How is it possible to build a society tolerant of differing opinions?

The mob attacks on Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Chhayanaut, and Udichi are not ordinary incidents. There is a conspiracy behind them. These attacks are assaults on progressive symbols, values, and ideals; attempts to suppress the markers of achievement; and efforts to undermine institutions that stand as symbols of secularism and pluralism. Promoting Bengali cultural heritage, the forward march of an independent and sovereign Bangladesh, and the celebration of human dignity are at the core of these institutions’ work.

Many people regard Bengali culture as a 'Hindu-influenced' culture and seek to draw parallels with the Bengali-speaking population of India. Those who promote Bengali culture and values are often accused of propagating Hindu culture.

Bengali culture is not a static concept. Language is the primary driving force behind the formation of culture. The Bengali language is often described as a 'daughter' or 'sister' of other languages. By its very nature, it has absorbed elements from numerous languages to an extent that is impossible to measure. It has drawn cultural essence from Sanskrit, Arabic, Urdu, Persian, English, and many other languages, yet has done so in its own distinctive and unaltered form. Cultural exchange is a fundamental and dynamic process.

It cannot be claimed that Bangladesh’s cultural life is being devasted due to Indian cultural hegemony—if such hegemony exists at all. The culture, modes of thought, and intellectual framework of the people living within this country’s geography are distinct and cannot be altered. The cultural foundation of Bangladesh is deep-rooted and resilient.

In any case, when protest turns violent instead of being expressed through reasoned argument and dialogue, it is a sign that society has entered dark and dangerous alleys. Violence can never be a legitimate language of protest. Through violence, individuals or institutions may be intimidated or even destroyed, but their principles or ideals cannot be eradicated.

Mahatma Gandhi spoke of abandoning violence in favour of “non-violent resistance,” known in English as “passive resistance.” It is not possible for a citizen to resort to violence. Civic consciousness is tied to responsibility, refinement, and respect for established laws and norms. A true citizen can never take the law into their own hands.

A mob, however, can do so—because civic consciousness does not exist within a mob. When a mob assumes the role of judge and executioner, it poses a direct challenge to the established justice system. There can be no form of justice more terrifying than mob justice; no campaign more dangerous than a mob’s so-called “cleansing” operation.

Sharif Osman Hadi was killed, and the premises of Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Chhayanaut, and Udichi were set ablaze. Those committing these despicable acts advance two arguments. First, they claim that the two newspapers did not adequately cover the news of Hadi’s death—a point raised by the attackers themselves in media interviews during the arson and vandalism at Prothom Alo and The Daily Star. Second, they allege that the two newspapers serve as mouthpieces for Indian cultural hegemony. They also regard Chhayanaut and Udichi as bearers and promoters of that same alleged cultural dominance.

The godfathers of the mob are deliberately encouraging such thinking, because behind it lies a deep and pernicious brand of politics. Their objective is to establish a system of rule that suits the psychology of the mob—by removing obstacles that stand in the way, or at the very least keeping them under constant pressure.

As Hasan Ferdaous, a prominent journalist based in the United States, has rightly observed, in most civilised countries multiple “pressure points” come into play during times of crisis—such as the courts, the legislature, human rights commissions, and the media. At this moment in Bangladesh, apart from the media, no other pressure point is functioning effectively (Prothom Alo, 28 December 2025). Therefore, if the media can be put under pressure, the mob’s path becomes easier.

This is why nationally and internationally recognised newspapers like Prothom Alo and The Daily Star are being labeled and targeted in various ways. Yet readers know well how severely these two newspapers were persecuted during the repressive rule of Sheikh Hasina. On the other hand, their strong role during the July movement is documented in print in many places. And yet today the newspapers are being attacked, the lives of professional journalists are under threat, and attempts are being made to reduce them to rubble.

However, Sharif Osman Hadi’s statement was different. He had said, “Instead of destroying Prothom Alo, create ten more Prothom Alos.” Yet, this violent mob is ignoring his directive even while his martyrdom lies on the ground. They do not believe in spirit; they believe in “dense darkness.”
Reactionary forces see the media as a familiar enemy. Modernity irritates them. The media is inherently linked to modernity, rational thought, and pluralism. Therefore, in a society that has not yet developed rationality, respect for differing opinions, or a pluralistic outlook, it is not unusual for the media to come under pressure.

