Worst victims in South Asia
By
Saleem Samad
MOST journalists in Bangladesh who were silenced, victims of violence
and intimidation was because for only one reason: They attempted
to make a tradition of “democratic accountability”,
“good governance” and “transparency” which
was literally absent here since independence in 1971.
After
the democratically elected governments of Begum Khaleda Zia and
Shiekh Hasina stepped into the democratic regime, a new wave of
journalism were practised and encouraged. Thus began the era of
in-depth and investigative journalism. Though the sabre-rattling
Islamic fanatics had risen during the military era, but they demonstrated
their vengeance against the press during the democratic regime.
Giving another scenario, several newspapers are providing adequate
space to stories that deliberately probed into democratic accountability
of the elected public offices and institutions funded from public
exchequer.
This
journalism has been irksome to elected representatives, ruling
political parties, civil authority, police administration, and
military bureaucracy, which often turned violent. These institutions
failed to restrain their vengeance against media practitioners
when consecutive governments were thrice elected (1991, 1996 &
2001) under neutral governments. These perpetrators of the press
have institutionalised in the society. Now the perpetrators enjoy
impunity in a democratic society.
Virtually
most print journalists practice self-censorship to some degree,
and are reluctant to criticise politically influential persons
either in the government or in the opposition. However, some journalists
do take initiatives. Many journalists cite fear of possible harassment,
retaliation, or physical harm as a reason to avoid sensitive stories.
THE
decade (1991-2001) was occupied with intolerance and dogmatism
among the ruling party and opposition political activists and
police. Death squads hired by beneficiaries of the power lobbies
silenced eleven journalists and 63 journalists were arrested or
illegally detained by police, most of them under dreaded Special
Powers Act of 1974, Official Secrecy Act of 1980, Public Safety
Act 2000 and notorious Section 54 under Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.PC). The pattern of violence against the press in the last
ten years shows democratic tolerance of freedom of expression
is non-existent in the country.
Both
the ruling party and opposition political camps contributed to
violation of freedom of press. Most of the brutalities unleashed
on the journalists brewed from political tension during the clamped
down of “Hartal” by opposition parties which is irrationally
handled by police and ruling party activists. Street violence
and bomb blasts are wedded to all nation-wide general strikes
called by the opposition. The opposition has been urged by civil
society and media professional bodies to abstain from violence
and attacks on journalists. There has been no change of attitude
among the opposition when they try to enforce shutdown for political
reasons causing miseries to millions of people.
Even
human rights activists, especially the NGOs and academicians,
ignore the degree of freedom of press permitted as an indicator
of monitoring democratic progress. Short listing human rights
violations in the country, the NGOs do not identify the violence
inflicted on the journalists and newspapers.
IN
the past, consecutive heads of Bangladesh governments of Shiekh
Mujibur Rahman, General Ziaur Rahman, General Ershad, Begum Khaleda
Zia and Shiekh Hasina have all echoed “exercising freedom
of press” but often reprimanded the press. No tangible steps
have been taken by any government to free the press, except of
lifting of pre-censorship imposed by the military regimes. The
restrictive laws which governs the media still exists, the state
constitution provides limited freedom of press and state parties
traditionally exercise the draconian laws.
Despite
electoral pledge by mainstream political parties during the general
elections of 1991, 1996 and 2001, the political parties whoever
governed the nation have done little for fulfilling their political
commitment. After each elections in 1991, 1996 and 2001, democratically
elected parties of Bangladesh Nationalists Party (BNP) led by
Khaleda Zia and Awami League led by Shiekh Hasina came to power
deliberately added to the lists of draconian laws to discipline
the “offending” press.
During
the democratic regime, it seems that the perpetrators, in favour
of intolerance and violence cut across the society. The beneficiaries
of the power lobbies from different governments in reality engaged
in organised crimes and underworld dons of organised crimes also
invest in politics has significantly increased the professional
hazards of journalists.
A
new trend of journalism ushered in bold, aggressive and assertive
journalism to expose the intolerant regimes. Simultaneously the
intolerant regimes began exercising their might, a legacy inherited
from military era (1975-1990). The ruling party and the government,
which encouraged others, have demonstrated coercion, intimidation,
and repression.
These
political elite’s having alliances with the underworld leaders
which also provided space for rise of organised crimes since the
military juntas have taken their roots deep into the powerplay.
Today they reign with direct blessings of the politicians and
government.
Those
“beneficiaries” who walk in the corridors of power
do not hesitate to issue death threats, attack newspaper offices,
assassinate, assault or intimidate journalists. They only know
one mindset – intolerance after the deliberate exposure.
This language is translated through anger resulting in violence.
Their underworld dons in the mainstream political regime understand
that court litigation would not reach any conclusive resolution.
Therefore the possible options would be death threats, intimidation
or elimination. Secondly the “beneficiaries” of the
power lobby do not wish to be exposed, is also another reasoning
to contract hooligans to accomplish their wishes.
THE
year 1996 and 2001 is unique for press watchdog and social justice
researchers. In the wake of Bangladesh celebrating silver jubilee
victory in December 1996, the nation experienced three governments
within the framework of the constitution. For the first time,
the citizens have seen the governments of outgoing Khaleda Zia
(BNP), Justice Mohammed Habibur Rahman who assumed the de facto
head of care-taker government, and incumbent Shiekh Hasina (Awami
League), thus 1996 is significant.
Similarly
2001 is also significant, as the nation experienced three governments.
Shiekh Hasina handed power to Caretaker Government in mid-July.
The Caretaker Government of Justice Latifur Rahman took charge
of the election. In early October, Khaleda Zia led four-party
alliance swept into power with massive mandate.
The
patterns of violation of freedom of press and expression have
not changed under any government(s). There could be several reasons
for awkward situation. It could be due to lack of democratic culture
among the political parties and government agencies responsible
to uphold the constitution. The number of occurrences may have
increased or decreased of any given year under any elected governments,
or during the caretaker governments, but there was no significant
improvement in the pattern of violation.
For
examples, deaths, arrests under draconian laws, death threats,
attacks and violence on journalists and newspaper/TV stations,
intimidation, and censorship continued. These were caused by government
agencies, civil and criminal litigation by leaders of ruling parties,
politically motivated militants and henchmen of the power.
MOST
newspapers take firm political stand, which helps to explain the
violence, party militants use against them. In fact, the number
of incidents of violation of freedom of press has significantly
increased in comparison to 1970s and 1980s and the occurrences
of violence linger. The trends and indicators for achieving freedom
of press have not improved. This has been largely attributed to
a number of restrictive laws governing the media. These laws give
leverage to the government and others to use them against their
rivals as a ‘punitive’ measure.
Free
press can obviously guarantee social justice. With the existence
of restrictive laws governing media and non-ratification of International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is difficult to state
that the press is free and freedom of expression is a right. Though
some of the laws relating to media are not enforced or exercised,
but the restrictive laws remains. Despite electoral promises by
mainstream political parties have not taken steps to review draconian
laws related to freedom of press.
The
Bangladesh Press Council has introduced a twenty-two-clause revised
code of conduct for journalists, newspapers and news agencies
and recently prohibiting any campaign against the liberation war
or communal harmony. Thus Press Council, the only venue to seek
redress of injustices is a “paper tiger” and remains
a far cry.
Analysing
the attitude of the democratic governments, it could be concluded
that government and the press have developed “love and hate”
relationship. The policy of “client-patron” relationship
practices that began during the military regimes of General Ziaur
Rahman and General Ershad, the pattern still exists. There is
a need for media watchdog and media practitioners to embark upon
a public policy advocacy with the decision-makers, lawmakers and
society managers.
