Transcript

Host: This is “On The Line,” and I'm Eric Felten.

Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury faces charges of alleged sedition for writing articles advocating religious tolerance and Muslim-Jewish reconciliation. His trial has been postponed, and he is allowed to travel outside Bangladesh, but the case is not over. In fact, it has attracted worldwide attention. In the U-S, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling on the Bangladesh government to immediately drop all pending charges against Mr. Choudhury. U-S Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Democracy and Labor, Jeffrey Krilla says the U-S has raised Mr. Choudhury’s case on numerous occasions with the government and will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Mr. Choudhury says his situation is no exception. At least seven other journalists in Bangladesh have been charged with sedition. Mr. Choudhury says the government of Bangladesh is trying to silence journalists who raise the alarm about the growing influence of Islamic extremists in the country.

What is the state of freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Southwest Asia? How serious is the threat of Islamic fundamentalism that journalists there are trying to report on? And what is the U-S doing to promote greater respect for human rights? I'll ask my guests -- Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor and publisher of the Weekly Blitz newspaper; Tariq Karim, former Bangladeshi ambassador to the U-S, and Sadanand Dhume, Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the Asia Society Washington Center. He's also a journalist and author of the forthcoming book "My Friend the Fanatic” on radical Islam in Indonesia. Welcome, and thanks for joining us today. Appreciate it.

Shoaib Choudhury, tell us the state of play in the case of sedition against you in Bangladesh.

Choudhury: Okay. You know that the government has recently withdrawn the sedition charges which were brought against seven journalists by the previous government, but as to me and my case, they don't intend to withdraw the case because the fear that by withdrawing the case, they might annoy the Islamist radicals or radical forces in my country, because the reason they brought the sedition charges against me, was I wrote about the rise of the Islamist extremists in my country and national growth of the kindergarten madrassas. So, those are the things the previous government, perhaps some people in the coalition government they thought that it was not liked by them, and they didn't want me to speak that way. They wanted to silence me, so that was the reason why the sedition charges were brought. Now, as you mentioned about the House Resolution 64, yes, after the resolution was passed, many people in my country and everywhere in the world, those who support me, they were hoping that the case would be dropped. But in reality, it was not because we have seen at this moment there is an interim government in Bangladesh, but I didn't see any change in the attitude of the government.

Host: Tariq Karim, what's your sense of how the change in the government has or has not affected the situation for journalists in Bangladesh?

Karim: Well, the government has, on the one hand, stated that they respect and would like to have a free press. But at the same time, I think the prolongation of the state of emergency allows them to be selective in applying the rule of law and the laws available. And we'll have to see how they play off. They have done some good things, and there are some things about which I have mixed feelings.

Host: What's your sense, Sadanand Dhume?

Dhume: Eric, I think the problem with press freedom exists across the world: different parts of Asia; the Philippines has a problem; and Singapore and Malaysia, so it's not unique to the Islamic world. But I think with the backdrop of the rise of radical Islam, you have very special problems arising in countries with Islamist movements, and that is that you don't only face threats as a journalist from the government as you may in other places but also from a certain kind of mob intimidation, and I think Mr. Choudhury's case is really a classic example of that. So you have the government persecuting him, but I believe he's also been attacked and physically beaten up. And if you go to the root of what he's talking about, in fact -- better relations with Israel -- you realize why there really isn't much cultural room to hold an unpopular opinion, and I think that's the root of the problem.

Host: Mr. Choudhury, how much room is there for unpopular opinions in Bangladesh?

Choudhury: Oh. There was no room to express unpopular [opinions] in Bangladesh when we spoke in 2003. Mr. Karim also knows that “Israel” or "Jews” -- to utter those words were a kind of taboo in Bangladesh. Nobody could even just express those words. But now, after four years or five years, yes, we find some room for expressing the unpopular -- whatever themes, or whatever you say. And we’re hopeful that, finally, there will be something else, some changes in the whole system. People will start understanding the reality that the Islamic forces and the radicals, they were so deep-rooted in our society, especially in a country like Bangladesh or Pakistan. They have their own agendas, and in the mosques and madrassas, if you go to the sermons they're teaching the people the culture of hatred, religious hatred. I think we have been able to at least crack that wall, and the room is being created now.

Host: Sadanand?

Dhume: I’d just like to say that it's very courageous of Mr. Choudhury, because, specifically the issue of Israel is a bit of a third rail in the Islamic world, and Israel has been demonized so much over the years that to even make the most innocuous statement, such as, “Well, perhaps we could have friendly ties” or “Perhaps there could be something in their point of view” is seen as beyond the pale. And by touching this third rail, I think that what Mr. Choudhury has done really is significant beyond Bangladesh, because you need to see people willing to conflict, willing to raise questions that conflict with the most dearly held beliefs of the Islamists.

