After the July Uprising, Bangladesh’s journalist community had hoped for “fearless, free journalism.” But in reality, very little has changed. Even under the interim government, journalists continue to fall victim to killings, beatings, attacks and frivolous lawsuits while carrying out their professional duties.
Media Reform Commission chief Kamal Ahmed spoke candidly on such issues in an exclusive interview with M Abul Kalam Azad, Editor, Special Affairs of TIMES of Bangladesh, on 9 September.
The senior journalist pointed out that the commission did not make any unrealistic recommendations. Most of its proposals could have been implemented simply by updating existing government directives and policies.
Instead of implementing these recommendations, he alleged, the information ministry is moving in the opposite direction.
If the politics of revenge prevails, and accountability and the rule of law are absent, journalists cannot remain safe. Kamal Ahmed emphasised the need to enact a journalist protection law to shield journalists.
TIMES: After the July Uprising, why has the expectation of ‘fearless, free journalism’ not materialised?Kamal Ahmed: Our expectations have not been met. But we forgot that after a mass uprising, it is natural to have chaos in the state and society. So, our expectations were not realistic.
On one hand, the interim government is unable to act firmly as it depends on conditional support from several political parties and students. On the other, the old bureaucracy and business elites have consolidated their positions by competing in switching loyalty.
At the same time, there is a desire for revenge among those who were repressed and deprived for the past decade and a half. The result has been government indecision or long delays in decision-making, unrest and chair-grabbing inside media organisations, and the failure to stop mob violence or organised attacks.
Journalists are still becoming victims of murder, assault, attacks and harassment while on duty. A journalist was even attacked in court. What steps are needed to ensure journalists’ safety?
The lawyers who attacked journalists had political identities. During autocratic rule, they or their associates may have been deprived, or their leaders, colleagues or relatives may have faced harassment.
Now, they are targeting others for revenge – even for the remotest of links with the former autocratic regime. Since journalists report on such matters, which may harm these individuals socially or politically, they try to obstruct news coverage through violence.
Police on duty in the court failed, perhaps out of fear of the lawyers. Why the court did not take up this incident is for the judiciary to answer. And professional institutions of lawyers, such as bar associations, should take action to uphold the dignity of their profession. Otherwise, such incidents will occur again.
Despite working in a risky profession, many journalists still do not get fair salaries or job security. Is there any solution to this dilemma?
Journalist union leaders directly linked with political parties believe wages can only be fixed through a wage board. Earlier, pro-Awami League leaders avoided mentioning labour law when it came to journalists, demanding instead a separate law for media professionals.
But the reality is, if the labour law had been applied effectively, wage arrears, workplace harassment and arbitrary dismissals could have been stopped. Just look at bank employees or garment workers. Three garment owners now face international arrest warrants or Interpol red notices for failing to pay workers.
As for the wage board – it has been stuck in court for nearly five years. The government is not a party to the case; the owners filed it. Can the government force any citizen to withdraw a case? If the case lingers for another five years, journalists will remain on outdated pay packages, while inflation has risen by over 50% in the last five years.
That is why the commission recommended that the ninth-grade salary of government officials be made the minimum wage for journalists, with salaries rising annually according to official inflation figures. Wages for other positions can be settled through negotiations between owners and unions, or individually. But labour law must be enforced strictly. Only then will the misery of journalists end.
Some may ask whether setting a minimum wage is legally problematic. But if labour law is applied, there should be no obstacle. Minimum wages in other sectors are set through tripartite negotiations. It should be the same for journalists.
Six months ago, the Media Reform Commission submitted its report. Why have the recommendations not been implemented?
I cannot answer this question based on speculation. The government should respond. The adviser to the information ministry or the Cabinet Division secretary responsible for reform coordination knows better.
What I can say is that ministry officials are taking the opposite approach without seeking stakeholders’ opinions or cooperation. We recommended abolishing the failed and irrelevant Press Council and creating a new institution.
But ignoring our proposal for a National Media Commission, the ministry revived the dying Press Council in January – while our commission was still at work – by appointing members nominated by media owners and editors.
They did the same with the Mass Media Employees (Services Conditions) Act, pulling out an old draft and seeking comments from owners, editors and unions. We recommended restructuring Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha and merging it with BTV and radio to stop the waste of public funds. The ministry instead approved the hiring of 45 new staff beyond budget – though BTV already had surplus staff.
Yet for BTV to repair a broken vehicle at a cost of Tk50,000, a file must go through 14 desks from the secretary down. That is the extent of ministerial control.
Which of the commission’s recommendations should already have been implemented?
The commission did not make any unrealistic proposals. Most could be implemented simply by updating government directives and policies. Even those requiring time could have been initiated, so that if a future government wanted to abandon them, it would have to justify its decision.
For example, the concentration of influence caused by multiple media platforms under single ownership could have been broken through directives with deadlines – without new laws. The government could also have issued ordinances to enact a journalist protection law and form a permanent media commission. Both are essential for independent journalism.
Similarly, granting autonomy to state-owned TV and radio is crucial. But the government is making a serious mistake by not prioritising it. Political governments will not do it, and bureaucrats will not allow it—for reasons I explained earlier.
If the recommendations were implemented, what would be the result?
Our report outlined how each recommendation should be implemented. If carried out, journalists and struggling media organisations would regain financial independence, making objective journalism possible. However, dealing with institutions without credibility is a different matter.
There are complaints about security issues, threats and increasing self-censorship in journalism today. What’s your take on this?
Self-censorship mainly comes from threats by mobs or certain quarters, some backed by “gurus” on social media. Whether the government itself has interfered can only be answered by newsroom editors.
However, if government officials point out errors or misleading information in a report or column, should that automatically be called interference?
With the February election approaching fast, there are concerns about rising political violence. Will journalism become even more difficult in the coming days?
If violence becomes rampant, risks for journalists will certainly increase. Intolerance in society is already extreme. That is why a journalist protection law was so urgent. Without justice, perpetrators feel encouraged.
We must remember that freedom of expression means being able to speak unless it causes harm to others. But if the politics of revenge prevails, and accountability and the rule of law are absent, journalists cannot remain safe.
