by the country’s highest court. The verdict, delivered by the full
bench of the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, left no options for appeal. Journalists’
organisations and press freedom bodies in Bangladesh were divided in their
response to the issue, since Mahmudur Rahman had been associated with the party
then in opposition and was seen by many to be pursuing oppositional politics
through newly acquired media interests.
The editorial response though sceptical, tended to be
cautious and respectful of the judicial verdict. Daily Star commented that the contempt convictions did nothing to
enhance the “dignity of the judiciary”. Referring to the institution-building
process underway since the return to civilian elected government less than two
years before, the editorial observed: “What we need now is a wise leadership of
the supreme judiciary towards strengthening all institutions that bring more
freedom to individuals and accountability of all institutions, including the
judiciary.”
Irene Khan, well-known Bangladeshi commentator and
former head of human rights watchdog Amnesty International, commented that “the
law should provide a clear definition of contempt and procedural safeguards in
keeping with modern best practice”. But the responsibility did not lie with the
judiciary alone, she argued: “The symbiotic relationship between the media and
the judiciary places an obligation on the media to acknowledge that along with
its freedom comes responsibility - the responsibility of fair reporting.”
Mahmudur Rahman and Oliullah Noman served their full
sentences and in the case of the former, an additional month for refusing to
pay the stipulated fine. Since his release in March 2011, Rahman has had to
respond to multiple cases of defamation brought against him, mostly by leaders
and activists of the AL. On 27 March 2012 the Dhaka Metroptan Magistrate framed
charges against him and five others, including Oliullah Noman, in the
defamation case brought by the Bangladesh Telecom Regulatory Commission (BTRC)
for a story alleging that Indian nationals were being appointed to key
positions in the body.
Mahmudur Rahman today, by his own estimation, faces no
fewer than fifty-three cases, and several of these involve charges by AL
members over articles published in Amar
Desh, one of which said that several war criminals were sheltering within
the ruling party. Aside from the BTRC defamation case, charges have also been
framed in a case of rioting and obstruction of the police, arising from the demonstration
conducted by opposition political parties outside the police station where he
was taken after his June 2010 arrest. Mahmudur Rahman is currently required to
appear in courtrooms roughly three times every week in response to various
summons.
The official story on Amar Desh has convinced very few in Bangladesh. Yet several
journalists’ groups have refrained from getting involved in his cause because of
a persistent belief that it is less about professional matters and more politics
by other means.
Channels blocked
Amar Desh’s travails reflect the rising degree of rancour in political
exchanges as elections near. One among many flashpoints in recent months, was
the political rally by the national opposition in Dhaka on 12 March 2012, when
three television channels were blocked for viewers in the city for the duration
of a speech by BNP leader, Khaleda Zia. The three channels — Ekushey Television, BanglaVision and
Islamic TV — were inaccessible for
viewers between 3 pm that day, approximately an hour before the opposition
leader began her address, until 6:30 pm, after she concluded. Staff at the
affected TV channels revealed that the Cable Operators’ Association of
Bangladesh (COAB) had been asked by the government to suspend transmission of
the three channels for this length of time. There were also reports that
emerged then, that BTRC, which grants licences for use of the broadcast
spectrum, may have directly intervened with certain channels to dissuade them
from covering the opposition rally live.
Following this, notice was issued to Ekushey TV by the
National Board of Revenue for failure to submit tax returns for three years. The
channel claimed that it was yet to complete a financial audit for the years in
question since it was preparing for an initial public offering (IPO) of shares.
The alibi may not have been very strong, but the event fed into the story of
deep partisan divisions and a vindictive attitude by those in authority towards
media outlets that do not offer unconditional support to the AL.
BTRC has twice in the recent past, stopped TV channels
on grounds that they did not have prior clearance to utilise the broadcast
spectrum. In September 2007, with Bangladesh under a military-backed caretaker
government after the AL and BNP failed to agree on a civilian administration
that would oversee general elections, CSB Television was taken off the air by
order of the BTRC. This followed a caution issued by the regulatory body two
weeks before, warning the channel not to broadcast any “provocative” news
items, talk shows or documentaries.
In November 2009, under the current regime, the BTRC
withdrew its allocation of broadcast spectrum space to Jamuna TV on the grounds
that it had illegally begun operations even before gaining formal permission.
After a seven-month long legal battle, the decision was upheld by the High
Court Division of the Supreme Court and Jamuna TV advised to apply afresh for
an allocation of broadcast spectrum space.
