Recently, certain personalities have been using their YouTube videos to impact Bangladesh’s political scenario. I could not think of a better word than “mastermind” (sarcastically, of course), since they fit into the categories of investigators, activists, and political analysts. Whether one believes them is a personal choice, but their videos are widely viewed.
Innovision Bangladesh has conducted a survey post-July Revolution, finding that social media videos will influence 5% of the voting decisions.
State brutality
To the best of my knowledge, some prominent YouTubers were journalists working in Bangladesh back in the day, who had covered or released stories on national media, which the autocratic Sheikh Hasina government had reservations about.
Other YouTubers of today were not journalists, but were in a position to showcase their analysis or deliver opinions that the regime deemed offensive. They were threatened, confined, or tortured by the intelligence or law enforcement agencies. Hence, once freed, they chose to abscond to the west.
The rise of political YouTubers
Since most of them already had some audience, setting up YouTube channels (with a decent following from the start) to disseminate their thoughts was not difficult. Their own stories of persecution had gained them sympathy.
As they had now begun to reside safely abroad, they could be critical of the state, VIPs, legislators, Sheikh Hasina’s goons, government agencies, and all activities of the regime. They were beyond harm or arrest, and therefore, could afford to convey their views (sometimes in the most inappropriate dialects), in light of all topics (or incidents) of public interest.
It is worth mentioning that their contents are mainly of two types: 1) live sessions and 2) well-edited (and presented) videos that report on their findings with comments that portray their analysis.
The Sheikh Hasina government had severely controlled the media, and freedom of expression was curtailed through misuse of state agencies and even laws such as the infamous Digital Security Act, the civil society (whose write-ups or comments were popular within the public) in Bangladesh remained tightlipped, if not “bought” by the regime.
Hence, these YouTubers grabbed the opportunity to speak, what commoners wanted to hear, or what they wanted to say out loud.
The investigation into the Pilkhana massacre
After the students who led the monsoon revolution, credit for ousting Sheikh Hasina is usually given to the activists who were subjected to extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances, or were imprisoned for years in political cases that hardly had merit.
Throughout the years, these YouTubers have undoubtedly ignited the fire in not only voicing for the public, but also setting narratives that went against the authoritarian establishment.
But since the interim government took over, I find it particularly fascinating how they have shifted their battles -- immediately after Sheikh Hasina's escape, they started to attack the army chief and his immediate subordinates.
Now, it is no secret that the army during the last moments of the uprising had sided with the protestors, and of course there are generals and senior officials who must be held accountable for their roles, but the point I am trying to make is the fact that these YouTubers did not put a stop at Sheikh Hasina.
Whereas you would now expect them to come back and serve the motherland that they claim to love deeply, they have gone after the army chief, and knowing fully well that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) will form the upcoming government, have now passionately gone after its leaders, activists, and activities.
So why exactly are they making everyone their enemies? Well, I feel that there are two main reasons:
1) Chances are that they had applied for political asylum in the countries of their current residence, and their applications no longer remain strong since Sheikh Hasina's fall. Therefore, it is essential that they establish that the army (and in the future, the BNP) are genuine threats to their lives, and they wish to develop legitimate grounds for future persecutions, which would be convincing to the resident countries.
2) Due to mass following, the number of views on their videos earns them enough money to live abroad comfortably. More videos demand that they keep creating controversies on the current administration or people holding important offices -- since without such, they are no longer to remain relevant.
I wish to share a personal experience and why I think the "influence" of these YouTubers can sometimes be hurtful and problematic.
Since the interim government took over, the victims’ families of the BDR Pilkhana carnage and I have filed a complaint against Sheikh Hasina and her aides at the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, and have pressurized the government to declare the day as “National Martyred Army Day” in honour of the slain officers, that included my father.
To our utter shock, a so-called “journalist” YouTuber had posted misinformation against me, and mentioned me on multiple talk shows. He asked the dismissed BDR rank and file (and their families) to beat me up wherever they could find me, since, according to him, I only demanded the punishment of the imprisoned BDR members, and not Sheikh Hasina (which is absurd, since I went to the court to fight). Not only did he stop at baseless insults, but he has been establishing an extremely flawed narrative in light of the massacre. According to him, the killing of my father and other officers was done by outsiders and not the convicted (for death penalty or life-time imprisonment) BDR members.
Such a controversy on his part, and his audacity to assassinate the characters of some martyred officers, while the BDR National Commission’s work is in progress, clearly portrays his intent to remain in discussion and earn from views. I reckon that his next mission is to scrutinize the commission's report (once it is out in September) and draw his own conclusions.
I am of the impression that these YouTubers will no longer be taken seriously, sooner or later. Their swears and whines towards individuals or situations are too often and against too many to carry a sincere degree of gravity.
Especially if their stances are against victims, such as in the situation of Pilkhana, people would begin to question their findings, have little faith in their analysis, and outright reject any chaos they plan to create within the country, as non-taxpayers of Bangladesh, comfortably living “in exile.”
Advocate Saquib Rahman is an academic lawyer, and a senior lecturer at North South University.