Untold Facts

AL and the Daily Amar Desh

AL Govt has started a dictatorial Baksali-style rule. Recently there has been dozens and dozens of lawsuits for anything that was thought to be slightly critical of them. Amar Desh, Channel One, Kazi Zesin’s talkshow Point of Order on Bangla Vision, BNP Parliamentary leader Joinal Abedin Farouk, Press Club President Shawkot Mahmud, BNP Standing Committee member Saka Choudhury are just some of the glaring examples. Ministers have been threatening with provocative speeches at the arguably reliable media reports. Where are the freedoms of speech and the media? The government wants others to ignore, be silent, connive at and even support their alleged misdeeds including the withdrawal of thousands of lawsuits against the Awami supporters, the release of Sajeda Choudhury’s son from the corruption case involving him and the matter of Sajeeb Wajed Joy as reported in the Amar Desh, a first-rate, prestigious national daily. As such, one is very apprehensive about the future of the country. If there is any allegation of corruption against anybody, let it be investigated and dealt with in a judicial manner within the system of the law of the country. Why lawsuit just for reporting an alleged corruption on the media? How can then the truth come out and the unhindered freedom of reporting by journalists be cultivated? Where is the democratic right to criticism? Why is there such a suppression of the media and the shielding of the alleged? All Bangladesh media should be vocal and come forward in defence of Amar Desh, a well-known reputable daily as it is.

Everybody should have the freedom to say whatever s/he likes to say in his/her logical estimation and sensible analysis of the government and politics of his/her country. Why should then AL be so tyrannical? In Western democracies everybody has the right to criticize anybody including the top political leaders. That’s how democracy survives and succeeds. Are we under the medieval or neo-modern or postmodern kingship or dictatorship? Are we under a Myanmar-style military junta or in repressive communist archipelago in which we are not allowed to be critical of the government or those close to the government? Tareq Rahman is criticised by AL right and left even though he is liked by the public as well as the party apparatus for a number of reasons not to be mentioned here. It is none of AL’s business if TR is made senior VP or senior JS of his party. On the contrary, one may question in what capacity Joy took part in the Govt. delegation meeting with the US Govt. or at the UN when he was none of the government, none of AL, none of the parliament.

Why should one be forced to say Bangabandhu instead of just Sheikh Mujib? It is a matter of one’s personal choice and personal conviction. One should not be forced if one does not want to. Look at George Washington, JFK, Mahathir Mohammad, Lee Kuan Yew, Charles De Gaulle, Winston Churchill, Mao Tsetung, Vladimir Lenin, Che Guavara, Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler–all are just known and addressed by their simple proper names; all are remembered in a passing, casual manner once in a long while, not a million times a day. They are hardly celebrated with flower and fanfare on a daily basis. But this does not mean their legacies have been cornered or confined, truncated or tarnished, reduced or hindered; instead they are celebrated through the works, not words, of the leaders and the generations since their death.

AL does not mention President Zia’s name with respect and dignity as someone who was a freedom fighter of the highest order, who made the crucial and essential announcement of the fight for freedom and liberation in his magical and magnetic far-reaching voice over the Radio and who proved to be a great, exemplary president of the country successfully leading it to the road of democracy and prosperity.

When AL does not show respect to President Zia, a proud and illustrious son of the soil, one of the most bona-fide and heroic souls Bangladesh has ever seen, how can AL expect others to show respect to Sheikh Mujib? Millions of people mourned the assassination of Zia while they danced in joy at the assassination of Shekh Mujib. No assassination can ever be supported (it is always a heinous crime) but the rejoicing at the death of Sheikh Mujib, even by the elements of his own party, was indeed a fact. He was a great leader but his rule was highly compromised and controversial with people suffering from famine, anarchy, lack of security, Rakkhi-Bahini torture and the dictatorial operation of his government. All’s well that ends well. His post-71 role/rule was in dispute by all means. Sure he did a lot for the country, from Benapol to Tamabil, but so did General Zia too, from Teknaf to Tetulia. Having said so, we got to get out of the quagmire of the past, stop mudslinging at each other, unite the nation and move forward.

Author: Jalal Uddin Khan