Host: Tariq Karim, what’s your sense on this?

Karim: What Mr. Choudhury did was really a very bold step forward by not just a journalist but any person in society. Advocating good relations with Israel and building bridges with the Jewish community was or used to be a no-no -- no-go area. So, he really treaded on forbidden territory in that sense. Given the recent history of rising Islamism in Bangladesh, it's always very, very easy for a small, well-organized, closely knit, well-coordinated fringe movement to intimidate the larger sections of society. Generally, people don't like to get involved in trouble. They don't like to come out and have their normal daily routine lives upset, their comfort zone being taken away from them. And that’s the area in which the fringe movements can operate to intimidate people and not come and, for example, join with him in this voice. One of the encouraging things, I thought, was that one of the leaders of one of the Islamic parties -- I won't say, “Islamists,” but Islamic parties -- in an interview, I think by you, probably --

Choudhury: Khilafat Andolan.

Karim: Yes, the Khilafat Andolan had actually taken a very courageous step and said, “We can foresee a day when we can have relations with Israel.”

Choudhury: And [he] even wrote a letter to the Chief Adviser in Bangladesh, asking him that the government of Bangladesh immediately recognize Israel and open the door for interfaith dialogue.

Host: Now, how do you confront, though, the intimidation factor, and how do you get others to be willing to join you in confronting and standing up against the intimidation?

Choudhury: Because, you see, we have already faced the worst time. I know now there is no chance for anyone else, even if they support Israel or speak out for anything of relations with Jews, any type of dialogue, they are not going to face the same consequences that we have faced. That will be history in Bangladesh. Now it's a new time when people will start speaking. As Mr. Karim said, even Islamic radicals -- they are also talking about having relations with Israel because there was a time in Bangladesh when they could create a kind of fear in the minds of the people: that “don't utter “Jews” or “Israel”,” and people were not having the courage to speak. But when we spoke, they had done everything they could do to me, and now, finally, at least we have got one victory that, in Bangladesh, you know in my newspaper we are publishing every week articles on Israel, articles on interfaith dialogue, and criticizing the Islamic militancy. We call it "Islamofascist.” And we know now it's a new time when many people will join. People have been waiting to see what would happen to us, and now it's a time for people of Bangladesh to really raise their voice in demand of having relations with Israel. This is number one. Number two, Israel has been the fourth country which recognized Bangladesh after the independence. Those so-called Islamic or Muslim ummahs, they waited until 1975 to recognize Bangladesh. A country that recognized us when we were born -- we should be grateful to them. And, on the other hand, well, we have no reason not to have relations with Israel because we have relations with Pakistan -- a nation whose army has raped our women, who has killed our people. We can have diplomatic relations with Pakistan. Why not with Israel? Israel did nothing wrong to Bangladesh, nor to anything. They did nothing wrong to any of the Muslim countries. Why should we not have relations?

Host: Tariq Karim, is this going to be an issue that will be central in Bangladesh politics or not?

Karim: I'm afraid this is not going to become a central issue in the foreseeable future, or in the near future. But I think the trends are there. I know that previous governments, whether it was B-N-P or Awami League, did toy with the idea of establishing some sort of relationship with Israel, if not formal, an informal relationship, based on trade, et cetera. But, of course, these questions in politics and diplomacy are largely dictated by our association with the rest of the Islamic community of nations. And usually we take the lead or the direction which is given there. That's a fact of life, and I suppose we'll have to live with that to see how that changes. But I would like to bring in over here the question about the importance of the freedom of the press, which impacts issues like this particular case and other issues which affect the nation. In a sense, given the negative attitude, generally -- the negative mind-set towards talking about Israel or building relationship with the Jewish community -- the press in Bangladesh, by and large, from what I saw, spoke out in favor of applying the rule of law and not applying this particular litmus test to determining whether he should be charged and incarcerated or set free. They defended the right of a journalist to speak his mind, whether or not you like what he's saying. And I think it's important that the freedom of speech has to be the basic underpinning of any civil society being able to guide the trajectory of democracy in the nation. Once the freedom of speech is curtailed, you don't have the safety wall for that to go forward.

Host: Sadanand Dhume?

