DECADES ago one young American President told his people and the world that the only thing they had to fear was fear itself. Later on a visit to then West Berlin, in defiance of the Cold War warriors he told his snow draped audience Ich bin Berliner (I am a Berliner). But before John Kennedy another American President Franklin Roosevelt echoing Francis Bacon and Henry David Thoreau, exhorted the American people, devastated by the depression of the Thirties, by asserting his firm belief " that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance". Adolf Hitler used fear as a weapon as did many other dictators from Nero to Idi Amin. None could, however, arrest the growth of civilization as men continued to conquer the fear of the unknown, the inexplicable, the complex and converting fear into courage ushered in the era of undreamt of prosperity. In this almost utopian environment like a viperous murderer a band of men bent upon inflicting the unspeakable terror on unsuspecting people have entered. The new millennium started with the horrific events warning the most powerful nation on earth of their acute vulnerability to devastation wrought upon them by these shadowy characters. Thus began the war on terrorism.

"Terrorism" as a word has become perhaps now most oft-quoted and most extensively researched and used term ever than any other coined in modern times. While lettered as well as unlettered are grappling to understand the different facets of the word; in Bangladesh we have coined another phrase "information terrorism" which is yet to find its way into the lexicon of other languages. What is "information terrorism", one may ask. In our context presumably it is construed to mean propaganda against "vital national interests" of Bangladesh at home and abroad by a group of people with "vested interests". This school of thought would ascribe not only lack of patriotism on the part of these people but would also like to accuse them of sedition. It may be of interest to note here that in 1798 the US Congress passed the Sedition Act which prohibited speeches and publications that contained "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government. The Act generated intense debate one side arguing that the First Amendment protected most type of speeches while the other side argued for limitation on freedom to maintain political stability. The Act, however was unpopular and was allowed to expire in 1801.

In our present context the oppositional argument centers around the issue of separation of anti-government propaganda as opposed to anti-state activities and that the two should not be confused with one another. The party in power has accused the oppositional description of the government coalescing with fundamentalist elements to be responsible for this national calamity of our inclusion in the terror-risk list. The opposition political parties, on the other hand,

has held inept governance and failed foreign policy as the primary reasons for this catastrophe. What has surprised many is that the government did not see it coming. After all Bertil Lintner's article in the Far Eastern Economic Review on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism appeared in April last year followed by similar stories in the Time magazine and Asian Wall Street Journal alleging sanctuary being given to transnational Islamist elements including some members of Al-Qaida(stoutly denied by the government). Some Indian agencies reporting on the recent congregation of Muslims in Bangladesh from about fifty countries, the second largest assembly of Muslims after the Hajj in the world, has drawn the conclusion that this congregation reflects the " the role the country has come to play in the context of Islamic brotherhood". This conclusion appears to be fallacious as this particular assembly of Muslims from far and wide is not a recent phenomenon but has been an annual event for many years.

Bangladesh's image as a nonmoderate Islamic country in the eyes of her detractors got ammuni-

tion from lack of governmental action on the priest who publicly accused President Bush as a terrorist in an assembly of people who went to the mosque to offer their prayers. The incongruity of the remark and disproportionate punitive measures against him(the priest was a government official and thereby was bound by service regulations) was noted by many. The matter was further compounded by two religious edicts passed by an Islamic coalition partner of the government against two judges of the High Court describing them as enemies of Islam and condemning them to Rushdie-like death sentence because the judges had suo moto passed a judgment declaring religious edicts given by village priests as unlawful. In recent past we have witnessed expulsion of foreign

journalists from Bangladesh accused of having entered the country under pretense and with a hidden agenda to further portray Bangladesh of Islamic fundamentalism and continued persecution of their local collaborators to the chagrin of national and international journalists' associations.

