The Daily Star is caught between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, it has to make the right noises about the killers of Sheikh Mujib to please the ruling party and its thugs. Besides, the editor and his cohorts are sympathetic to the Awami League, if not actually Awami Leaguers themselves.
On the other hand, Mahfuz Anam and his wife have to please the European donors as well, and Europe is against the death penalty. The Star dare not say openly that the death penalty should have been commuted to life imprisonment. The office will be raided the next day by armed thugs of the ruling party and by every intellectual in Bangladesh.
This example clearly shows the hypocrisy of our ruling elite: they seek the approval of foreigners, but subscribe to local prejudices. They pretend to be liberal, when they are anything but. They support two tyrannies, the House of Mujib and the House of Zia, all in the name of democracy and the people.
All they want is to advance their careers and make their moolah, and sound a bit like their European masters.
They are like those rats that were given contradictory pleasure-pain stimuli simultaneously: they showed clear neurotic symptoms. Our scatophagous elite receive double stimuli, one from abroad and one from here; only they are not neurotic. They are perfectly sane: totally unscrupulous, but perfectly sane.
However, it has been a pathetic – or perhaps ennobling - spectacle that the execution of the assassins of the beloved 'Father of the Nation", Bangabandhu, has been greeted by not an atom of enthusiasm on the part of the people who are supposed to love him so: all excitement and anticipation have been concentrated in the bloodthirsty, intellectual elite. As Lawrence Ziring pointed out, Bangladesh will never represent Bangladeshis. The former have no affinity with the latter, and no more apodictic display has been in evidence than the apathy of the people to the 'celebrated' and 'long-awaited' executions, celebrated and long-awaited by a bigoted microscopic minority we miscall 'the nation'.
Showing posts with label mahfuz anam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mahfuz anam. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sunday, March 8, 2009
the lying media of Bangladesh exposed by the internet
http://thedailystar.net/magazine/2009/03/01/index.htm
(The lying document can found above)
The Daily Star lies like Pinocchio - and something worse!
"Eye witness testimony said the DG Major General Shakil spoke to the Prime Minister by phone immediately after the first shots were fired outside the Darbar hall." This according to the Star Weekend Magazine.
Now, thanks to the MP3 files circulating throughout the net, we know that General Shakil had contacted the army long before a single shot was fired. In fact, he had told the PM that a section of his soldiers were mutinous. She had said that she was sending the army.
She didn't send them.
The trouble with lying is that you become incoherent.
Tanya Yafta Chowdhury, wife of the late Colonel Elahi Manzoor, is quoted as saying: "I was told that help was on its way. I kept praying for the sound of the army rolling in. But nothing happened. I don't understand why it would take so long for troops to get to the pilkhana from the cantonment? Does it take hours? You tell me?"
The Star says: "The sequence of events clearly demonstrates that both the government and the army were aware of the fatal attacks by 9.30 AM."
But why should we go by the sequence of events?. We know from oral source what was said at the Senakunja to the PM: why didn't she send the army after General Shakil had warned her of an impending mutiny, long BEFORE the first shots were fired. Indeed, it was 1:00 pm before the mutineers could even get organized.
'Speaking to the Star, Col. Syed Quamruzzaman, GSO of the BDR headquarters described the harrowing scene. “The jawans asked us to come out and said we wouldn't be harmed. We walked out with the DG in the middle. They told us to walk in single file. We fell in line with the DG leading the way. They started firing at close range…”
So the star had access to Col. Zaman's testimony before the Senakunja grilling of the PM.
No, that's not what he said: he said four men came from outside and shot four bullets into General Shakil....Misreporting as usual, or deliberate falsification of what Col. Zaman himself saw?
"It has been suggested that an outside group might have assisted in the massacre. Since this episode has seriously weakened both the army and the BDR -- tactically and strategically -- mutterings about a conspiracy cannot be ignored. But talk about an outside group should not distract from the failings within the BDR, the army, the intelligence community, and indeed, the administration."
According to Col Zaman, the first killers did indeed come from outside.