Late in April 2010, the private TV broadcaster,
Channel One, was ordered closed by the Bangladesh Telecom Regulatory Commission
(BTRC) on the grounds that it had handed over imported equipment to another
user without proper authorisation. The government denied any partisan motive
behind the decision, but it did not pass comment that the channel was owned by
a former member of parliament said to be close to the BNP leadership. Rumours
afloat at the time were that pressure had been exerted to transfer the channel’s
ownership to near relatives of the Awami League leadership.
Heightening confrontation
In February 2012, a coup attempt by Islamist elements
within the army was seemingly discovered and thwarted. Around then, Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajid raised the temperature in her war of words with
the opposition. Press freedom as an issue was debunked. As the Prime Minister
then said, the media was guilty of “exaggeration”. Under the freedom her regime
had granted, the press was “writing at its will, no matter what is right and
what is wrong”. This was a freedom that it did not enjoy when parties in
opposition at the time were in authority. As she said it then, the press used
to receive “invisible advice” from certain quarters all through the BNP’s
tenure in office that began in 2001. Not one of the cases of the sixteen
journalists killed during that time had been properly investigated, she said.
The ruling party followed with a mass rally on 7 March
2012, clearly to pre-empt the opposition show of strength of 13 March.
Disruptions caused to civic life in the city featured widely in media reporting
of the 7 March rally. When the government took recourse to extraordinary
measures to ensure that the opposition rally of 13 March was deprived of mass
participation and denied due media coverage, editorial commentary tended to be
extremely critical. The Daily Star, which
by no means is adversely disposed towards the government, commented
editorially: “The tragedy for the AL is that in attempting to suppress the
opposition it has suppressed the citizens. Ordinary people were subjected to
indescribable sufferings just to prevent the BNP from holding its rally. .... We also condemn the fact that the mass media,
especially the electronic media, were prevented from fully carrying out their
professional duties during yesterday's opposition programme. Several TV
stations were barred from airing uninterrupted live coverage of the rally. A
few channels that were covering stories of public sufferings during the course
of the day were visited by intelligence people and told to tone down their
coverage. In other cases the cable operators were partially prevailed upon to
take some channels off the air during the peak hours of the opposition's rally.
Such blatant interference in the media's function amounts to suppression of the
freedom of the media and public's inalienable right to know”.
Soon afterwards, it was reported that nineteen
journalists in the south-western district of Pirojpur had presented themselves
to the district police station on March 14, demanding protection from threats issued
by the district branch of the ruling party at a public rally the previous day.
The journalists were reportedly threatened with violence following their publication
in local newspapers of critical reports about two members of the elected district
council. The reports, which alleged that two local politicians had been
involved in corruption and nepotism, were subsequently republished by daily
newspapers and news channels based in Dhaka. Members of the ruling party were
then reported to have told the journalists that if they continued publishing
critical reports about the two elected members of the district council, they
would be forced to leave town or “chopped into pieces and buried”.
There has been a considerable decline in tolerance
levels for free media commentary since the early days of the Sheikh Hasina
regime. To recall, within a year of Sheikh Hasina taking office in her latest
tenure as Prime Minister, the Bangladesh cabinet formally approved an amendment
to the criminal procedure code, which granted immunity against arrest to
editors, publishers, journalists and writers in defamation cases. A provision
of the Special Powers Act 1974 that allowed government to shut down newspapers
at will was also repealed in the first year of the new government’s tenure.
The Bangladesh Press Council (BPC), which was set up
in 1974 and went into a period of oblivion before being revived in 1993, has powers
of censure and admonishment. It can also act in defence of media rights by
intervening when there is ground to suspect malafide cancellations of media registrations.
Over the years, the council has evolved a point of view which holds that
journalism is a profession that requires licensing. The model the BPC had in
mind is analogous to the certification of legal or medical practitioners by
empowered professional councils in Bangladesh, as also various other countries.
The idea of licensed journalists, while seemingly
rather outlandish, does have some traction in the Bangladesh media community.
More than anything else, this is an indication of how deeply the imperative of
a professional code of ethics is felt among the country’s journalists. The
applicable code promulgated by the BPC, includes a declaration in its preamble
that the “war of liberation, its spirit and ideals must be sustained and
upheld, and anything repugnant relative to the war of liberation and its spirit
and ideals must not be printed, published or disseminated in any manner by the
press”.
