For three weeks, I struggled with how to help friends in Bangladesh respond to an RFP by EuropeanAid for CSOs to create and run consortiums promoting Freedom of Expression. At first, I blamed myself for not writing a proposal -- I am, after all, a lazy guy.
Still, something nagged me about the whole exercise. It boiled down to this question: Would EuropeanAid fund Mahatma Gandhi today if he proposed a digital Salt March through Dhaka?
Probably not.
The EuropeAid initiative for promoting Freedom of Expression in Bangladesh, for valid enough reasons, has a limited approach to the challenges of an increasingly arbitrary environment.
The EU's call for proposals focuses on bursaries to civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and independent media to promote fundamental rights and counter misinformation. However, it notably omits direct support for political actors or explicitly political expression. This omission is problematic, as it fails to address the core issues of long-standing inherited political censorship and repression.
The initiative's timing is particularly concerning. The debate over free speech in Bangladesh has already been shaped by the government's recent transition from the Digital Security Act (2018) to the Cyber Security Act (2023). As Saad Hammadi, a prominent campaigner, points out, "most of the problematic penal actions of the DSA are retained in the CSA, with only minor reductions in sentencing." The EU's program, set to begin months from now, risks being too little, too late.
Moreover, the EU's theory of change appears to rely on a passive-aggressive approach, hoping that a united front of CSOs will indirectly pressure the government to respect freedom of expression. This strategy underestimates the entrenched nature of authoritarianism in Bangladesh's governance structure, which has roots in colonial-era designs amplified by a near-universal digital reach.
Their resort to the usual lunch box seminars and town halls led me to think of past resistance to state overreach. Mahatma Gandhi stands out for asking how to make non-violent protest more effective. His answers developed into a principled strategy called satyagraha.
Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha offers a framework for nonviolent resistance that could be adapted to the digital age. Satyagraha goes beyond passive resistance, embodying an active form of civil disobedience that seeks change through moral persuasion and self-sacrifice.
Digital satyagraha could include virtual sit-ins on social media platforms. Hashtag campaigns, and a digital salt march to the national computing centre.
The "Save the Internet" campaign in India in 2015 exemplifies the potential of digital satyagraha. This campaign successfully mobilized millions of citizens to protect net neutrality through coordinated email campaigns, social media activism, and public education efforts. Its success demonstrates the power of digital tools in organizing large-scale, non-violent resistance.
However, the implementation of such strategies bumps into the constraints of the EuropeAid diplomatic presence. Any perceived civil disobedience would sink a proposal.
As I looked at the application forms, I realized that there was no way to fit digital satyagraha into the “Theory of Change” boxes.
Even if all that could be overcome, I am still lazy. I just could not commit to a proposal idea without a satyagraha core.
Gandhi never said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” He did say, "We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change … We need not wait to see what others do.”
Owen Lippert is a researcher and activist with expertise in Asian countries.
