Freedom of Press. For Whom?

TAYEB HOSSAIN from SWEDEN


Today, June 02, 2008, while sipping my morning cup of coffee and having a look on my regional newspaper (SYSSVENSKAN or SDS in short, published from Malmö, Sweden) I was surprised to see the first page completely blank and the only sentence in it, when translated in English was:“THIS NEWSPAPER HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION FOR PUBLICATION BY THE STATE” But I knew quite well that it was nothing but a silly advertisement, a wicket trick for drawing readers’ attention for a particular self-interest of the daily. In its 2nd page, again almost blank and under the same heading, the text of the same advertisement continued:“That is not so in Sweden, not as yet by all means. However, according to a Sifo survey a majority of our members of Parliament want to limit freedom of the press by introducing new restrictions, eliminating the possibility for police to speak with the media and reduce the transparency of the investigations. Several analysts believe that the freedom of the press has not been as endangered in modern times as it is now.

Today, before lunch, the Chinese journalist Li Changqing will receive "The Golden Pen of Freedom" at a meeting of the media congress in Gothenburg. It is a price to the World Association of Newspapers awards each year to someone who has made a substantial contribution to the freedom of the press. Li Changqing revealed for a few years ago a great outbreak of dengue fever (in China) which the authorities tried to hush-up. For this he was sentenced to three years in prison. What happened Li Changqing should remind us as a good example when we consider the question of freedom of press. Every restriction, great or small, makes newspapermen weaker and that means that you get to know a little less about what is actually happening. Do you want it so?”My reaction to it was calm rejection. Nevertheless, and no doubt about it, that, it was a cleaver way by the daily to seek my support for “freedom of the press”.

But I wonder if any newspaper in the world really cares for my interest so far their news presentation is concerned. They present the news in their own way, often mutilating it and it matters very little for them “what is actually happening’ around my front or backyard. Freedom of press is a nice idea but for whom? Not for me or for any of my personal interest and I must support the idea to make the invisible rulers of the press more strong and powerful so that they can make the world as they think ‘could be good and nice’ for them.

Again I do not deny that the freedom of press is a nice idea and press freedom guarantees freedom of expression and thereby, as some people very clearly and loudly would say, assures ‘human rights’. To Western neo-colonialist and their loyalist agents in the 3rd world countries this “human rights” aspect which often means to them just the “freedom of expression” is very important and that also purports mostly speaking against a government that these partisan people do not like. But does this ‘freedom of expression’ aspect of ‘human rights’ make any sense to someone who’s belly is empty, sleeps under the sky, gets free shower from heaven without asking for it, dies of simple waterborne diseases or pneumonia or even mild fever? We need not mention here that most of the poor in the 3rd world countries do not have any access to education. The neo-colonialists’ ‘freedom of expression’, as often we see in their propaganda machines, is a trick of talking good with an evil motive. Food, shelter, healthcare and education, these basic necessities of people, are not that important to them as “human rights” are and it hardly gets their attention until there is cyclone, flood, earthquake and such a calamity. But again, they come with little help to mitigate the suffering a little so that it does not become a cause to topple the puppet government of the country that exists with their blessings. But that is another issue and this write-up is about freedom of press and more precisely freedom of press in general as an individual I experience in every day life.

Bangladesh’s prime English newspaper Daily Star’s front page slogan is, “Journalism without fear or favour”. What does it really mean? Do they really “Fear Not” anybody type of people while reporting on different things? Are the editors and journalists of different sections of this daily so courageous? I do not know and it is wrong on my part to say anything about which I have no actual knowledge. But favour they must do to some and thereby disfavouring some others. I understand favouring someone surely may not always imply disfavouring anybody else. The vital question however is how it is possible that this daily is very neutral? I do not believe that even the god can be neutral. Otherwise why he asks us to say prayer everyday? But let us remain with the press and newspapers as it is not always safe to talk about god and annoying Him.Reporting news and events are not always easy. You must take a side. Or present the news mutilating the information a little bit here or there or why not constructing yourself the whole in your own way? People construct history everyday and who says it is bad to mutilate a news and present it to your benefit is bad? “There is nothing higher than to speak the truth. Yet, it is better to speak what is beneficial than to speak the truth”, some divine message commands.

The other day I was surfing in Google surf engine and quite accidentally I got the Indian Navy web page, and to my utter surprise, I learnt that the origin of today’s Republic of India’s navy “predates the birth of western civilisation”. And the writer continues, “The world's first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BC during the Harappan Civilisation, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast”. “Sanggatik Khabar” it must be and only problem is that no historiographer ever knew this story before. ‘Bapray-Bap’, how great that navy must have been! But the simple question is, when and where there was a country called ‘India’ that had shipyard and made naval ships? For that matter, did these high talking Indians ever knew anything about their past until the Moguls conquered some part of the Indian sub-continent and started writing Indian History?There should be some limit of constructing history. It is surprising that educated Indian intellectuals could match so perfectly to Muslim fanatics like Osama bin-Ladens or any other extremists you may mention.

Our Bangladeshi historians are not left far behind. Look at Mujibur Rahman, the man who was all through his life a communal fellow and nothing but a demagogue of worst sorts became a great secularist and one of the greatest leaders’ the world has ever seen to many Bangladeshi history writers. Of course, constructing history is a great art, I do not deny that, and I salute these great history writers. Look again at the Pakistanis, they write history on Jinnah, a wine loving, pork eating black Englishman who was almost an atheist but Pakistanis must make him a great ‘Allah’ fearing Muslim.