Quite clearly, this diktat of what is acceptable or
not in media practice imposes too stringent a norm, prone to arbitrary
interpretation and abuse. As a plural society, despite its relatively high
degree of linguistic uniformity, Bangladesh is home to a variety of ideas and
opinions about the war of liberation that brought the nation into being in
1971. By seeking to bring homogeneity to this multiplicity of views, the media
code proposed by the BPC was seen to make little contribution to media ethics
or freedom.
The BPC has had its moral victories in recent times.
Early in 2011, it issued severely critical decisions about two Bangla
newspapers Kaler Kantho and Bangladesh Pratidin that had carried
reports indicating that Matiur Rahman, editor of the country’s largest
circulated newspaper Prothom Alo, was
among other things, in a grenade attack on an AL political rally in 2004. Both the
newspapers under scrutiny belong to the Basundhara business group, which has
extensive interests in real estate and other sectors.
The polemic against Matiur Rahman, a fighter in the
country’s war of liberation and a recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay award in
journalism, was later taken up by the Daily
Sun, another newspaper from the Basundhara group. In July 2011, the veteran
journalist Abed Khan resigned as editor of Kaler
Kantho, heeding the BPC’s strictures and placing on record his repeated
efforts to correct the aberrant reports on Matiur Rahman, which nonetheless
were featured under pressure from his newspaper’s proprietors.
Khairuzzaman Kamal of the Bangladesh Manobadhikar
Songbadik Forum (BMSF, or the Bangladesh Human Rights Reporters’ Forum) and
other senior journalists have in recent times been actively campaigning to
raise public awareness about the growing corporate control of the media. The
integration of the media into a wider web of business relations, these
activists argue, would seriously undermine its independence. The Transcom
Group, which controls Prothom Alo and
Daily Star, the country’s largest
dailies in Bangla and English, has interests in processed foods and beverages,
and electronics and electrical equipment among numerous others. The Basundhara
group is involved in cement, real estate and steel. The Destiny group which
runs Boisakhi TV channel, built its fortune on multi-level marketing and today
faces serious criminal charges over financial wrongdoing. The Jamuna Group,
which publishes the Bangla daily Jugantor,
has at various times in its existence, had interests in textiles, real estate,
chemicals and numerous other sectors. And the ATN group which launched
Bangladesh’s first satellite TV channel has also ventured into textiles, among
numerous other sectors.
“A handful of powerful business groups have been
taking control of the expanding media market”, says the BMSF: “Corporate groups
are demanding relaxation of rules on media ownership and spending vast sums on political
donations which are designed to influence policy decisions”.
Competition between business groups is known to fuel a
degree of political partisanship, which in turn feeds into the media world,
undermining journalistic values of distance and dispassion
A seeming political vendetta
On 31 July 2011, Mohammad Ekramul Haq, editor of the
Sheersha News web portal and the associated weekly newspaper Sheersha Kagoj was arrested at his home
in a neighbourhood of Dhaka on charges of extortion. He was led away
blindfolded and his family dealt with roughly by the police making the arrest. Charges
were made against him of sending two reporters to the office of a local
businessman a week before, to threaten him with negative news stories on the
Sheersha News website, if a sum of BDT two million was not handed over
These charges were challenged by other journalists,
including staff at Sheersha News, who claimed that the businessman who made the
complaint against Haq before a local magistrate did not have his offices in the
premises named in the complaint. Initially remanded for two days on orders of
the Dhaka city magistrate, Haq’s remand was extended by another two days on
August 3, after fresh charges of extortion were laid against him by the leader
of an association of Bangladesh government employees. He was finally granted
bail after three months in detention. In granting bail on 25 October 2011, the
Bangladesh High Court observed that the principal complainant in the case of
extortion, a fruit trader from the capital Dhaka, had furnished an identity and
address which proved false. Shockingly, Haq was rearrested at the gates of a
Dhaka prison on 1 November, at the moment of his release on bail. A fresh case
of extortion was filed on the basis of a complaint from an official of the
income tax department in Dhaka.
The government of Bangladesh meanwhile, challenged the
High Court bench order granting bail before the Supreme Court, which heard the
matter on 2 November 2011, and declined to stay it. Meanwhile, a Dhaka trial
court on 9 November ordered his continuing detention in the new cases that had
been filed. Five days later, the High Court issued an injunction against
implicating him in any further cases and ordered an end to the harassment. Yet
it was only on 25 November 2011 that Haq was released from prison.
