Our masters’ voice?

Is looking upon foreign media as provider of truth and counsel a natural phenomenon for a colonised people who have less confidence in themselves than they do in the foreign masters? It's their judgment that is most important to us. We claim to be free but look from a certificate from the foreign world to tell us that we are free. This attitude was noted in the way many of us have reacted to the Qatar based TV Channel Al-Jazeera. Even our most up front youth group the Shahbaghis seem to have been deeply affected. Sadly, this is probably a national phenomenon and the feeling that we need foreign approval for what we do runs deep and their disapproval sounds like a betrayal.

*****

In this globalised world, the concept of "local" has dramatically changed and in the post-cold war world, more rather than fewer countries are outside the ambit of pressure, sanction or invasion. However, such circumstances are rarely reached and the world experiences most of the rest of the world through media inter-actions. That however, doesn't mean that we shall accept whatever comes from the West or the proto-West. In case of the ICT, this is however slightly different because it's an international War Crimes tribunal and ignoring world opinion is not possible.

*****

The best way to handle world opinion or criticism of such an institution is to do the best job possible. That has not been the case fully with the ICT and there have been controversies around the trial. There are two kinds of critiques. One belongs to the Jamaat Islami supporters and sympathizers and their objective is to disrupt the trial. So the group first pointed out the flaws and also tried to mobilize public opinion internationally. The reaction of these activists is political in nature and is about preserving Jamaat Islamic rather than look for a quality trial. It's a stance which can be insulting and plain inflammatory but given the situation they are in, it's also expected.

*****

But there is also one group which is looking for a quality trial irrespective of its political implication. They are not necessarily partisans or in favour of a party though they may not be fond of the present party in power. But that someone may be a critic without being political is a concept difficult for most to understand in Bangladesh. That is why any criticism of the ICT is considered the same of the war crimes process itself. And since all war crimes accused are of the JI, these people are alleged to be supporters of war crimes and JI. It's also a convenient way to gag any disagreeing voice with the present party in power supporters. Whether Piyash Karim or David Bergman, they are lumped together as "enemies of the state."

****

All this has come to head with the Al-Jazeera programme on war criminals. The programe has faced a deluge of abuse and was criticized by many as being biased towards the JI. Most have said that Al-Jazeera was deliberately biased against the trial. One issue that has come up is the number of those who died during that year. It's increasingly becoming a point of contention. However, going by facts, no surveys were done on the topic and no credible research done. Given that is the case, it's best to keep an open mind on all sides and not mention any numbers to further add to the difficulties of keeping history research on a straight track. Both sides have mentioned numbers but what do they mean ?

***

Present Bangladesh government Minister for Liberation war Affairs Mozamel Haque recently said on TV that the government is moving to make a list of shaheeds. He added that the list would possibly make a split between two types of shaheeds. One, who were killed in a confrontation with the Pakistanis, the shaheeds in battle. The other would be a list of those who had died due to various reasons in the course of the war. So there would be war shaheeds and those who would be "social shaheeds". He also said that work is already on to identify the FFs in that year and then to other categories of people affected by or involved in the war of 1971. So work is being done and once done we may have a much better idea of all the facts that matter to us. It could be 30 or it could be 30 million.

******

Al-Jazeera's reported that historians of Bangladesh have said that the estimated number of dead was between 3 to 5,00,000. This reference leads people to a blogspot. But those who have mentioned this number has not cited any sources and there is no way of knowing this in the absence of any credible national survey, research etc. By selecting and putting emphasis on a particular source, which in turn is already the target of accusations, the editors of Al-Jazeera ignored standard procedures of credible reporting. In a way, they leaned towards a particular possession. The best thing would have been not to mention any number at all since how many were killed in 1971 was not the focus of the report either. It made Al-Jazeera look like it was relying more on a particular group than others on this.

****

The reaction of Bangladeshi activists was also not balanced. They have said that the 3 million figures is a Government endorsed figure and contesting that is a serious matter amounting to taking Jamaat's side. But the GOB can produce any figure and even "facts" should it wish and if BNP ever comes to power, we shall see much of that but that doesn't such government statements a fact. The point is, just because the government says so, doesn't make it sacrosanct and beyond contention. Even if legislation is passed, it doesn't make it a fact. One may be charged for violating a law if it makes saying anything other than a certain number a crime, but that still doesn't become a fact. That fact belongs to history and ultimately after all this is over, someday the facts will triumph.

*****

But it's better to look inside ourselves and make us strong. Public reaction to the Al-jazeera was very much over done by Bangladeshis but the TV station should also abide by the ethics of journalism. However, it seems the struggle for facts has gone out of hand and has become a fight over something else. We react to a foreign media report with a degree of passion that is unbelievable. We seem to exist only when foreign media talks about us. Bangladesh will be better served if we treated our own media world not as instruments of politics but as producers of facts. Our loss of faith in ourselves is making us pay so much attention to foreign media.