The scale and magnitude of risks
It may be said that Bangladesh is not the only country in which journalism as a profession is risky. However, evidence to date indicates that Bangladesh is perhaps the most risky of all other countries. The 2004 News Alert by CPJ thus refers to the attack in Pakistan, on a private sector electronic media known as Geo Television on March 2, 2004. It further refers to the harassment of Rebecca Santana, the Cox Newspapers Moscow correspondent. Santana was reporting on Chechnya's refugees and the disappearance of civilians and profiling the lives of students.

Compared to these incidents, the chronicle of violent acts, illegal detention, threats and murder of journalists far surpasses those of other countries. It is necessary to have a look at this chronicle of events.

Findings of reporters sans frontier (RSF)
RSF Network Mission Report of June 2002 provides an elaborate analytical account of the state of insecurity under which the journalists in Bangladesh work. Funded by European Commission (EC), this report was prepared by RSF with the cooperation of the Bangladesh Centre for Development Journalism and Communication, which is a member of RSF Network.

The report refers to the fact that scarcely over a period of eight months, 145 journalists assaulted or targeted with death threats, one reporter murdered, 16 newsrooms or press clubs brutally attacked and four journalists detained by the authorities. These events led a Dhaka-based European diplomat to affirm, "The issue of safety in general has now reached dramatic heights". The report also affirms that the politics of criminalisation and/or criminalisation of politics have led to the loss of lives of about 280 people in the month of February 2002. The report concludes: "Nothing seems to be able to stop the attacks especially against members of the press. They are even influencing the way in which the national and local press are treating issues of critical importance to the country, such as corruption, collusion among politicians, organised crime, and inter-faith crimes".

The track record of the Awami League (AL)
The report also provides the track record of AL. It affirms that the 'last six months of the Awami League regime have proven to be a very trying period in terms of press freedom and, above all, journalists' safety'. This assertion is based on a number of cases involving attacks on journalists. These include the violent attack on journalist Tipu Sultan by the henchmen of Joynal Hazari, a Member of Parliament. Another case is the murder attempt on Dainik Janakontho reporter Prabir Shikder. The post-election incident referred to is the assault on Khondokar Mahboobur Rahman, a correspondent of a Bengali daily. The conclusion drawn is that the AL 'in no way can claim to have a positive track record in terms of defending journalists, freedom and safety'.

Not a balance sheet
The foregoing account should in no way be construed to be a balance sheet of the major political parties. It should rather be construed to be an assessment of the highly insecure environment in which the journalists operate in Bangladesh. The point that is noted here is "Escalating violence threatens press freedom". Consequently, as the report rightly argues, the journalists are forced to impose self-censorship mainly due to the brutalities committed against members of the press. More attacks on March 2, 2004 have been reported on at least two journalists covering a student demonstration at Dhaka University.

Gagging the press: The legal instruments
It is said that there are 20 odd laws designed to repress freedom of expression. The RSF report has not, however, provided any list of such laws. It is perhaps necessary to distinguish between laws that are specifically applicable to the press and the restraints that they impose on freedom of expression and those laws that are universally applicable to all citizens. Article 39 (2) of Bangladesh Constitution guarantees (a) the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression and (b) freedom of the press.

Reasonable restrictions
The above rights are, however, subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by law. The specific areas of such restrictions relate to 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. There are two authorities to judge the reasonableness or otherwise of the restrictions to be imposed by law. First, the Parliament. It is the primary responsibility of the lawmakers to decide about the reasonableness of restrictions. Second, the higher judiciary, that is, the Supreme Court (the High Court Division in the first instance).

Seeking remedy from the higher judiciary involves time as well as money. The answer lies in the lawmakers behaving rationally. That will certainly eliminate the time-consuming and costly process involved in litigation.

Attempt at unreasonable restrictions
It is said that a private members' Bill called 'Special Privileges and Powers Act 2002' was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill, if translated into Act, "would make it possible to sentence any journalist found guilty of committing libel against any Member of Parliament to a severe prison term". The proposed Bill is more or less modeled on 'Contempt of Court' concept. The RSF report finds it "an alarming testimony to how opposed the government majority is to uncensored coverage of its activities. Proclamation of such a law would be a major blow against the freedom of the Press". The areas of restrictions contemplated in the Constitution do not have anything called 'Contempt of Parliament'. Viewed in this context, the move taken by a ruling party Member of Parliament appears unreasonable.

Conclusion
What then are the remedies? RSF report has suggested some actions. These include (a) deliberate effort on the part of the government and the political parties, (b) emergency hotline that can be accessed by the journalists who are threatened and (c) active support to those who are threatened. The government, however, had rejected CPJ's findings. The Ministry of Information said that 'the blanket blame of CPJ was one sided and entirely motivated as it had not collected data from other Asian countries' (The Independent, March 7, 2004). The government did not come up with such statistics either. RSF report, as stated earlier, was prepared in cooperation with a Bangladeshi institution. RSF News Alert 2004 does provide specific statistics. If Bangladeshi institutions initiate and maintain a data bank for attacks on journalists and make it public, it will be useful for the citizens to make their own judgments.

It is felt that the question of security in terms of making the working environment secure for the journalists should not be seen in isolation. It should be seen in the overall context of security for all citizens. To the extent that security of the life and property of all citizens is ensured, it will also include the journalists. At the same time, it is also to be recognised that the violent attacks on the journalists is a recent phenomenon which needs special attention as much as the general sliding down of the law and order situation. For instance, the increasing cases of businessmen held for ransom and in some cases killed later, of children abducted or killed, women raped and killed, government officials threatened by hoodlums involved in public purchases and policemen killed while on duty are all part of the same phenomenon. As long as the processes of politics of criminalisation and/or criminalisation of politics, politicisation of the state machinery and educational institutions are not reversed, security of citizens, in particular journalists, appear to be a remote possibility.

A M M Shawkat Ali, PhD is former Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture.