THE INTERFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN

BANGLADESH

English- 105, Section- 04

A. M. MUYEED KHAN
ID-1230493010

19th April, 2017

North South University
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank my parents and my sisters for their endless support and love,

without which all of the things that I have accomplished would have been impossible. I am thankful

to the fellow classmates, friends and students of North South University who took out some of

their precious time to help me with the research survey. Special thanks to Tanzia Helal Niloy, who

has been always there a great support for me, for believing in me and to bring out the positiveness

in me. I express my utmost gratitude to these people without whose contribution I would not have

been able to complete my research paper.

 ABSTRACT

One of the fundamental rights of human is the freedom of speech. Ability to speak and express

ones own thoughts and ideas is very important in this modern world. This sharing of ideas plays

a vital role in the growth of intellectual and moral development of the people of the country. The

main objective of my research paper is to show that this basic human right of free speech is

constantly assaulted by the interference of governments actions. The research conducted proved

that the people are aware of their rights while they are unable to do anything against the

policymakers of the country. The authorities are abusing their powers and they are controlling,

banning and taking any actions they deem necessary to safeguard their positions and interests. The

research findings strongly demonstrated these data and proved my hypothesis that government is

interfering on the peoples right to freedom of speech in Bangladesh.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Background 2

Research questions 4

Hypothesis 4

Methodology 5

Data presentation and analysis 5

Summary of research findings 13

Conclusion 14

References 15

Appendix
 INTRODUCTION

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak at liberty without any kind of restrictions.

It is often regarded as a fundamental concept in modern liberal democracies. It is a massive step

in human civilization. An open society that inspires free speech gives the people the means to

connect with each other and share different ideas. With the free flow of data, people or individuals

can access and manipulate the resources they need to develop their own ideas and creativity. Thus

freedom of speech plays a very important role in the scope of learning new ideas and information

every day.

Democracy is based strongly on the right for people to express their opinions. In all free

society, freedom of speech is a basic human right, it is essential in decision making from parliament

to community level. People become very emotional and will do anything to protect it, when their

basic human right is threatened. This can lead to social chaos and alternatively affects the

economy.

The limit to free speech has always been a controversial topic. Some people argue that

freedom of speech should only be allowed to a certain extent. Some people think that there should

not be any type of barriers or restrictions on ones voicing his or her opinions. While some think

that authorities and government have the right to exercise ban or punishment on whoever they

want or need. The latter group of people includes mostly of the officials or representatives of the

governments or law enforcement forces.

1
 BACKGROUND

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold

opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any

media and regardless of frontiers as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, adopted in 1948. The freedom of expression always had a difficult history in Bangladesh.

Since this is a country where the democracy is so flawed that the public have to choose between

the worse and the worst political parties. They are constantly in a dilemma and frustration that

their voting rights are not properly utilized and whichever party comes to ruling they have the

tendency to exercise misuse of powers for their own benefits. So the country is being driven by

autocratic government in the name of democracy.

If some recent events are analyzed, it becomes evident what the government is doing to the

people who tried to use the freedom of expression. Ahsan Kabir (2016), a senior writer of the

newspaper Los Angeles Times, covered in his article some incidents happening in Bangladesh

regarding the freedom of speech. In February, 2016, the authorities in Bangladesh took a 73-year-

old publisher named Shamsuzzoha Manik, into custody for publishing a book titled Islam

Bitorko (Debate on Islam). The writers arrest and the shutting down of his stall marked a

bitter moment in the nations largest book fair, Ekushey Boi Mela, held each year at Bangla

Academy in honor of the International Mother Language Day. The authority considered the book

offensive to Islam. They took out the books circulation and further publication. But the real

injustice was when they kept the publisher behind bars for seven months after the incident.

2
 All through the 90s, there have been quite a few others who faced various degrees of

coercion and threats for speaking and writing their views, especially Taslima Nasreen, a writer

who is in exile now, with a number of her books banned in the country; and one of the leading

Bangla poets, Shamsur Rahman, who was attacked in his home in early 1999.

