When the government decided to ban Facebook, WhatsApp, and Viber (and let us not forget Instagram), there were few from within the Bangladeshi population who saw it as being an effective means of catching alleged perpetrators and potential terrorists. It is a rare thing to see, our country, full of “radical,” atheist bloggers and right-wing IS-sympathisers (presumably), bonding together over a common cause.
You know you’ve made a joke of a decision when the entire nation, regardless of political, social, or religious ideological differences, singularly derides it.
This so-called decision was taken on November 18. It’s been 19 days since, and, up until day before yesterday, spokespeople for the government, such as Telecom State Minister Tarana Halim and Home Minister Asaduzzaman Kamal, could perhaps play a game of asking the people to prove a negative.
Could we prove that it hadn’t worked? Was there evidence to show that the ban hadn’t worked wonders in providing much-needed security to the Bangladeshi populace? After all, no machetes had sliced the air, no wayward guns had crossed the path of some secularist or minority.
And then, almost as soon as Kamal mentioned that the ban would soon be lifted, three hand bombs get flung into the Kantaji temple in Dinajpur during a late-night soiree. No one has died as of yet, but several people were critically injured.
No questions as to there being other mediums by which wannabe terrorists can communicate and plan and foster the fear they so rely on. But if one were to give in to the conspiracy nut that hides in all of our bones, locked in some cocoon of unconventional logic, one could see how this would be taken as further provocation for the government to continue its ban on social media sites, and to broaden its umbrella to include anything and everything under the digital sun.
And when the same representatives (figureheads and puppets for the grander propaganda machine, no doubt) meet with representatives from Facebook, requesting them to “filter” content, the nut gets loose and ricochets all across the room, shuttlecocking past and around the invisible elephant.
“Filter” is a dangerous word. With regards to the type of content, emphasis was put on “religious provocation, cruelty against women, and conspiracy against the state.”
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are, it’s a duck.
Initial reasoning for stopping social media, a veritable platform for the free exchange of ideas, was maybe -- and that is an extremely soft “maybe” -- justified. Comparisons made by Halim to Paris were ludicrous at best; not foreseeing the fact that terrorists can download communication platforms other than the most popular ones was inane.
But when expectations are this low, when our own country has beaten us down so much that the only option we have left is to try and see the silver lining in every stormy cloud, we console ourselves: Sure, maybe they have a point. Maybe.
But as the ban continues, and as the government’s rhetoric surfaces following the meeting with the Facebook officials -- “religious provocation” and “conspiracy against the state” are as broad definitions as they come, and as worthy of worry (doesn’t it almost seem like “violence against women” was put in there to cushion the blow?) -- it becomes even more evident that this is no more than a ploy to suppress free speech in a country that is already running out of platforms on which to practice it.
The voice of dissent is being choked to death in front of our very eyes, and all we can do is hope that the external forces, such as the Facebook officials, aren’t somehow seduced into listening to the catastrophic whims of an increasingly autocratic state.
This is how it starts, the downward spiral into Orwellian dystopia. Corruption has infiltrated the very fabric of the nation, the opposition has been annihilated, too much power has been bestowed upon a single individual, and disagreeing individuals and groups are slowly being squashed under the foot, brushed under the rug. How long before elections are a thing of the past and democracy becomes the fairy tale you tell your child so that they can go to sleep?
I am, perhaps, getting ahead of myself. But let us not discount little evils which spring up, add on, and foster figureheads of oppressive authority.
To take a step back and out of the cocoon, let us assume that the government’s intentions are pure, its reasoning true. Filtering content and banning platforms for communication and free speech, even if it does curb violence and extremism to some extent, is treating the symptom, and cannot be the cure.
The shutting down of avenues of free expression has always, always, always resulted in even more brutal reactions. People, no matter who they are, what their beliefs, do not welcome the thought of being stuck in a prison cell. They will harvest even more ill-will against the hand that muffles them and seek more nefarious avenues of protesting an unacceptable status quo.
This is not the way to go about weeding out extremism, dissent (which should not be weeded out to begin with) and violence against women (I must scoff again at the inclusion of the last one). One need not be a political and psychological expert to understand how people work and react. If the government continues the way it does, if madness continues to supersede their methods, the people will be left with only two very dangerous options: Give in, or revolt.