Shohag died at the age of 18. He was deaf and dumb, and worked as a driving assistant in a truck. His father died long before, and the only person in his life was his old mother, with whom he lived being the only bread earner of his family.
His body was set on fire; I can still remember vividly the picture of his dead body, which looked like a mass of roasted flesh of a darkish colour. His flesh, skin, and bones were glued to the driving seat -- amalgamating the animate and inanimate objects.
He was burned by the BNP-Jamaat goons during the prolonged strikes.
I write this article partially as a response to the insensitive op-ed piece titled “Facebook doesn’t kill, so let’s open it now,” and to address the petty bourgeois sense of supremacy, snobbery, and indifference commonly found among some of the Bangladeshi middle and elite class.
That article’s headline used a childish logic -- the same type of logic I used to hear when I adjudicated novice high school kids in debate tournaments. The writer assumed that the rationale behind banning Facebook temporarily lies in the fact that it can kill people since, if something kills people, you have the right to ban it. Then he argued that since Facebook doesn’t kill, its ban should be lifted.
The writer had primarily two arguments. One: Since the miscreants have access to other tools, shutting down Facebook is futile. Two: He is worried about “monetary and reputational consequences.”
Had the ban been futile, in terms of achieving desired results, we would have seen the same type of massacre that we had seen in the Ramu incident. The ban prima facie worked.
And in such cases, when one deals with strategic affairs to combat terrorism, the end does justify the means.
Now, let me come to the main question: Does the writer really believe that all those non-tech savvy people, who are always in the forefront to instigate violence, capable of using any alternate online medium as effectively as Facebook? Does he really endorse the suspicion that the miscreants familiarised themselves with alternate platforms and mediums like Snapchat and Kik within one week and was capable of orchestrating violence by spreading venomous propaganda?
Due to the rapid advances in user interface design, Facebook is very user-friendly to all people regardless of their familiarity with sophisticated devices. Whereas, other devices, which are primarily targeted at a younger demographic, are need a certain level of skill. So, arguing that the miscreants have access to other platforms is absurd on a theoretical level, and pathetic on practical grounds.
The second argument, which deals with the notion that the ban may invite so called “monetary and reputational consequences,” is wrong on many levels. When the BNP-Jamat and their allies had strikes lasting for months, and took numerous lives with the notorious petrol bombs, weren’t there any “monitory and reputational consequences” then?
Now this time, as a result of the execution of two war criminals, if they had orchestrated a riot or carnage, would it have been treated as a remarkable incident with very positive monetary and reputational consequences? According to the writer, no consequences are yielded if the goons instigate violence and spew communal venom, but if the government tries to tackle it, the imaginary ghost of consequences suddenly appears out of nowhere.
Apart from all these, what pained me most is the sheer absence of sensitivity of the writer. Like the writer, a lot of people are politically motivated (sometimes communally), and it’s absolutely okay to be so. But what is objectionable is when you let go of the basic sense of compassion and sensitivity a moral human being should have.
We are so blind thinking about our own inconveniences that we do not even pay heed to the lives of the working class, who are always the victims of the rage of miscreants. To us, the discomfort of not updating a Facebook status is far more than the cost of the life of a poor day-labourer -- or any member from the working class.
The implied and often hidden argument of the people having similar views of the writer is: Why should we sacrifice the comfort of sending a smiley on Viber for a poor chap’s life? How intolerant we are to our minorities: Religious, political, and financial.
No life in our country is worth more than anyone else’s. One may think, due to their snobbish ideologies, that their comfort is superior to those of others’ -- but the government of the country is not entitled to act as per his/her wish.
Maybe Marx was right: The bourgeois and petty bourgeois population has hardly any regard for the working class people. The working class is a mere money making instrument for the bourgeois and the bourgeois lets them stay alive only so that the proletariats can continue making the bourgeois rich. In such a society, where people write op-eds denouncing the value of the lives of the masses, Marx’s views get buttressed probably for the billionth time.
No mother deserves to see her son die at the hands of miscreants. And no one is entitled to have any amenities which can put other people’s lives in danger. People do have the right to enjoy amenities, but not at the cost of a poor mother’s tears.