Online blogs are considered a platform where one can express their thoughts and ideas to

the world without any kinds of censorship. Bangladeshi bloggers also took this platforms help to

express their ideas and shared it with people. Topics ranging from cultural to socio-political

bloggers felt a sense of freedom online to participate in conversations. The casualty followed as

reported by Kabir (2016) one of the Internet communities of free thinkers and rationalists that

gained early popularity was Mukto-Mona, founded in 2001 by Avijit Roy, a Bangladeshi-

American online activist. In February 2015 Roy was hacked to death during the Ekushey Boi

Mela.

Many other incidents are reported where the bloggers get death threats from terrorists and

in some cases the terrorists were true to their words. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right

in modern societies, and it has particular significance in relation to the well-functioning of the

constitutional democratic process as stated by Beatson and Cripps (2000). Bangladesh

governments role in providing the society that process is copiously doubtful. In August 2015, the

armys intelligence agency ordered the countrys largest companies to stop advertising in Prothom

Alo and the Daily Star, Bangladeshs most popular newspapers in Bangla and English respectively.

This order was incited because earlier those newspapers had published a report on the killings of

5 people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts by the army. The result was that overnight the newspapers

lost approximately 30% of their advertisement income which put them in a difficult economic

3
situation (Bergman, 2016). Since the ban was imposed by the Army who are in cahoots with the

ruling government, no initiatives were taken by the Bangladesh Government to negate the illegal

act.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To know how much the public is concerned of the current scenarios of freedom of speech in
Bangladesh and what the government is doing with their powers to control that, I designed some
questions which might address the situation and help me to investigate and to prove the hypothesis
that I have deduced.

What does freedom of speech mean?

Is there any limit to freedom of speech?
Are the rights to freedom of speech exercised at school level?
Is it a violation of freedom of speech to not be able to voice your opinion publically?
Should freedom of speech be affected by political decisions?
Is it justified for the government to enforce ban or arrest on the basis of expressing on
social media?

HYPOTHESIS

From my research I expect to prove that the government is being contemptuous on their position

regarding freedom of speech of mass people. The terrorist groups in Bangladesh are playing a very

negative role in regard of peoples right to speak freely. People are finding it difficult to say freely

what they want because of those threats and the incidents they witness nowadays. The young

generation are getting terrified to report, to write or to say anything publicly because of the terrible

4
consequences they are watching on the media that are happening to those who exercised their right.

The government is not enforcing necessary actions for these undesirable deeds. Moreover, they

are also doing unnecessary banning and arrests of people who would express their opinions on

media.

METHODOLOGY

For primary research, a survey was conducted on general public in Dhaka to observe what they

think about the freedom of speech and their opinions about the actions and steps taken by

government. To assist the research, a set of questionnaire with different types of questions

regarding the topic was designed. The survey was carried out in NSU and in my local area among

random people. A total of 40 questionnaires were completed by people which consisted of 8

questions. Most of the questions were multiple choice questions along with a single open ended

one.

For the secondary research, resources from published online journals and articles were

consulted. The help of standard search engines like Google, Yahoo and Bing were also taken.

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

To prove my hypothesis, and to collect public opinions I conducted a survey questioning the

various aspects of freedom of speech. The collected data was taken from a group of 40 people,

among which the majority were students. Out of 40 people, 17 were male and 23 were female.

The first question was asked to express their opinions about the extent to which they think

the freedom of speech should be controlled among people. Among them equal percentages of

5
people (40%) said that they do not want any restrictions on their right to freedom of speech and

also that in some cases there may be some restrictions needed. A pie chart representing the data is

given in Figure 1.

To what extent the freedom of speech should

be restricted?

3%
Never
2%
15%
Maybe restricted in some cases
40%

Maybe restricted in extreme cases

40%
Maybe restricted in many cases

Should be heavily restricted in

general

Figure 1: To what extent the freedom of speech should be restricted?

