Almost every day in the news there are reports of meetings and seminars being held at the Dhaka Reporters’ Unity (DRU) Segunbagicha, Dhaka. Organisers generally choose that venue in order to get media coverage.
On Thursday (28 August) a newly formed organisation called 'Mancha 71' (Platform 71), arranged such a roundtable discussion titled “Our Great Liberation War and the Constitution of Bangladesh.” The event brought together several senior citizens of the country, including freedom fighters, university teachers and journalists.
Video clips in the news and on social media clearly show that during the event, a group of people stormed in, physically assaulted the guests, and chanted various slogans. According to a report in Prothom Alo, these young men claimed to be “the warriors of July.” Other newspapers described them as activists belonging to different political parties.
After the assault and humiliation, police arrived at the venue and detained 16 people, taking them to the Detective Branch office. Later, police officials told journalists that cases had been filed against them under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
In response to a question from BBC Bangla about the reason for the arrests, Dhaka’s Detective Branch chief, Shafiqul Islam, said in essence that by analysing the detainees’ speeches, statements, books and columns, police had found information and evidence that was contradictory to the position of the state.
I am not sure which books or columns our law enforcement personnel had the time to review in such a short span, and on that basis conclude that Professor Syed Anwar Hossain, Professor Mesbah Kamal, journalist Mahbub Kamal, former Member of Parliament Abdul Latif Siddiqui, Dhaka University teacher Professor Sheikh Hafizur Rahman Karzon, and journalist Manzurul Alam Panna were fuelling terrorism. But if that is indeed the case, then the state ought to unmask these teachers and journalists. It should present before the nation which books, which columns, and which talk shows they were involved in that constituted “anti-terrorism” activities. If it cannot do that, then the state’s actions will amount to persecution and a stance against freedom of expression.
Naturally, the question arises as to whether these individuals were really involved in “anti-state” offences and if so, why didn’t the government arrest them earlier? Were they all fugitives? Had there been any cases or complaints filed against them?
The state’s behaviour distresses us. Especially since, as the video clearly shows, a group of youths launched an attack, beating people, hurling obscenities and yet instead of arresting or detaining those unruly youths, the police arrested the victims who had been assaulted and humiliated by them. Twelve hours after being detained, they were even sent to prison.
This incident at the DRU, of people being attacked by a mob, is not something entirely new. After being abused at the hands of a mob, people of various professions, even a former election commissioner, have faced similar ordeals.
How much longer will be continue like this? It is as if speaking in favour of the liberation war or against the government means we are accomplices of Awami League. They are being called "soft Awami Leaguers". And yet this was the chance we have to retrieve the glory of our history and the liberation war, salvaging it from the hands of the political party that that made the liberation war their property, who has used the "spirit of the liberation war" to avail all sorts of advantages. Yet we see that one group of people fear speaking of the liberation war and giving slogans to this end. The other group is making most of the situation.
There was a time when those who spoke against the authoritarian Sheikh Hasina government faced such lawsuits. The Digital Security Act or the Anti-Terrorism Act was used to suppress “political” opponents and send them to jail. Now, if the government born out of this mass uprising runs the country by following exactly the same footsteps as Sheikh Hasina, then what answer will it give to those who gave their blood to create the opportunity for change?
If a government cannot endure criticism, it always risks sliding into authoritarianism. That is why tolerance of differing opinions is so crucial, especially at a time when lines of division in society are being sharpened.
During Sheikh Hasina’s rule, the intellectuals and civil society figures who had either emerged or been artificially manufactured under her government were busy singing her praises, foaming at the mouth as they endlessly invoked the liberation war and Bangabandhu. That circle was too afraid to speak against the government or against the ministers and MPs who had turned into monsters. After 5 August last year, these “opportunists” seemed to vanish into thin air, they could no longer be found in any newspaper columns or television talk shows.
We saw a few voices raise themselves on issues of the liberation war, human rights, mobocracy, corruption, and injustice. A few courageous individuals continued to speak out for months, many of whom had been directly or indirectly involved in the student movement.
But those arrested on 28 August all share one common identity: they uphold the glorious chapter of the liberation war. In the context of criticising Sheikh Hasina’s government, with the exception of a few, most of them had been directly or indirectly harmed by the Awami League.
They were criticising various aspects of the interim government. Sometimes their criticism may have been constructive, at other times perhaps not. But sending people to jail simply because there is no tolerance of criticism is not in keeping with the aspirations of July. By indulging the mobs, and by making the law enforcement agencies appear weak in their hands, the government has resorted to a “strategy” that instills fear in people rather than courage. The common people of the society are being held hostage by a handful of mobsters.
Yet the interim government was to do away with to the climate of fear that had built up among the people, and to honour the right of every section of society to speak. But the government has repeatedly failed to demonstrate that. Above all, by turning the mob into a monster, the government is exposing its own “weakness” and is weakening the very structures of our state and social system.
If a government cannot endure criticism, it always risks sliding into authoritarianism. That is why tolerance of differing opinions is so crucial, especially at a time when lines of division in society are being sharpened. The government must walk the path of unity. If it fails to do so, the country will enter into a protracted crisis. A spirit of vengeance will grow, and bloodshed will prevail.
I believe the government will ensure legal protection for those arrested. If there are no serious charges, it will grant bail. It will recognise the importance of consensus in establishing the rule of law.
* Dr. Nadim Mahmud is a researcher at the University of California. He can be reached at [email protected]
* The views expressed are the writer’s own.