It was not long after I started working at The Daily Star as an assistant editor in 2003 that Mahfuz Anam put me in charge of the opinion pages of the newspaper.
His instructions were very clear: The opinion pages were to be a clearing house for all kinds of opinions, even ones which he as editor or I as opinions editor did not agree with.
We would try to provide space to as many divergent points of view as possible, and it was in providing this breadth and diversity of opinion that we would serve our readers best.
With one exception.
We would give no space to any op-ed that tried to argue that democracy was not right for Bangladesh or offered any kind of a non-democratic solution to our problems.
Mahfuz Bhai was crystal clear: That was the one opinion he would not countenance in The Daily Star opinion pages. That was the one opinion that, as a matter of stated policy, would be deemed beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.
The reason I bring this up now is that it seems to me to be very relevant in light of the ongoing brouhaha that has been engendered by Mahfuz Bhai’s admission on television last week that he had erred in publishing unsubstantiated reports fed to the newspaper by intelligence agencies during the tenure of the army-backed caretaker government running the country from 2007-2008.
The sub-text of the bitter invective that has been hurled at him, on the floor of the national parliament (and in clear violation of parliamentary rules of procedure), among other places, is that he is an enemy of democracy and that he published the reports as part of a scheme to undermine democracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Certainly, it was a mistake to have published the reports, as Mahfuz Bhai, to his credit, has recognised and acknowledged.
But to suggest that he did so as part of some agenda to derail democracy and institute non-democratic rule is both utterly unsupported by the facts and does a grave disservice to a man who has devoted his life to the service of this nation and who has a long and proud record of serving the public interest and the cause of democracy.
It is convenient for too many now to forget how overwhelming was the support for the intervention on January 11, 2007. Indeed, the current prime minister herself went to the oath-swearing of the Fakhruddin cabinet.
Like her, and so many others, all across the country, Mahfuz Bhai believed the country had no better option at that precise moment. But how most people hoped and expected that regime to conduct itself is not how things panned out.
To pin all the blame for 1/11 on its civil society supporters, and only on them, is unfair and unsupportable. It is especially so for people like Mahfuz Bhai whose position vis-a-vis that regime changed in response to its mis-steps.
The news reports and editorials published by the newspaper at the time bear clear testimony of that. Readers will find no evidence at all to suggest that the newspaper supported any indefinite prolonging of a non-democratic rule. Any support given to the government of that moment was conditional, increasingly critical, and always focused on a return to democracy.
I am glad that The Daily Star is reprinting the signed op-eds that were written by Mahfuz Bhai at that time, as nothing can bear more eloquent testimony to his state of mind and intentions than what he had to say then in real time.
Now that the cases that are being filed against Mahfuz Bhai have escalated from defamation to sedition, it is all the more relevant to bring up this context.
Whatever else one might think of the 11 news stories that The Daily Star published without adequate substantiation in 2007 and whatever else one might think of the decision to publish that was made by the editor at the time, the one thing that is surely certain is that under no definition of the term did their publication amount to sedition on his part.
It is to the government’s credit that it has not itself initiated any cases against Mahfuz Bhai. The defamation cases that have been filed are private causes of action.
We are gratified to note that the PM herself has exercised a dignified restraint on the matter, and we both appreciate her actions and urge her to continue to take the high road by not only keeping the government out of it, but also by discouraging her party men and women from filing private causes of action on her behalf.
For an actual aggrieved party to file suit would be one thing, but given that the cases have been filed by ruling party members in remote districts, patently with intent to harass, they are regrettable.
Any attempt to force Mahfuz Bhai from his position through legal processes or otherwise runs counter to our democratic aspirations, and the government would be well advised to not go down this path.
A government that purports to be democratic must take the higher road, and show a great deal of tolerance for the freedom of the media. In fact, nothing would do the government’s image and reputation more good right now than to quietly let the matter rest.
The sedition case against Mahfuz Bhai requires the government nod to go ahead, and I would very much hope that the investigation into whether the case should proceed that has been ordered by the judge finds in the negative, and that the government itself stays well clear of the matter.
It should be noted in conclusion that many of those taking up the cudgels against The Daily Star editor today were equally guilty, if not more so, of what he is accused of. Which raises the question: What about the scores of other news media who did the same thing?
Yes, everyone did it is not a good defense, but when one selectively targets only one’s enemies or irritants for something others also did, it runs the risk of looking very much like a witch-hunt.
Finally, if running unsubstantiated stories fed by an intelligence agency is such an offence, then what action will be taken against those who did the feeding, and why is no one calling for this?
Indeed, the biggest take-away from the media circus of the past week is that the worst thing one can ever do is to express contrition about a mistake one has made.
There was nothing new here. No new facts have come to light. The only new thing was Mahfuz Bhai’s admission that he had erred and expression of contrition.
Far from eliciting any respect or acknowledgment for doing the right thing (with the notable exception of the information minister, for which I applaud him) it has had the opposite effect.
The implications for the future for all of us are quite clear. Never admit anything. Never show any contrition.
I’m sure we have all learned our lesson.
