Fleeting moments and freedom of expression

By Fazal M. Kamal

To begin with we must thank the Brits, a.k.a. the one-time colonial masters of the South Asian subcontinent and other places, for introducing rules, regulations, laws, et al meant specifically to curb the enthusiasm of the press. Hence the very first censorship law in this region was enacted, in their wisdom, way back in 1799. Yes, you read that right: back in 1799. Since then, as history is my witness, we, i.e. the government operating on behalf of the people and for their welfare, haven’t stopped promulgating new regulations and newer modes of tightening the leash on the media.

Not all that amazingly, even in 2014, that is after a lapse of three hundred years in one direction, and two years ago in another direction, this was what this scribe had observed: “Now, in addition to all these acts meant to intimidate and stifle all dissenting voices, newer ‘policies’ are being enacted to monitor the electronic media; policies that include controlling even the minutest details of discussions on the TV. Evidently all this is in line with the fears that New Age editor Nurul Kabir expressed: ‘Given the fact that the incumbents of the day have closed two television stations and two mainstream newspapers, it’s only natural that they are planning to control the media in general for their own political convenience. This is a clear violation of democratic freedom of expression of the media as well as of the people in general.’”

This writer’s observation went on to state, “Moreover, the apparent plan of the government not to provide any space to its political adversaries clearly cannot bode well for the country. A pugnacious approach, as adopted by the governing party and the administration, with the enthusiastic complicity of the state’s security apparatus, can only keep tension and uncertainty at an unnecessarily elevated level … Given the extant backdrop, it won’t be incongruous to quote Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch who said only a couple of weeks back, ‘The situation in Bangladesh is spiraling into a human rights crisis, with the possible return of suspicious killings by security forces, which we haven’t seen in recent years. The governing Awami League complained bitterly about crossfire killings while in opposition, but it doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop them now that it’s in power. It’s time for the prime minister to make a public statement condemning killings and torture, and hold the security forces accountable.’”

It’s horrifying how appropriately predictable the situation was feared to evolve even two years back. As a consequence, not only does Bangladesh right now has a plethora of laws and acts---with more on the way still---that can ensnare any opinion or news outlet in any number of ways but additionally there’s a palpable apprehension of falling afoul of the powers that be if merely the “wrong” kind of comments are made or if any act of omission or commission is even perceived to be “unpalatable”. In these circumstances the continued incarceration of a number of senior media professionals in no way alleviates the fretfulness of those who must labor away at the only profession they know and, more importantly, the only vocation they prefer to practice.

The fact, however, is that right now efforts to throttle and/or emasculate the media and intimidate media practitioners have become a worldwide phenomenon, even a race for a crown. Apparently, governments of two countries seem to be trying their damndest to outdo each other in this sphere with, probably, Egypt, at this moment at least, beating out Turkey by a nostril. Certainly, dozens of other administrations around the world are taking full advantage of the so-called war on terror to subdue free expression in order to perpetuate their grip on state power---fleeting it may be when viewed against the canvas of history.

But then, we can only assume, the pull of power, pelf and authority is so overwhelming that rulers have more often than not opted to experience that irresistible ephemeral moment in the spacetime continuum. Realities be damned---as exemplified by administration leaders claiming after every unsolved murder, it’s only an “isolated incident.”

For now though let me conclude with the words be of theorist, economist, philosopher and revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, “Without general elections, without freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, without the free battle of opinions, life in every public institution withers away, becomes a caricature of itself…”

This will serve us well---only if we know how to heed.