Dastagir Jahangir
Editor, The Voice
The present administration in Bangladesh, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), has once again demonstrated that it has yet to free itself from the old and deeply troubling instinct to suppress the voice of the media. The government’s recent so called “request” urging news organizations not to broadcast statements by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is far more than a simple appeal. It represents an unwritten and indirect form of censorship that strikes at the very heart of press freedom in Bangladesh.
Let there be no ambiguity. It is for the people of Bangladesh, not the government, to decide whose statements deserve to be heard and whose do not. The media is not an instrument of the state, nor is it a mouthpiece for any political party. Its duty does not change with a change of government. The news value of information and the right to freedom of expression cannot be dictated by the political preferences, sensitivities, or convenience of those who happen to hold public office.
1. Why Return to Control After Claiming to Defeat Authoritarianism?
A government that rose to prominence while denouncing authoritarianism should be the last to impose restrictions on independent journalism. Attempting to limit what the public may see or hear creates a profound contradiction between rhetoric and practice.
The political narrative that has portrayed Sheikh Hasina as an autocrat or fascist remains a matter of political interpretation and public debate. Citizens may hold sharply different opinions about her years in office, her policies, or her legal future. Yet none of those disagreements diminish a fundamental reality. Statements made by a former prime minister of Bangladesh constitute news by any accepted journalistic standard.
A government that seeks to suppress such reporting reveals not confidence but insecurity. Fear of information and attempts to bury inconvenient facts are themselves hallmarks of authoritarian governance. Preventing the media from reporting what is unquestionably news is not a demonstration of democratic strength. Rather, it is an admission of political weakness and, in a broader context, an expression of the very fascism it claims to oppose.
2. A Direct Violation of the Principles of Independent Journalism
The first obligation of journalism is impartiality. Professional reporting requires presenting relevant information from all sides rather than selectively amplifying voices that suit the government of the day.
Unless a court of law has expressly prohibited publication, there is no legitimate basis for discouraging the media from reporting the statements of a political figure simply because that individual is an opponent of the current administration. A governmental “request” that effectively pressures editors to suppress lawful news undermines editorial independence and compromises professional integrity.
If the government believes a statement is misleading, inaccurate, or harmful, the appropriate democratic response is not suppression but rebuttal. Facts should be answered with facts. Arguments should be answered with stronger arguments. Governments should challenge narratives through transparency and evidence, not by attempting to restrict what journalists may report.
3. Can Darkness Prevent the Dawn?
History offers a consistent lesson. No government has succeeded in preserving control by suppressing information. Attempts to silence the press have repeatedly failed because truth ultimately finds its way into the public domain.
In today’s interconnected world, even if domestic media organizations refrain from carrying a story, international news outlets, digital platforms, and social media ensure that information continues to circulate. Efforts to discourage coverage therefore achieve little beyond exposing the government’s own anxiety and lack of confidence.
Attempts to silence legitimate reporting do not erase reality. They merely weaken public trust in institutions and reinforce the perception that those in power fear scrutiny more than falsehood.
Conclusion
We urge the government to abandon this authoritarian impulse and uphold the principles of a democratic society. Allow the media to operate according to its own professional standards and editorial independence. Any attempt, whether explicit or implied, to curtail freedom of the press and the public’s right to know deserves firm resistance and unequivocal rejection.
The struggle to defend truth admits no compromise. A free society depends not on governments deciding what citizens should hear, but on citizens having unrestricted access to information and the freedom to reach their own conclusions.