Constructing history for convenience is a great business and if one can do it carefully or speaking only the half truth as the BBC and other great media people do, he/she is sure to win the hearts and minds of great patriots, ultra nationalists, diehard fanatics, and of course of some innocent readers who read newspapers for fun. Journalists can make hero out of a fool and are capable of converting a wise into a silly dunce. But their great contribution to society is, as old Oscar Wilde said, “by giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community”.

“Press Freedom”, I am sure is good. But press freedom shall be for the selected people from the press and they must have freedom to write and present things that suit their social, political and group interests. Most importantly, they must be allowed to use their pen to mutilate your views and present it they way they like. Some weeks ago I read an article in Daily Star, Dhaka, on Rabindranath Tagore written by one Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman. I do not think that the justice wrote something that we did not know. But his comments on Rabindranath Tagore’s grandfather Dwarakanath Tagore was not very correct and my reaction to it was equally strong and hostile. I wrote a letter to Daily star expressing my views on both Dwarakanath and Rabindranath Tagore as a protest. I know that my remarks were offensive and not polite but surely were not fabricated. My information on Dwarakanath, a great stooge of the colonial power, is from distinguished researchers and really not of my own. The Daily Star published my letter but again, they mutilated and presented it in their own way. I present my original letter here and as it was published in Dhaka’s premium English daily so that the readers may see and judge what I am complaining about. I sent the letter to Daily Star on 7th May 2008 (in Bangladesh it was 8th May):Re. Tagore's pride by Justice Rahman (DS, 8th May 2008)-Tayeb HusainI reluctantly agree on some points what Justice Muhammad Habibur Rahman has written about Tagore and his grandfather, the phoney Prince, Dwarakanath Tagore. He was welcomed by Queen Victoria and King Louis because they had to keep the interest of the empire in mind. Indeed he met many writers too including Charles Dickens in parties organized and paid by Dwarakanath Tagore. But what Dickens thought of him Justice Rahman did not fully elaborate. Dickens mocked his name and it was Dickens again who called him the “Oriental Croesus” (who was king of Lydia until he was defeated by the Persians about 547 BC). I do not know if Dickens honoured or mocked at Dwarakanath calling him “Oriental Croesus”. He also called him “baboon” at his back.So far Rabindranath is concerned my short comment is that, in Tagore we find a poet, a novelist, a dramatist, an essayist, a music writer, a composer, a painter and even a singer. He was a versatile man, unique in the world who dealt with so many sides of art and culture.

Tagore’s greatest triumph in life, however, was his winning the novel prize, a controversial prize one can say if one seriously considers every pro and con of this prize. But as a man, I am convinced that he was not as great as his flatterers want us to believe. He was a cruel Zamindar, a communal person, a spurious philosopher and in many ways a highly confused man. Harsh comments indeed but let the readers ponder and let someone prove that these savage attacks on this great son of Bengal are wrong and unjustified.

So far Rabindranath is concerned my short comment is that, in Tagore we find a poet, a novelist, a dramatist, an essayist, a composer, a painter and even a singer. He was a versatile genius who dealt with so many sides of art and culture. But he was a cruel zamindar too! ……….I do not disagree that writing offensive letters are not good but how good it is hiding the truth? Was not Rabindranath communal? Who was not communal at his time? And who says that a great poet or a distinguished singer or an actor must always be an adorable person as an individual in his/her totality? Tagore and men like him in those days did much harm to Bengal in many ways. Again, India, the country that colonialist Brits united by sward, most probably, would never have never been divided in 1947 if men like Rabindranath Tagore were non-communal and fair minded to every citizen of India. Then we can ask, what was his philosophy that people talk about? He was confused about his religion and politics. Perhaps it was due to the reason that he tried to master so many things at a time. And to say all these one needs not be a Tagore admirer or hater. We have every right to criticise Tagore because he is Tagore and we surely need to find out the truth about him. But the problem with Bengali people is that they are diehard Tagore flatterers and unfortunately very few are neutral and would like to appraise Tagore as he was. As a result it is hard for people to know who actually Tagore was. Of course I do not blame Daily Star’s editors for everything. They need to edit many things and most importantly writer’s English. English is not the mother tongue of Bangladeshi people but that editing must not be mutilating a write-up or twisting the views or making it as they want. I shall also be fair to Daily Star and my blame is not to this daily only; that is what editors and journalists all over the world behave and act.

Journalists and newspapermen everywhere are almost the same. They encourage you and publish your write-up if it goes with their lines. “Journalism will kill you, but it will keep you alive while you're at it” wrote Horace Greeley about the power of the newspapermen. Free and fair flow of information is not what journalism is all about but propagating and presenting things the way that is beneficial to their social, political and most importantly, economic interest. Often newspapermen work as spies and agents of the states or of particular groups. When George W. Bush and his administration invaded Iraq there were hardly any opposition in US media against this illegal action. If media and newspapermen write honestly and sincerely the truth without taking any side as our prime daily in Dhaka says about their own standing “journalism without fear or favour” much of the ills in the world could be impeded. Tayeb Husain, Sweden





courtesy: newsfrombangladesh.net