On The Economist articles: The good, bad, and ugly

Published : 21 August 2011, 02:56 PM
Updated : 21 August 2011, 02:56 PM

Global news magazine The Economist ran multiple pieces on Bangladesh in recent weeks both on its print and online editions. The key talking points of the write-ups were the current Awami League government, its relationship with India, and its acrimony with the opposition party BNP. The flurry of multiple articles within a span of days is worthy of raising curiosity.

Although there is hardly any new information in the articles, their repetitive nature and specific usage of language deserves scrutiny. The timing of the articles is also important, as almost all of them provided friendly advice to the Indian government. Readers probably know Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is about to visit Bangladesh soon.

The Awami League government, keeping with our tradition of over-reaction, reacted vehemently. The government response revolved around traditional accusations of a "conspiracy" being hatched by "vested quarters" and a "smear campaign" to tarnish the good deeds of an otherwise very popular government.

It deserves mention that The Economist articles were not flawless. Not that we expect flawlessness, knowing that The Economist is not going to spend thousands of pounds to do high caliber investigative journalism prior to writing on Bangladesh. Regardless, the articles sounded more like commentaries from a casual observer, rather than someone with expert level knowledge on Bangladesh. In this article, I will highlight some of the good, bad, and ugly aspects of The Economist articles, in reverse order.

The ugly
In the first article of the series, The Economist mentioned that the current Awami League government came to power being "helped by bags of Indian cash and advice". Such words without full back-up ignited a firestorm of criticism from the Awami League government.

Somewhat contradicting the above observation, one of the subsequent articles stated that, "In the fairest poll in the country's (Bangladesh's) four-decade history, the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, swept to power in a landslide". Ask any Bangladeshi, a poll won via foreign "money and advice" is considered anything but "fairest" in this country. The authors appeared confused.

The series of articles used words like "corrupt", "kleptocrat", etc. while describing Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Note, the authors did not "accuse" these ladies of corruption, but simply labelled them as "corrupt", as if these are court-tested, well-established facts. Having read global print media for years, I can attest that the Western journalists in general use more sophisticated vocabulary to prove their points. They do that with leaders of other nations that often create more global nuisance than Hasina or Khaleda. The editors just did not care.

The bad
There are numerous instances where the magazine made grand claims, without providing any hint at the source of such information. There are instances where conjectures were presented as facts.

One example could be the allegation that Sheikh Hasina's government went after Noble Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus just to make sure his persona does not eclipse that of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's. This can be a conjecture of the authors or some segment of Bangladeshis, but it appeared in one of the articles as if it's a fact.

The articles presented casual observations as if those are statistical truths. For example, one of the articles spoke about aspirations of majority of Bangladeshis to have a country like either Indonesia or India. If I am allowed to use my less-scientific survey of Bangladeshis, I would probably conclude their dream would be to be like Malaysia, and may be India (who knows?). I am not sure how many Bangladeshis really aspire to be like Indonesia.

The articles often used cheap tactics and references to ridicule Sheikh Hasina. For one, they mentioned that civil servants refer to her as "Sir". To be fair, such practice is indeed strange and defies English grammar. Many say that Sheikh Hasina abhors the term "Madam" – a term used commonly in reference to Khaleda Zia. But these are simple conjectures. Whatever the comical value of such a practice, its reference in The Economist article appeared "implanted" — something similar to "poking".

The good
All of the articles (there are 4 of them) have a common theme. The articles say that to be a global power, India needs to take its relationship with smaller neighbours seriously. The fourth article on this series talks about India's relationship with Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan along with Bangladesh.

It is praiseworthy that the authors took the courageous stance in providing India an honest feedback when one of the articles stated, "India's dealings with its neighbours are mostly driven by arrogance and neglect. It has shared shockingly little of its economic dynamism and new-found prosperity with those around it. Just 5 percent of South Asia's trade is within the region".

The first article of this series criticised India for putting too much emphasis on its relationship with just one political party in Bangladesh, namely Awami League. We know that if last four general elections of Bangladesh are any guide, none of the major political parties enjoyed more than 45 percent of the popular support in Bangladesh. Hence, it is indeed advisable to India to have a broad-based relationship with major Bangladeshi parties rather than just one.

The articles also tackled various sensitive issues, some of which are not journalistically convenient to address.

For example, one of the articles raised concerns about the on-going war-crimes trials of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders in Bangladesh, fearing that these may turn into "patrician witch-hunts". Under current geo-political environment, it is indeed difficult to ask for fair trial for a bunch of "Islamists". In Bangladesh there are not that many journalists who would willingly do that due to the fear of being dubbed as terrorists, rajakars, and collaborators.

Another hyper-sensitive issue that one of the articles addressed was the killings of Biharis by Bangalees during and after Bangladesh's Liberation War of 1971. The authors hinted that the current war-crimes trials are focusing the excesses of seven individual perpetrators, all from just one political party.

One of the articles repeatedly doubted the actual number of Bangalees killed during 1971. This is an explosive topic to throw to Bangalees. However, an honest pursuit of true history may require solid response to such "doubters". One should appreciate the journalistic courage of the authors in bringing such issues in the fore-front. We Bangladeshis also want a conclusive end to all these disputes around our history, so that the country can move on.

——————————
Shafquat Rabbee is a freelance writer from New York, USA.