#Title

An attempt to impede free journalism
In today’s Bangladesh, issues come, issues go. Arav Khan stole the spotlight with a lot of noise, but his issue got buried soon. Then came Sultana Jasmine. She died in the custody of the Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) in Naogaon. She was picked up even though there was no case or allegation against her. A case was filed against her under the Digital Security Act (DSA) more than a day after she was picked up.
The current trending issue is about Prothom Alo journalist Samsuzzaman Shams. Five days after being picked up and then shown arrested under the DSA, Shams was released on bail on April 3. Prothom Alo Editor Matiur Rahman, who was also sued under the DSA, received six week’s anticipatory bail.
What kind of a crime did Shams engage in that warranted three microbuses full of law enforcement members to show up at his doorstep at four in the morning?
While picking him up, some of the law enforcement members, who identified themselves as officials of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), told Shams’ landlord, “The state has an objection about a report prepared by Shams, and hence he is being taken for questioning.”
Shams prepared the report by talking to children, day labourers and others around the National Martyrs’ Memorial in Savar. He wanted to know how the low-income groups were faring amid the rising costs of essentials. He asked the questions just a day before our Independence Day.
In his report, day labourer Zakir Hossain was quoted as saying, “I want (the) freedom (right) of (enjoying) fish, meat and rice.” Nine-year-old boy Sabuj Miah, who sells flowers around the Martyrs’ Memorial, was quoted as saying, “I cannot enter the memorial now. Tomorrow I will be able to enter and sell a lot of flowers.”
On Prothom Alo ’s Facebook page, Zakir’s quote was published along with Sabuj’s photograph in a post. Prothom Alo promptly addressed the issue, and within 17 minutes, the post was removed and the online report’s title was updated.
Prothom Alo issued a disclaimer saying it was a mismatch, and made corrections accordingly. In journalistic terms, should we accept this as a “mismatch,” or should we term it a “mistake” or a “crime”? If it was a crime, how severe was it?
It is evident that the government considered the post as a major crime. “Picking up” the reporter proves this.
On the other hand, the foreign ministry issued a statement on this issue, saying, “The said journalist was arrested because of child abuse and child exploitation, as he offered ten taka to a 9-year-old boy and then expressed his own views in the name of that child.
“Secondly, he tried to undermine the independence of Bangladesh on the great Independence Day.” the statement adds.
As per the statement, the main allegation against Shams is “child abuse” and “child exploitation.” The second complaint is he tried to undermine our “independence” on Independence Day. Notably, as per the statement, “he tried to undermine,” instead of “he undermined.”
Here are some observations about how the event(s) unfolded:
1. When Shams was “picked up,” the reason was “the state has objections regarding his report.”
2. This allegation contradicts with the statement issued by the foreign ministry.
3. An accused of child abuse should have been brought under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, which didn’t happen.
4. In the early hours of March 29, the first DSA case against Shams was lodged by Jubo League leader Syed Md Golam Kibria with Tejgaon police station at around 2am. The rapid pace of the proceedings to pick Shams up raises a lot of questions. Later on, another DSA case was filed under the DSA against Shams, Matiur Rahman, and others with Ramna police station.
5. How could Shams be accused of child abuse? Firstly, the child’s face is not fully visible in the photo. Secondly, he gave him Tk 10 as a token gesture. How can this paltry donation be compared with exploitation?
6. Allegedly, Shams “used” the child for his own purpose. The social media post in question was removed within 17 minutes of its upload. How can it “serve” someone’s “purpose” in such a short window of time?
7. The foreign ministry said that as a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the government would not tolerate any act of child abuse. How realistic is this statement?
Private organisation Drik published a report on the DSA (based on media reports), which says a total of 4,657 cases were filed under the DSA within three years of its inception. Among them, 20 children aged 13 to 17 years old from 12 districts were accused in 18 cases. Prothom Alo spoke to people connected with the 18 cases and found out that most of these cases were filed by the police, local Awami League leaders and activists.
8. Bangladesh achieved independence through a lot of sacrifice, resilience, blood and sweat. This independence is not so shallow that a simple act of publishing a photo or mentioning that someone demands the right to enjoy rice, fish and meat can demean it. In spite of a lot of challenges, Bangladesh has moved ahead, but some of its citizens are still suffering. Shams’ objective in his report was to highlight that. From this perspective, the allegation of our independence being demeaned on Independence Day is totally irrelevant. The country belongs to the poor, too.
9. After being picked up, Shams’ whereabouts were unknown for almost 20 hours. This is clearly a case of enforced disappearance. Some members of the law enforcement force and at least two ministers said they did not know anything. Then who picked Shams up? What mystery lies behind the midnight call from Shams’ mobile phone?
Evidently, a negative propaganda is in circulation against Prothom Alo . Participants in this propaganda are trying to prove Prothom Alo and the report as “anti-independence” elements. They are portraying a mismatched photo and a very simple error as a “major crime.” Though the foreign ministry clarified that Shams had been detained for child abuse, they continued to slam the report and Prothom Alo on the basis of some imaginary anti-independence allegations. Their stance regarding “picking up” a journalist and his 20-hour-long “enforced disappearance” is not transparent.
Even if the state has an objection against a citizen’s activity, can they legally pick up that person? Almost every lawyer in the country has mentioned that there’s no scope for that. Why did the government indulge in such an unlawful act, then? Such acts are creating a culture of fear, which is adversely affecting freedom of speech, as well as the scope of free journalism – and yet, none of this is being covered in those discussions.
It is said that when one can’t win a competition fair and square, then an all-out effort to bring it down ensues. We are seeing this trend with Prothom Alo .
Translated by Mohammed Ishtiaque Khan.