The ongoing controversy on the National Broadcast Policy reminds us of the adage: what we learn from history is that we do not learn anything from history. From time immemorial, autocratic rulers tried to gag the press and silence people's voice. They succeeded initially, but the people won ultimately.
The very first amendment of the constitution of the U.S.A is as follows: "Congress stall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Ten amendments, including this one, were proposed on September 25, 1789 and became effective on December 25, 1791.
In England, the great poet John Milton wrote a pamphlet "Areopagitica" in defence of freedom of the press. Milton argued that censorship is dangerous because of the loss of important truths. Since humans have the power to reason, they can decide for themselves what is true. Truth will overcome falsehood if all opinions can be published; evil and untrue statements can only serve to make the truth more recognisable. Milton's views have since been used by many advocates of freedom from censorship.
In article 39 of our constitution, the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression and freedom of the press are guaranteed subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The constitution has virtually provided the guidelines. No further policy is required. Rather a commission could have been set up to examine whether the existing laws are sufficient or not. But now, if any commission is set up after the gazette notification of the National Broadcast Policy, it will not be able to function properly.
Although mentioned in the constitution, certain issues like friendly relation with foreign countries do not require any law for conduct of the same. It depends on the mutual interest and attitude. Let us take the case of India, for example. Hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis are going there for medical treatment, besides the normal tour. Of late, our boys and girls are participating in the programmes of Indian television channels. But if the Indian government obstructs the flow of water which we are entitled to receive as a lower riparian country, shall we not raise our voice, shall we not protest the indiscriminate killings by Indian border force? Our citizens have been working in various countries and their remittances have been helping in raising the reserves of the country and Bangladesh bank proudly displays the figure. If in any country their lives are at jeopardy or they become victims of injustice, shall we not open our mouth? So, friendly relation with a country is a two-way traffic.
As regard the image of the armed forces and law-enforcement agencies, the responsibility lies with them, not with the people. If a section of them goes astray and commit crimes, parent organisations will never bear their responsibilities. Killers of Bangabandhu and Ziaur Rahman were put on trial and hanged. People need to be alerted in case of any such mishap. For acts like these, committed by a few, we can not demand the abolition of a particular law-enforcement agency. These are sporadic cases and should be treated accordingly. Forces of a country are under the command of the government. It will depend upon the efficiency and acumen of the government to regulate their activities.
Looking at the on-going debate on the national broadcast policy, in particular the ill-effects it is likely to bring, one feels the government should have been prudent to withdraw it.
But since the gazette notification in this regard has already been published, it has now become a matter of ego for the government. The best course for the government now is to keep it in abeyance and set up a commission. This commission will discuss with various stakeholders, including media personalities, intellectual, civil society leaders and finalise the matter.
rezaulparvaz@live.com
National Broadcast Policy should be kept in abeyance
Syed Mahbubur Rashid | Published: August 13, 2014 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like