Despite many limitations, Prothom Alo and The Daily Star have continued to practice professional journalism. It cannot be said that they are without any mistakes or shortcomings. However, the claim that the media has become an “agent” for promoting Indian hegemonic culture is not clearly substantiated. Such labeling invites various disasters in society.

Those associated with Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Chhayanaut, or Udichi—who promote cultural values, refinement, and pluralism—are not easily accepted by reactionary forces. This is because the primary tendency of reactionary forces is linear thinking and building a society and state suited to their own beliefs. They are not rationalists; they are believers. The difference between these two sides is stark.

How can a society progress when individuals, groups, or institutions hold such ideological differences? Is coexistence possible in a society marked by diversity? The answer is—coexistence is difficult. Over the past year and a half, the rise and actions of mobs have made civic life increasingly unbearable.

It goes without saying that, due to social media, a particular class has emerged in society. This class constantly provokes and mobilises the mob. This class can be identified as the “feudal lords” of social media. These lords are like elephant trainers—mahouts—who control the mob as one would control a large elephant, using it to serve their own interests. The feudal lords of social media bring mobs under their command, turning them like a spinning wheel to advance their own agendas. In this way, mobs are drawn into the process of subjugation and manipulation by these social media feudal lords. These media-centric feudal lords have millions of followers, who are perpetually waiting for their next command.

The parasite communication theory of media is highly applicable to these followers. Due to constant interaction, these followers come to perceive the media-centric feudal lords as “one of their own.” This happens because mobs tend to believe rumours more than facts. These feudal lords spread rumours, since making people believe facts is difficult. Facts require reasoning and argumentation, which is labourious, but rumours are easy to hear and believe. Rumours require no verification or scrutiny.

Media-centric feudal lords are skilled at delivering messages in ways that appeal to the psychology of the mob. In addition, they profit from viewership. They are becoming a sort of cult to the mob. Their messages operate like the first theory of media influence—the bullet theory—striking the followers’ minds with intense and rapid force. Followers then take action.

As Nobel laureate Filipino journalist Maria Ressa has noted, virtual violence ceases to remain virtual when it manifests in real life. That is, when an influencer in the US calls for Prothom Alo to be destroyed, followers perceive it as a duty to act. They respond because the call aligns with their own worldview.

Media literacy in Bangladesh is generally very low. As a result, audiences tend to believe most of what they see or hear on social media without much discernment. A rational, analytical public is essential for building a society that can reason logically. Such a public must have at least a minimal capacity to judge right from wrong—but that reality has not yet been established. Fact-checkers are doing important work, but it is not easy to stem the flood of misinformation, falsehoods, and harmful content. A larger-scale effort is needed, involving both government and private initiatives.

Those resisting Indian cultural hegemony could have done so through cumulative, reasoned, and argument-based approaches. Instead, they are identifying individuals or institutions as opponents and seeking to destroy them completely, even by fire. Such violence can never be a legitimate path.

The role of the interim government in resisting these attacks remains unclear. Nurul Kabir, editor of News Age, commented on the attacks on Prothom Alo and The Daily Star, stating that some part of the government allowed these attacks to happen (Prothom Alo, 28 December 2025).

This is a serious allegation. People are observing that the government’s reliance on pro-rightist parties is increasing. There are claims that the government feels comfortable aligning itself with pro-rightist forces
One notable aspect is that the protest against the attacks on Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Chhayanaut, and Udichi has largely come from sectoral groups—journalistic and cultural organisations are leading the way. What remains important is whether this protest expands across society. Are people from various sectors participating? People outside professional circles or organisations must also be included; otherwise, the wave of protest will remain confined within its own boundaries.

Regardless of who supports the mob from behind, progressive forces must unite. It is important to remember that progressivism does not mean “Awami-ization”; it is a modern perspective. Over the past fifteen years, under repressive rule, progressive forces—including free-thinking individuals, cultural organisations, and political parties—have been the weakest. Without the unity of progressive forces, building a pluralistic society is impossible. The attack on Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Chhayanaut, and Udichi has, however, prompted a positive effort in this direction, offering a ray of hope. This initiative must be further strengthened and expanded.

#Khan Md Rabiul Alam is communications professional and teacher
*Opinions are the author’s own

#This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam