The Bangladesh government has been killing student protesters but reporting it has become nearly impossible

26 Jul 24 | Asia and Pacific, Bangladesh, Newsletters

In the air above Natun Bazaar in Dhaka last Friday, a helicopter swept over protesters. Not to monitor or to film, but to shoot at them. This is according to on-the-ground BBC reporters, who described the area as resembling a war zone. There is some dispute as to whether the helicopters just fired tear gas, sound grenades and rubber bullets or whether live rounds were also used.

The freedom of expression implications of the recent violent situation in Bangladesh are numerous, and in some cases pretty obvious. For starters, many young people have been killed for taking part in street protests. Students who set out to raise their voices against a policy from the governing Awami League are facing police and military violence. They have now been put under curfew and police given shoot-on-sight orders. Emergency rooms are overwhelmed as more and more people have been  swept up in the violence with around 200 people reported killed and thousands more injured. Two of those people who died were journalists, Hasan Mehedi from the Dhaka Times and ATM Turab from the newspaper Dainik Naya Diganta.

All the while, another popular weapon in every authoritarian’s arsenal has come into play: the classic internet blackout. A lot can happen when communications networks are closed down and Bangladesh has seen some particularly horrifying examples. The service has now been partially restored, but for five days people were left in the dark. We know from past experience that an internet and mobile shutdown means there’s no way to check loved ones are safe, no way to look at maps to get to safety and no way to call an ambulance. Journalists are unable to report on what is happening and misinformation is given the space to run wild. The excuse for internet shutdowns is always that they “quell violence”, but they make everyone’s lives more dangerous and mean the state can act without oversight or accountability

What is quite incredible is the narrative being set by the Awami League. A side note here: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been in power for four consecutive terms, and the latest election came with a side order of arrests of opposition figures. Bangladesh is also one of the most corrupt countries in the world and getting worse according to Transparency International.

Anyway, head to the Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) website, the national news agency of Bangladesh (read: propaganda outlet for the government) and the current story has a very different angle. In an article yesterday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina referred to the “anarchists who went on rampage for multiple days” and said she is “seeking justice from the masses”. Just two hours later, another article arrived — a government minster declared that “Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina would take responsibilities for the families of the people killed in recent nationwide mayhem”. He blamed the “arson terrorism” on the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the county’s largest Islamist party.

Amid the sparse reports on the violence, there are few photos of the clashes. The Awami League gives a performance of compassion for dead students, while blaming their deaths on the BNP and Jamaat and not on government action

The leading English language newspaper in Bangladesh, The Daily Star, which is non-partisan, republished chunks from one of the BSS articles, with no additional context or comment, and then, perhaps bravely, published an opinion piece calling the excessive use of force against protesters “unconscionable” – published with a delay due to the internet shutdown. Another opinion article describes the protesters as rioters. Leading independent newspaper Prothom Alo has been covering the violence too, including comments from UN Secretary General spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric that people must be allowed to “protest peacefully, regardless of where they are protesting, without fear of arrest, injury or worse”.

There is independent media in Bangladesh. Just don’t look at the TV news channels, because you won’t find it there. But there are several problems. First, according to sources we’ve spoken with, a huge number of people are compromised, with connections either to the Awami League or the BNP. Secondly, journalists who criticise the ruling party put themselves in very real danger. They risk coming under fire from the Cyber Security Act, facing years in prison for publishing what’s deemed anti-Bangladesh propaganda. And they risk violent attacks from both Awami League supporters and religious fundamentalists. That cannot be a good recipe for media freedom. Third, ordinary people are afraid to speak out.

To that end, finding brave, independent journalists free from political influence is no mean feat. So, if you are in fact a young Bangladeshi journalist, blogger or videographer that is committed to fair reporting, we’d be pleased to make your acquaintance. Please get in touch.

Future looks fraught in polarised Bangladesh

21 Jan 14 | Asia and Pacific, Bangladesh, News and features

Election day in Bangladesh (Image: Md Manik/Demotox

Election day in Bangladesh (Image: Md Manik/Demotix)

It is a story worthy of great theatre: the bitter rivalry between two women that is tearing apart a country.

Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia head the two main political parties of Bangladesh, and have swapped power back and forth for the last 20 years.

The relationship between the two “battling begums” has come under international scrutiny recently, after Bangladesh suffered the most violent election in its short history. More than 100 people died during the campaign, with the country disrupted by strikes, blockades, and violent clashes between police and opposition supporters.

The controversy started well before the country went to the polls on 5 January. Since 1996, Bangladesh has held elections under a neutral caretaker government. In 2010, Hasina’s Awami League party, buoyed by a strong parliamentary majority, decided to abolish the provision. The opposition, Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) took issue with this, saying that a fair election could not be guaranteed without a neutral body overseeing it. The Awami League would not set up a caretaker government. The BNP boycotted the election.

Hasina decided to go ahead with the poll. Inevitably, her party – unopposed in 153 of the country’s 300 constituencies – won. But, equally inevitably, the validity of a contest in which there was only one real option has been questioned. The election result was also undermined by an unusually low turnout, with the government putting the figure at under 40 per cent and others reporting far less than that.

This was not just to do with voters choosing not to vote, but with a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence by supporters of the opposition BNP. Enforcing blockades, strikes, and boycotts, supporters of the BNP and their allies, the Jamaat-e-Islami, petrol bombed buses carrying workers, and set fire to shops that had opened in defiance of the strikes.

“The violence perpetrated against people who have not complied with the opposition call is a criminal act and it is the responsibility of the government to bring the attackers to justice,” says Abbas Faiz, Bangladesh researcher for Amnesty International. “But the majority of people who died during the two months of elections died from gunshot wounds. There is a strong possibility the police may have used excessive force.” Amnesty is calling for immediate investigations to identify the perpetrators of attacks, and to establish whether the force used by police was lawful. In a statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called on “all sides to exercise restraint and ensure first and foremost a peaceful and conducive environment, where people can maintain their right to assembly and expression.”

Elections in Bangladesh tend to be big public events, with people getting up early to join famously long queues and proudly displaying their ink stained fingers. Yet people in the capital Dhaka during this year’s election described an eerie calm. Voting took place in just nine of 20 seats in the city. There were vicious attacks on the country’s Hindu minority, who make up around 10 per cent of the population and tend to support the Awami League.

The consensus seems to be that both of the main parties are equally culpable for the farce that the election has descended into. An editorial in the country’s Daily Star newspaper said that the Awami League had won “a predictable and hollow victory, which gives it neither a mandate nor an ethical standing to govern effectively”. Its verdict on Zia and her associates was no better: “Political parties have the right to boycott elections. But what is unacceptable is using violence and intimidation to thwart an election.”

The election chaos comes after a year of ugly political violence in Bangladesh: around 500 people were killed in political clashes during 2013, making it one of the most violent years since independence in 1971. This began with a mass popular movement against religious fundamentalism. Named the Shahbag movement, after the area of Dhaka where it began, the protests swiftly triggered a backlash from the religious right and their supporters. Much of this polarisation – between secularists and Islamists – had been precipitated by the government’s war crimes tribunal. Prosecuting people for crimes committed during the war of independence in 1971, the tribunal has reopened old tensions. Islamists claim it is being used to shut down the opposition, while secularists argue that the sentences (which include the death penalty) are not harsh enough.

Now, several weeks after the election, the political system remains in crisis. Zia is effectively under house arrest, while Hasina’s victory is seen across the board as empty. International and domestic observers alike say that the only way forward is for the two women to sit down together and hammer out a compromise. With early elections expected within the next 18 months, and with political uncertainty and violence continuing, this is ever more pressing.

This article was published on 21 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org