Only 1 out of 40 people chose that there should be heavy restriction on the free speech.

The data collected matched my hypothesis that people do not actually want their rights to freedom

of speech hampered or being restricted upon.

The second question dealt with the situations under which there should be restrictions on

the freedom of speech. This question allowed people to choose several options. Most of them opted

for multiple answers while some resorted to a single opinion. A pie chart represents the data in

Figure 2.

6
 Under what circumstance may the freedom
of speech be limited?

Never
12%
32% When it challenges the authority or
17% stability of the government
When it may lead to physical harm
or fear of future harm in others
14% 25%
When it causes emotional distress
in others
When it misleads others

Figure 2: Under what circumstance may the freedom of speech be limited?

Majority of the people (32%) chose that freedom of speech should be limited when it

misleads others. The second most chosen option was When it may lead to physical harm or fear

of future harm in others (25%). From the data it was proven that people are more concerned about

the misleading factors of freedom of speech and they think that it is justified to limit the extent of

freedom of speech on such situations. The data clearly shows that people do not want the

interference of the authorities or government on their free speech.

The third question dealt with the fact that whether it is justified for the government to ban

or take action on the basis of someones public post on social media. The following pie chart shows

the data obtained in Figure 3.

7
 Is it justified for the government to ban or
take action on the basis of someones post or
opinion publically or in social media?

17%

50% Yes

33% Never
Maybe

Figure 3: Is it justified for the government to ban or take action on the basis of someones

post or opinion publically or in social media?

20 people out of 40 chose the option Maybe proving that they are confused about their

position in this topic. This also shows that some people are not against the governments ban or

action. 33% of them said that they are strongly against the idea of governments actions on publics

posts. This proved my hypothesis wrong because I assumed most of the people will be not be in a

position to tolerate the governments ban or action on public.

The fourth question was whether the government should interfere on the peoples posts on

public. Again the responses of people showed that they are mixed up about their spots on whether

to support it or not. The following pie chart clearly shows the data accumulated from the public

survey in Figure 4.

8
 Should government interfere in peoples
postings in the social media?

15%

45%
Yes
No
40%
Maybe

Figure 4: Should government interfere in peoples postings in the social media

A majority of 45% of the people showed that they are unsure about whether they should

let the government interfere or not. But most of them selected that they do not want any type of

intrusion on their posts. Although this questions responses proved my hypothesis wrong, in a way

it also showed that people prefer not to take any position against the government because

subconsciously they think that they might face future harm in their lives for raising their voices

against the authorities.

The fifth question asked to the people was that whether they have anything to talk about in

public. The reactions strengthened the fact that people in fact are afraid to share their opinions in

public. The data collected is shown below on a pie chart in Figure 5.

9
 Are there things that you would like to talk
about?

30%
47% Yes
No
23% Prefer not to answer

Figure 5: Are there things that you would like to talk about?

From the data it is clearly visible that people are afraid to talk about their opinions in public

lest they get arrested or any other type of harassments from the government or authorities. The

majority agreed that they have things to share and a high percentage (30%) of them showed they

would not rather talk about their position in it. This proved my hypothesis about the peoples fear

of the government.

The sixth question asked in the survey was whether people think that freedom of speech is

being taught and practiced at schools. According to the data collected from the respondents of the

survey most of them agrees that freedom of speech is not being practiced at schools. From an early

age the young people are taught that they should not speak out their mind. Partly this happens to

maintain discipline but this also injects the fear into their tiny minds. Children gets used to the

system where they think that it is better not to say anything even if they think it is wrong. The

responses shown in the following pie chart in Figure 6 proves my hypothesis.

10
 Is freedom of speech being practiced at
school level?

28% 22%

Yes
No
Maybe
50%

Figure 6: Is freedom of speech being practiced at school level?