The course of the cases brought against Haq, the
hearings and the final outcome of the bail process lent credence to initial
suspicions that the multiple charges brought against him were part of a political
vendetta. Observers within Bangladesh suggested that his arrest may have been retribution
for news reports carried on his website and newspaper regarding allegations of corruption
in public works projects in Dhaka.
Haq himself is baffled by the number of complainants
who came up to file cases against him, none of which he has ever had the
slightest dealing with. He is aware that personnel from the Directorate of
Field Intelligence, an army unit, were involved in his interrogation while in
custody. Circumstantial evidence he suggests, points towards the involvement of
the head of this unit, a serving army officer of the Major-General rank in his
detention, interrogation and torture.
Independent human rights organisations believe that
Haq has been victim of serious injustice. They have joined the campaign for his
release but believes that they need a greater degree of transparency from the
victimised journalist if they are to deepen their commitment to his cause.
There is a belief among some human rights defenders, that Haq may have had some
dealings with Field Intelligence operatives in earlier years and that the
vendetta against him may have been occasioned by a change of personnel within
the unit or by a agreement gone sour. Without further information, their
involvement in his cause, they say, would
be difficult.
Defamation charges continue to be a weapon that political
figures deploy against the media. On 13 September 2011, the Dhaka Metroptan
Magistrate issued a summons to three journalists from the Bangla language daily
Jugantor, after defamation charges
were laid against them by Shahjahan Khan, a minister in the Bangladesh government.
Charges were brought against editor Salma Islam, executive editor Saiful Alam
and reporter Jashim Chowdhury following the publication of two reports which
questioned the high expenses incurred in foreign travel by the minister and his
political associates.
A court in Jhenaidah district in the west of the
country on 31 January 2012 convicted a local student, son of a political leader
of the Jamaat e-Islami party, for publishing “objectionable and misleading
information” on the social networking site Facebook. The individual concerned
had been assaulted by loyalists of the AL after he reportedly wrote what were
deemed derogatory words about Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on his Facebook page. In
declining the plea for leniency as he ordered the student jailed, the
magistrate said that there was sufficient documentary evidence available to
warrant a summary conclusion of guilt.
Traumatic twin murder
One of the most traumatic events of recent times was
the twin murder of a journalist couple, Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi, in
their home in Dhaka on 11 February 2012. Sarowar was a news editor for private
television channel Maasranga, and his wife Runi was a senior reporter with
another private television channel, ATN Bangla. Their bodies, both bearing deep
stab wounds, were discovered on the morning of 12 February by a five-year old
son.
As the official investigation failed to make much
headway, Bangladesh’s journalists observed a one-hour work stoppage on 27
February. The demands for a thorough investigation and the swift arrest of
those responsible, were made by a broad coalition of media organisations.
Failing to get much of a response, the journalists unions began a relay hunger-strike
on March 2.
Dhaka city police for their part, indicated they had a
fair idea of the motive behind the crime, but could not reveal any details
because that, ostensibly, would impede the investigation. A city court
meanwhile, issued an order restraining “speculative media commentary” on the
matter. This was read by many as an effort to restrain legitimate investigative
journalism. At the time that this report is sent to press, there has been no
progress in the investigations, at least as far as the public are aware.
On 20 May 2012, Mahfuzur Rahman, chairman of the ATN
Bangla group mentioned at a formal gathering in London, that he had evidence
about the double murder which indicated that it had nothing to do with
journalism. Bangladesh’s journalist unions have since demanded that he either
make the evidence public or withdraw the statement. As the stalemate persisted,
the journalists organisations announced plans early in September to launch
demonstrations outside the ATN Bangla office demanding police interrogation of
Mahfuzur Rahman. An effort by Mahfuzur Rahman to secure a judicial injunction
was not entertained and the demonstration went ahead. At the time of writing,
the police are yet to reveal how far the investigations have proceeded, despite
a public assurance by a senior government official that important information
would be made public by 10 October.
The struggle for wages and working conditions
Despite their other differences, Bangladesh’s main
journalists’ unions forged a common platform, the Sangbadik Shramik Karmachari
Oikya Parishad (SSKOP, or United Committee of Working Journalists and Newspaper
Employees) and organised early in March 2012 to demand the formal notification
of a new wage fixation body. This followed the failure of Bangladesh’s Ministry
for Information to formally constitute the eighth wage board for the newspaper
industry through gazette by the end of February, despite an assurance from Information
Minister Abul Kalam Azad at a meeting with the Bangladesh Federal Union of
Journalists (BFUJ) on 22 January.
