Thu 3 Apr 2008
A very angry post from Dhaka Shohor that makes some poignant points.
—-
Yeats should have sailed to Bangladesh.
For in Bangladesh, the old in one another’s arms dance on the bloodied corpses of the young.
I speak not only of “cowardly liberals” such as our twin editors, who seem to have sacrificed a man each to save their own political hides. Whereas they should have been leaders, voices of experience and bulwarks of strength who sheltered the more adventurous of their flock – Mohammad Arifur Rahman and Tasneem Khalil – they have instead proven themselves to be sell-outs and sycophants through not just their “sacrifices” but also their silence.
No, I come not to speak only of these so-called progressive voices of a decrepit generation with suitably unoriginal, decrepit ideas. I speak also of other older, more honourable men. Men who vow to keep us safe, where “us” equals every person who inhabits our green land. Men who send our finest and bravest to battle. Men who have taken on young men and women to fight for their land and are responsible for their safety.
After a generation of INDOCTRINATING our young army personnel against India as opposed to TRAINING THEM TO THINK about countering India’s influence meaningfully, I see the most honourable of men travel to Delhi. The Bangladeshi media reports sycophantically on it. The Indian media talks about “joint exercises” aimed at eradicating the Indian North-East of “rebels” and “terrorists”.
Now unlike Mr. Farhad Mazhar, whose write-up on the topic I appreciated highly and urge everyone to read for its section on the Bay of Bengal gas blocks issue, I am not about to make emotional appeals that go like, “Our army is doing India’s bidding!”. Joint exercises are not doing anyone’s “bidding” and, if our army is to become/remain well-trained and have a global outlook instead of the parochial one that pervades it, such exercises are positive. I will not make such emotional appeals.
I will humbly point out a small, probable scenario: the only reason these “rebels” have not turned their guns against us is because we turn a blind eye to them (at the least) when they want to use our territory as refuge. If we start to carry out “joint exercises”, they may not appreciate it and we might have our own little problems on the northern border. The Hindistani (my latest word for “North Indian”) elite at the Indian centre does not quite understand that there are real grievances at work in these areas. They seem to be under the impression that these insurgencies are being “fed” by our military, and that if our military suddenly switches sides, that is going to stop the insurgency. In the presence of real grievances, this is not about to happen. Indeed military solutions to insurgencies are highly prone to failure.
And if this does happen who will pay the price for the switch? Our young of course. The ones who were indoctrinated against “Indians” will then be re-indoctrinated against a new set of “Indians”, you know, the ones with “chinky” eyes. They will fight and they will be sacrificed, while old men play golf and talk expensive horses or arms deals with American secretaries of defence.
As far as I know, no promises have been made. But given the alacrity of old men to sacrifice the young in this country, should I not be fearful? Give me one reason why I shouldn’t be? We’ve talked so much about the riots of August, but did anybody really focus on the Tragedy of young, 20-something Bangladeshi students fighting young, 20-something Bangladeshis in uniform, simply because all their elders are obstinate old men who didn’t get along in the heat of the 70’s?
And I’m not even going to start talking about the issue that this New Age editorial brought up, to wit the issue of undignified, box-like structures at the border. I’d just like our pan-Bengali-rhetoric sprouting folk to stand up and say something at this point. Yes, that’s you Mr. Aly Zaker! You too Mr. Syed Badrul Ahsan! Decrepit old men with decrepit old ideas the whole lot of them!
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
It’d be nice if we could get a sense of quid-pro-quo in the system. A viable argument can be made that the seven-sister insurgents will be crushed sooner or later, and BD is just hastening the inevitable by helping the Indian army. But what are we getting in return? The privilege of buying rice at USD 1000 per tonne? Six horses? What?
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
ঢাকা শহর,
I am not defending any of the old men. All I will say is don’t get mad, get even.
In fact, since you brought in two examples of the two editors, I would like to hear what would you have done in their position.
Scenario 1: Editor 1. Not fire the cartoonist and risk having the paper shut down. Who gained the most after Ekushey got shut down? Was it a case of self preservation first and then strategic victory?
Scenario 2: Editor 2. Not sign the document and risk sending the journalist to the black hole and potentially his death when the journalist said he desperately did not want to stay in the blackhole overnight.
What would you do if you had to take those decisions?
April 4th, 2008 at 2:29 am
In scenario 1, I don’t know if anyone gained after Ekushey was shut down. The television channels that emerged after Ekushey did not gain, they lost, because competition from Ekushey would have forced them to better programming and higher-quality viewing content.
Both the editors faced situations in which fundamental issues of statehood were at stake: the freedom of our press when faced by powerful mob forces, in one hand, the autonomy of our press, when pressed by the combined might of the state, on the other. Given that both these men chose the way they did, what right do they have to pontificate to us?
Here is the most recent editorial written by one of them:
http://prothom-alo.com/archive/news_details_home.php?dt=2008-03-30&issue_id=879&nid=MTUwNjI=
Statistics reveals as much of the mindset of the writer as any analysis. Two paragraphs to extol the current government, five paragraphs to blast our political parties, and the administrations they led, and then two paragraphs at the very end, gently expressing the view that “long-term” military involvement in our democracy won’t be good for our country. Are we experiencing a short-term military involvement currently?
But in the end, I agree with Asif Bhai. We really do need to get even. In the judgment of history, the greatest punishment is irrelevance. Only by propagating a better and more functionally efficient set of principles can we move on past these men, on to better things.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:11 am
So the two editors had to compromise to save those men? Fine. I understand that.