One would have expected Bangladesh government to take anticipatory actions as soon as or before the first terror-risk list of countries was made public. It is difficult to predict, notwithstanding the assurances given by the US ambassador in Bangladesh that our politico-economic interests would not be affected by this move, how much corrective results of the current diplomatic activities being undertaken would be able to reverse the American decision. Developed countries do not generally take impulsive decisions and are reluctant to undo even decisions taken on fallacious grounds as the case of Bangladesh eminently proves. If satisfactory results are not achieved then it may be within the realms of possibility of witch hunting by governmental agencies for "information terrorists". Apart from the fact that

such actions, if taken, would be violative of freedom of speech and freedom of press guaranteed by the Bangladesh Constitution, the initial problem for the government would be to substantiate ascription of the term "terrorism" to criticism of the government. Acts of terror are generally taken to be of violent nature aimed at creating fear in a given population to effect political change on either a local or international scale. Even if one were to assume that oppositional politics influenced US decision to include Bangladesh in the terror-risk list (an extremely doubtful proposition); the alleged actions of the opposition were neither violent nor had given rise to violent actions affecting political stability. Doubtless political activity was to effect change in government but then that is expected of the opposition so long

changes, if any, are done within the bounds of law. If violence is perpetrated by governmental agencies against opposition resulting in a people's movement similar to the one we had witnessed during the anti-autocracy struggle; then such a situation cannot be dubbed as terrorism-inspired.

We may now examine whether the alleged oppositional politics at home and abroad exceeded the limits of oppositional politics and entered the realm of anti-state activities. Freedom of speech and expression, both oral and written, are generally put beyond violative intrusions by the executive and considered as inalienable rights. Limitation on such freedom can , however, be imposed if charged with libel, slander, obscenity,sedition, bribery, perjury, incitement to riots etc. It is recognized that unrestricted freedom of expression can lead to infringement of the rights of others, particularly in times of war when these rights are abridged in the interest of public security. Americans had used such abridgement in circumstances of "clear and present danger", for example during the First World War

when restrictions were placed on direct advocacy of treason, criticism of the government ,conscription and the American Flag. But the First amendment to the US constitution specifically provided that "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech or the press". Americans also refused to endorse any "taxes on knowledge"(a British equivalent of taxes imposed on printed matter). The core of all theses legislations was protection of expressions critical of the government.

In Bangladesh constitution freedom of thought and conscience and of speech (article 39) is placed as a fundamental right. But restriction on it can be placed on grounds of public interest, public order or morality ,security of state, maintenance of friendly relations with other states etc. Arbitrary invasion of

fundamental rights which does not contain the quality of reasonableness is not sustainable and can be termed as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court should it so desire. Thus freedom of thought and conscience and of speech has not been completely put at the mercy of the legislature in order to strike a balance between individual right and collective right.

One is intrigued by the use of the term "information terrorism". Is it because that this eponymous characterisation has received such wide currency as any incorporeal idea does so that anything with a terrorist tag immediately attracts international attention regardless of the validity of such description? If the use of the term is to instill fear among the people about oppositional politics regardless of emblematic nature then such stratagem is not only disingenuous but also grotesque. Divergent political opinion nourishes democracy. Political challenges should be met with better political ideas and not with threat of detention and consequent trauma inflicted on the detainees both physical and mental at the hands of their inquisitors.

If Bangladesh is not to be regarded as a "failing" state as defined by the British Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw Failed and Failing State 6th September 2002) then we shall have no cause to worry. The government is certainly in control of the whole territory of Bangladesh thus denying the terrorists any possibility of training and launching human missiles on their path to destruction. But launching of Operation Clean Heart and subsequent promulgation of Indemnity Ordinance were admissions (if any were needed) that adoption of such extra-ordinary measures were necessary for protection of the citizens, Jack Straw's formula stresses the ability of the government to protect their own citizens. The second criteria regarding rule of law, promotion of human rights and provision of effective governance, like many developing countries, are yet to take full institutional shape in Bangladesh. Private counsel and public criticism of these elements by donor countries/agencies have been noticed far too often for our comfort. The third criteria of Jack Straw is the ability of the government to deliver public goods to its people( e.g. economic growth, education and health care). Bangladesh is assailed by rapid population growth, high unemployment and almost stagnant economy heavily dependent on agricultural sector.

Continuum of failure should not be placed at the door of any particular government or political party but should be shared by all including the people who either through active participation or acquiescence have not permitted the growth of the institutions seminal to sociopolitico-economic development of the country. Dichotomous political streams extant in our polity notwithstanding, diplomatic and developmental engagements with the international community would serve our interests far better than wasting our time in coinage of new terms which can only be divisive at a time when unity among different sectors of the society is being called for.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is retired Secretary to the Bangladesh government and former ambassador.