Within days of Bangladesh’s journalists resolving on
pressing their demand for a new wage deal, the Newspaper Owners’ Association of
Bangladesh (NOAB) mobilised in opposition. "Forming a new wage board three
and a half years after the seventh wage board award will put the newspaper industry
into a big crisis," NOAB said in a statement issued on 19 March. The SSKOP responded within a day with the
suggestion that the newspaper owners, rather than resist the formation of a
body mandated by law, should adopt a strategy of cooperation in a spirit of
transparency and openness.
Seven wage boards have been formed so far under a law
adopted by Bangladesh’s parliament in 1974. The newspaper industry has resisted
each of these and only complied with the statutory wage awards decreed after
losing legal battles that have gone upto the country’s highest courts. The
record of compliance remains patchy and uneven, with several of the new media
outlets that began operations in recent boom years choosing to ignore the
imperative of decent wages. The Eighth Wage Board was announced by the
Government of Bangladesh after representations from the country’s journalists
about increasing costs of living and growing job insecurity. A chair was
nominated for the board and the various stakeholders from among news industry
employees, including both sides of the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists
(BFUJ) have named their representatives for the board. Yet the formal
notification was delayed since news industry owners continue to resist.
It was only in June 2012 that the full Wage Board was
constituted, headed by Kazi Ebadul Haq Chaudhary, a former judge of the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and a former Chair of the BPC.
Ethical standards
Questions of media ethics and best practices continue
to feature in the public debate. Illustratively, in a statement before
parliament in October 2010, the Minister for Information said that he was
engaged in talks with leaders of journalists’ organisations towards evolving an
appropriate professional code of conduct. This followed a searing, two-hour
long attack on the media on the floor of parliament by ruling party members.
According to media observers, the immediate provocation for the
parliamentarians’ ire were two reports published in Prothom Alo, a prominent Bangla-language newspapers on inadmissible
perks that they had claimed, including in terms of duty exemptions for imported
cars and overseas travel allowances. The editor of the newspaper, Matiur
Rahman, was mentioned by name and members called for legal action against him.
Among the measures proposed by Bangladesh’s
Information Minister then was a stipulation that anybody appointed to the
editor’s position in a media outlet would need to have a minimum number
(typically, around fifteen) years of experience in journalism. Needless to say,
the media community has pushed back strongly against this effort to fetter its
functioning while affirming their commitment to a voluntary code of
self-regulation.
Reflecting the spirit of confrontation between government
and media, private television channels were directed by an official
notification issued in September 2010 to carry at least two news bulletins from
the state-owned broadcaster every day. Again the private channels pushed back
strongly, arguing that the two proposed time-slots of 2 pm and 8 pm, were
valuable in terms of harvesting advertisement revenue and could not be wasted
in broadcasting the drab news content of the state-owned television. In their
official response, ministers and government officials have indicated that they
are inclined to adopt a course of friendly persuasion and consultation to
ensure compliance both with the directive on news broadcasts and a code of
ethics.
Targeted and random attacks
Journalists continue facing attacks from official
quarters and other actors. These are on occasion motivated by specific issues
connected to the professional conduct of the individuals concerned, though
often these are opportunistic or random attacks on individuals who happen to be
at the venue of some fracas performing their jobs.
Beginning in October 2007, Jahangir Alam Akash, a
young journalist working in the northern Rajshahi district of Bangladesh, was
picked up by the Rapid Action Battalion, an anti-terrorist squad, after he had
published a number of reports on suspected extra-judicial killings. The charge
against him was extortion. He was held in detention for several months and
every effort to secure bail or discharge was thwarted by the device of filing
more cases. He was finally set free after six months in detention and many
months later, went into exile.
In October 2009, F.M. Masum, a staff reporter of the
English-language New Age, was taken into custody by RAB personnel. Masum was
assaulted on the doorstep of his home, ostensibly because he had delayed
opening the door. Masum identified himself as a journalist, but was bound by
his hands and feet, taken to the local RAB centre and severely tortured. Though
it may be the case that Masum was picked up as a part of a wide dragnet that
the RAB had spread in an effort ostensibly to track down a drug dealer, his
troubles became more acute when his identity as a reporter with a critical
newspaper was established. Masum’s was a rare case when official agencies
released the detained person and subsequently admitted to their error. But
there has been no action against the people responsible for his torture.