But what about a stinging commentery condemning the treatment of a DS journalist or government patronization of the Islamic zealots. Were their pens controlled? Is it because the coup of 1/11 and the state of emergency?
Can these two editors shrugg off their responsibility in making 1/11 happen? And if they were indeed forced to compromise to save those two, what is the reason of their continued support of this regime?
April 4th, 2008 at 6:45 am
3. On the question of getting even, it is a tough battle field to make an entry. I will give the example of our write ups. After producing forty odd write ups for English dailies and magazines in 6 months and being fairly contend that the english op-ed space in Bangladesh has an alternative and younger voice, the writers’ collective decided to move in to the bangla market. Because at the end of the day, that is where the circulations are. We started a bangla blog, started writing in bangla, have our good write ups translated. But after all said and done, it has been almost impossible to get them published. I don’t think the write ups that we are doing in Bangla are any worse than what is getting published these days. But their is a subtle resistance. The sushil market in the Bangla side is not about meritocracy(the english side is refresingly different because of the relatively younger age group who are making important decisions). The Bangla folks are after names rather than the content. But we will keep trying. If we fail, we will have to use the internet citizen journalism to reach out more and more. But just venting would not get us any where. If we are complaining, we need to first provide the alternative and show that we have a better product and then make room for distribution.
on 4, Since DS said the editors sold out those two journalist and cartoonist, hence my question was what else would he have done given those two choices.
On the bigger question of their support for the government, here is what I think. It is not unnatural for any paper’s editorial stand to be for / against a government. It happens in New York Times (liberal bastion) and Wall Street Journal (Conservative Clinton hater). The editorials clearly articulate the rationale behind their positions. So does majority of the op-eds as well. So in Bangladesh’s case, DS and New Age have taken two very different position regarding this government with given reasons. There is nothing wrong with that.
But what New York Times or any newspaper, who thinks its main responsibility lies with their readers, would never do is mix up their news reporting side with their editorial stand. What we have seen in Bangladesh is exactly the opposite. The stories are manipulated, special investigations focus only on areas which would support the editorial stand etc etc.
This is where these two newspapers, being the leader of the pack and having to claim themselves as an Institution, have let us down badly. That’s why I still can not fathom why any explanation/criticism never have come from MA after Tasneem Khalil went public with his story and his safety was ensured. Damaging to his legacy? You bet. In any other western country, this would have been scandalous forcing the resignation of the editor.
In the post 1/11 world, the loss of credible media has been the biggest loss, IMHO. I won’t be surprized if we see a commentary in DS with the headlines in a few months titled “We Were Fooled and we apologise”. But will that relieve them off their responsibilities? Nope. This will show that how easily readers interest can be compromised in the name of greater national good.
April 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
While the role of the editors (and the civil society at large) in backing the coup and the relationships with India are very important issues for discussion, what struck me about this post is this bit:
“We’ve talked so much about the riots of August, but did anybody really focus on the Tragedy of young, 20-something Bangladeshi students fighting young, 20-something Bangladeshis in uniform, simply because all their elders are obstinate old men who didn’t get along in the heat of the 70’s?”
The lgacy of the 1970s kept us divided for the past 3 decades. A new generation was emering that didn’t have the baggage of that decade. Whatever happens to Mahfuz Anam, Gen Moeen and the netris, I hope we don’t send another generation into bitter conflict.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
What majority of the readers look for, is it consistent with ‘greater national good’? what these famed editors prints, often their own kind of national good’ A news you may not find at all, but prominent in another. embeded objective is made clear to many but not all, perhaps to thier own readership. Guardian to Independent, our option here yet to get qualified attention. Pressman ship is fairly embeded. Is it option or a choice made from their clever motive? Back of their mind it is only to attain their own objective. Ekushe or other ‘greater natinal good’ is not the main source for choice. NY times is not far from the foreign policy, but to keep the greater readership often you see some interesting prints.
April 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“But what New York Times or any newspaper, who thinks its main responsibility lies with their readers, would never do is mix up their news reporting side with their editorial stand. What we have seen in Bangladesh is exactly the opposite. The stories are manipulated, special investigations focus only on areas which would support the editorial stand etc etc…”
Very true.
Also a big loser was ‘responsible journalism’. It has become so easy to write a sensational headline or editorial on a story which has not been verified. We have seen a rampant practice of character assassination based on hearsay stories. Post 1/11 it took a new dimension with so called remand confessions.
DS-PA led these media blitzkrieg with remand confessions.
Three years ago a student named Partha was arrested allegedly for sending threatening email to Sheikh Hasina. When rightist outfits started indulging themselves with his purported confessions, DS-PA editors wrote very strong commentary denouncing the use of torture confessions in print media. I wish they remember their own words.
April 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Asif bhai,
My complaints are not about what they were forced to do at the barrel of a gun. Fire, sign, even contradict yourself. All that is understandable. I might as well take TK to task for what he was forced to say under duress.
But look at what Mr. Khalil has done once he wasn’t under duress. Maybe I don’t know the circumstances of these two editors personally. Maybe they are under a lot more pressure than I imagine. But, there are other, subtler ways of resistance which I believe I have enough intelligence to have noticed, had they been present. Sadly, there is no evidence of that either. These are men who have built some sort of political capital over a lifetime of work (good or bad, that’s up to you). Surely they can use it now just a bit instead of surrendering their pulpits to propagandists.
Tacit,
I disagree. Insurgencies are fed by real grievances. They might be crushed, but that is at best a sub-optimal solution. Cf. Tibet.