Dhume: I agree with that entirely, and I think that you also have another issue which is of critical importance, particularly in the Islamic world today, which is cultivating a culture of introspection -- the idea that everything that's going on in the world is not necessarily someone else's fault. So what you have in countries like Bangladesh, which are so far removed from Israel, really have nothing to do with it -- Israel, as Mr. Choudhury said, recognized Bangladeshi independence -- is really a kind of displaced anger. It makes no sense to us sitting over here. Why would there be any kind of rage? But what's happening here is a tension between a modern notion of national interest and a primeval, tribal notion of Islamic solidarity, and it's on that fault line that Mr. Choudhury's work falls, and that's what makes it so fascinating, because it has lessons for the other parts of the Islamic world.

Karim: I would like to add another dimension that there. Bangladesh, as you know, is ninety percent ethnic Bengalis. We don't have a sectarian division. We don't have ethnic divisions. But we are also eighty-eight percent Muslims. So we have, in a sense, a twin identity within us. And our national ethnicity, our historic legacy, has been one of secularism. But, at the same time, you cannot completely obfuscate the fact that such a large percentage of the people are Muslims. That will impact on the politics in one way or the other. It depends on how the majority come to a consensus to how they define their Islam, and one of the problems, I think, in Bangladesh has been, although our legacy has been one of moderate, secular, inclusive, pluralist Islam -- It's the Sufi tradition which came down -- there has been a steady intrusion of what I call the other image of Islam, the Wahhabi, exclusive, non-tolerant, that “my version is correct. Anything else -- if you don't agree to it, you are wrong.” And, in a sense, what we witnessed in the last few years was a tussle for the heart and soul of Islam within Bangladesh. I think that is still playing out to some extent, and that impacts the policy as well.

Dhume: I'd like to take issue with that briefly. I believe that most people, by nature, are moderate, and that includes the vast majority of Muslims. So in no country is it really a question of the majority being immoderate or being intolerant. The majority of people -- It's human nature -- are tolerant. The question really is, “What does that majority do, and does it stand up and oppose that intolerant minority?” And that’s where the problem has been. It's the same problem in Bangladesh. It’s a problem in Pakistan. It's a problem elsewhere. It’s not that most people are intolerant. It’s just that the intolerant people often have the momentum on the side, they have the bigger megaphone, they have the stick, and that’s why I think when people like Mr. Choudhury are willing to get up and face them down, it’s a tremendous development.

Host: Mr. Choudhury, we’ve talked a lot about the role of individuals in groups within a society like Bangladesh standing up for rights and against intolerance. Is there a significant role for other countries, be it the U-S, the West in general, to insert themselves into this process, to have a say, to try to encourage the development of a more moderate dialogue? Is it productive or not when the U-S involves itself?

Choudhury: No, it’s very much favorable, but the thing is that these kind of actions from the U-S or the Western world should be more focused on certain things, because when you are saying something, it’s very much broad-based. Like, you were talking about freedom of press, definitely, but you were not talking about freedom of expression. You were talking about freedom of expression, but the point here I want to add that what would be happening if Bangladesh will not listen to you -- whether you are going to stop your financial support to Bangladesh or it’s going to harm Bangladeshi businesses, textile businesses? Then only countries like Bangladesh will pay attention and pay real attention to what you say. Otherwise, you will say from this ear, and they will just regret it in the other ear. So, yes, whatever Western society or the United States says about the freedom of press or freedom of expression -- it really has certain values in Bangladesh, but provided our government, our people, should know that we have to listen to it or we have to face certain consequences -- maybe economic consequences.

Host: Tariq Karim, what's your sense on that?

Karim: I would say that the U-S and other friends of Bangladesh have to tread a very, very fine line here. Certainly, they should encourage Bangladesh to tread the part of moderation and freedom and embrace democracy, human rights, and allow freedom of expression. At the same time, it has to be done in a manner that does not affront or negatively rob the sense of their own national sovereignty and independence, and that's a balance that statesmen interlocuting have to determine the modalities of doing that.

Host: Sadanand Dhume, we have a little less than a minute left. What's your sense, both with Bangladesh and with Pakistan, where there's been a big issue of how much support comes from the U-S for a government that is not democratic?

Dhume: I think the principle here has to be that you can’t give it to them as a gift. You cannot give anybody press freedom as a gift, but what you can do is stand in support of people who are willing to uphold those principles themselves, and I think that's the key distinction, both in Bangladesh and in Pakistan. So, there are brave journalists in these countries, and the role of the U-S or the international community, more broadly, is to stand by these brave journalists, not to try and impose norms from outside.

Host: I'm afraid that’s going to have to be the last word. That’s all the time we have for today. But I'd like to thank my guests -- Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury of the Weekly Blitz newspaper; Tariq Karim, former Bangladeshi ambassador to the U-S, and Sadanand Dhume of the Asia Society Washington Center. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On The Line,” I'm Eric Felten.