Other cases of journalists being assaulted while
covering public events involving some degree of disorder are common. A recent
instance was the police assault on a number of journalists on September 26,
when they were at the venue of a demonstration by a youth organisation. The
unions then responded with a sense of unity, compelling prompt action by the
government. The head of the police station was suspended, as were eight of his
subordinates.
Community radio on the rise
The growth of community radio broadcasting in
Bangladesh could possibly hold the key to a more participatory and democratic
media culture in the country. Several civil society organisations, had for long
been campaigning for a liberalised policy environment for establishing
community radio stations in Bangladesh. Among the last key decisions of the
caretaker government that administered the country during the period of
national “emergency” was a community radio policy that was relatively free of
restrictions, and applications for broadcasting licences were invited in 2008.
Following the processing of a number of applications,
a preliminary list of 116 was selected. After another long process of vetting,
the Ministry of Information accorded primary approval to 12 entities for
installing and operating community radio stations in April 2010. Another two
licences were granted in a second round of approval a few weeks later. An
evaluation of these initial licensees remains to be done. Questions of
viability and utility to the community that is the putative beneficiary of each
of these stations, need to be addressed.
Initiators of community radio face enormous
challenges. They were given a very tight one-year deadline to commence
broadcasting against the very tight one-year deadline, but frequency
allocations and equipment purchase orders were only approved after a lapse of
several months. Bangladesh has stepped way ahead of all other South Asian
countries, except Nepal in the manner in which it has liberalised community
radio broadcasting. There remain glitches in converting the promise of the policy
to reality, but it is undoubtedly the next frontier of media development and
growth in the country.
Right to information
A right to information (RTI) law was introduced as an
ordinance issued by the “emergency” regime in 2008. It was subsequently drafted
as a formal act and passed by Bangladesh’s parliament early in 2009. By global
standards, the act is considered rather modest in terms of the entitlements it
confers on citizens. The constitution of the bodies that will oversee the exercise
of the right and ensure that it is honoured, has also on occasion been a
contentious process. As with any legislative initiative measure that seeks to
introduce radical measures of accountability, the RTI process has a long way to
travel in Bangladesh. Various civil society actors have been getting involved
in the process of raising public awareness of the law. And media practitioners
expect that they will also be part of that process of positive change.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This situation report was prepared by the IFJ as part
of its continuing engagement with partners in Bangladesh. An IFJ representative
travelled to Bangladesh in May 2012 to consult with media professionals in the
capital city of Dhaka towards preparing this report. The role of Khairuzzaman
Kamal of the Bangladesh Manobadhikar Songbadik Forum (BMSF) and senior
journalist Saleem Samad in facilitating this visit is gratefully acknowledged.
In addition, the IFJ would like to place on record its gratitude to the
following persons for sharing insights and information:
·
Abdul Jaleel Bhuiyan, Bangladesh Federal Union of
Journalists
·
Abdus Shahid, Dhaka Union of Journalists
·
Adilur Rahman Khan, Odhikar
·
Ata-ur Rahman, Bangladesh Journalists’ Rights Forum
·
Azizur Rahim ‘Peu’, Senior Photojournalist
·
David Bergman, New
Age
·
Ekramul Haq Chaudhaury, Sheersha News
·
Haroon Habeeb, Senior Journalist
·
Iqbal Sobhan Chaudhary, Bangladesh Federal Union of
Journalists
·
Mahmudur Rahman, Acting Editor, Amar Desh
·
Mainul Islam Khan, Bangladesh Centre for Development,
Journalism and Communication
·
Mohammad Nur Khan Liton, Ain o Salish Kendra
·
Monjurul Ehsan Bulbul, Boisakhi TV
·
Naimul Islam Khan, Editor, Amader Samay
·
Nasiruddin Elan, Odhikar
·
Nurul Kabir, Editor, New Age
·
Oliullah Noman, Correspondent, Amar Desh
·
P.K. Das, Justice (retired) Supreme Court of
Bangladesh and Chairman, Bangladesh Press Council.
·
Rahnuma Ahmed, Columnist, New Age
·
Rubul Amin Ghazi, Bangladesh Federal Union of
Journalists
·
Shahidul Alam, Pathsala and Drik Academy
·
Shamsul Hoque Tuku, Minister of State for Home Affairs
No comments:
Post a Comment