50% of the people picked No indicating that they are well aware of the school systems

which teach censorship on ones free speech from an early age. Another 28% of the people said

they are not sure and opted for Maybe option. But that confusion also reinforces the fact that the

limitations of ones choice to express his or her opinions is difficult starting from the school-age.

Thus all these data prove my hypothesis that freedom of speech is not practiced at schools.

The seventh question was a follow up open ended question which was to be answered if

someone has selected the No option of the previous question (No. 6). Usually people tend to

ignore the open ended questions because they need to think about it before answering. Also it takes

some time to comprehend the question. As a result, the responses received does not match the

number of people who chose the No option. In fact, some people changed their selected option

in question no. 6 from No to other options because they simply did not want to take time to

11
answer the question. Still some people with enough patience actually took the time to give their

thoughts on black and white.

Out of 20 people who said No in question no. 6, 16 of them wrote their views about why

they chose that answer. Their opinions included the fear of breaking rules in school, the scolding

of teachers if someone says anything that the school authorities deem correct while it might not be

the case, the stern attitude of teachers, social restrictions, and even here some of them wrote that

they have no idea whatsoever.

The last question was about ranking the Bangladesh in terms of restrictions on freedom of

speech compared to the rest of the world. The data received is shown below in the doughnut graph

in Figure 7.

How would you rank Bangladesh in terms of

freedom of speech when compared to the
rest of the world?

10%
28%
Not restricted
Average
Very restrictred

62%

Figure 7: How would you rank Bangladesh in terms of freedom of speech when compared

to the rest of the world?

12
 The majority of the people (62%) considers Bangladesh with average restrictions. 28% of

the participants think that Bangladesh has heavy restrictions on the free speech of people. Since

the majority opted for Average it was against my hypothesis where I assumed that most of them

will select the Heavily restricted option. But at the same time the second most chosen option was

Heavily restricted which indicates that a large group of people are aware of the governments

position on the restrictions on freedom of speech in our country.

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

After conducting the survey and doing the research I found that the data matched my hypothesis.

People are aware of the fact that the freedom of speech is necessary and a vital factor in democracy.

But they are also familiar with the fact that Bangladesh is a democratic country in name only. Any

type of comments or public posts can easily be traced back to the person who made it and

government or terrorists or law enforcing forces will be the one taking the necessary steps to

silence that person. It is evident, the authorities do not give values to the freedom of speech and

they do not tolerate anything said or written against them.

The people are in constant fear of being targeted by the government or terrorist groups for

voicing their ideas and notions. They suppress what they think instead of expressing it publicly.

These fears were not created overnight. Since childhood they have seen the bullying in schools,

the strictness of teachers and the consequences their fellow classmates face when they decided to

act up. Day by day, this suppression had lead them to the present psyche where they think that it

is better to keep ones mouth shut rather than speaking up.

13
 The authorities will take whatever steps necessary to prevent their image from being

tarnished and the worst part is that they will do it publicly. They will put down anything that comes

in their way and as long as they are ruling the country, they have no fear of publics opinions. They

consider themselves invincible and also act like one. These types of attitudes have to be changed

by the government and the law enforcement authorities. Otherwise proper progress and

development will never take place in this country.

CONCLUSION

Inference of the whole research showed that unless the people and government work together in

coordination, freedom of speech will not be attained. The government have to take steps to bring

more transparency and justification in their actions while the public has to speak the rightful words.

Only through working in harmony the government, the authorities, the law enforcement forces and

the public can achieve to take the country to its peak success prosperity.

14
 REFERENCES

Beatson & Cripps (2000). Freedom of expression and freedom of information: essays in honour

of Sir A. Mason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bergman, D. (2016, November 18) At the Dhaka Literary Festival, Restrictions on Free Speech

Will be the Elephant in the Room. The Wire. Retrieved from

https://thewire.in/80996/dhaka-literary-festival-freedom-of-speech/

Kabir, A. (2016, September 23). The price of free speech in Bangladesh. Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-bangladesh-20160815-

snap-story.html

United Nations. (1948, September). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

15