The Star raises several questions, but never the question about how thousands of personnel could melt away into the city.
In the Star report, we find no criticism of the government at all. Instead, we find such incredible sentences as: "The PM, who has to handle such a big crisis on the 50th day of her tenure, has taken some widespread measures."
Poor PM! One's heart positively aches for the PM's onerous duties - surely the tragedy could have occurred on the 100th day, or better still, 150th day of her tenure! How inconvenient! How callous that she had to behave like a leader on her 50th day in office! Poor woman!
"There is no doubt that the crisis has been one of the toughest challenges that any new elected (sic) [leader] would want to see itself embroiled into (sic)."
Isn't that what governments are for? To handle tough challenges? And didn't this government deliberately, and with the aid of the media like the Star, fail the nation?
But, of course, since she is the member of a political dynasty, - the daughter of the "father" of the nation - she is above reproach - give me a monarchy any time!
Listen to the army and the prime minister
(The lying document can found above)
The Daily Star lies like Pinocchio - and something worse!
"Eye witness testimony said the DG Major General Shakil spoke to the Prime Minister by phone immediately after the first shots were fired outside the Darbar hall." This according to the Star Weekend Magazine.
Now, thanks to the MP3 files circulating throughout the net, we know that General Shakil had contacted the army long before a single shot was fired. In fact, he had told the PM that a section of his soldiers were mutinous. She had said that she was sending the army.
She didn't send them.
The trouble with lying is that you become incoherent.
Tanya Yafta Chowdhury, wife of the late Colonel Elahi Manzoor, is quoted as saying: "I was told that help was on its way. I kept praying for the sound of the army rolling in. But nothing happened. I don't understand why it would take so long for troops to get to the pilkhana from the cantonment? Does it take hours? You tell me?"
The Star says: "The sequence of events clearly demonstrates that both the government and the army were aware of the fatal attacks by 9.30 AM."
But why should we go by the sequence of events?. We know from oral source what was said at the Senakunja to the PM: why didn't she send the army after General Shakil had warned her of an impending mutiny, long BEFORE the first shots were fired. Indeed, it was 1:00 pm before the mutineers could even get organized.
'Speaking to the Star, Col. Syed Quamruzzaman, GSO of the BDR headquarters described the harrowing scene. “The jawans asked us to come out and said we wouldn't be harmed. We walked out with the DG in the middle. They told us to walk in single file. We fell in line with the DG leading the way. They started firing at close range…”
So the star had access to Col. Zaman's testimony before the Senakunja grilling of the PM.
No, that's not what he said: he said four men came from outside and shot four bullets into General Shakil....Misreporting as usual, or deliberate falsification of what Col. Zaman himself saw?
"It has been suggested that an outside group might have assisted in the massacre. Since this episode has seriously weakened both the army and the BDR -- tactically and strategically -- mutterings about a conspiracy cannot be ignored. But talk about an outside group should not distract from the failings within the BDR, the army, the intelligence community, and indeed, the administration."
According to Col Zaman, the first killers did indeed come from outside.
The Star raises several questions, but never the question about how thousands of personnel could melt away into the city.
In the Star report, we find no criticism of the government at all. Instead, we find such incredible sentences as: "The PM, who has to handle such a big crisis on the 50th day of her tenure, has taken some widespread measures."
Poor PM! One's heart positively aches for the PM's onerous duties - surely the tragedy could have occurred on the 100th day, or better still, 150th day of her tenure! How inconvenient! How callous that she had to behave like a leader on her 50th day in office! Poor woman!
"There is no doubt that the crisis has been one of the toughest challenges that any new elected (sic) [leader] would want to see itself embroiled into (sic)."
Isn't that what governments are for? To handle tough challenges? And didn't this government deliberately, and with the aid of the media like the Star, fail the nation?
But, of course, since she is the member of a political dynasty, - the daughter of the "father" of the nation - she is above reproach - give me a monarchy any time!
Listen to the army and the prime minister
Saturday, February 28, 2009
a diabolic editor - how newspapers back criminal governments in Bangladesh
"we praise the sagacity of the present leadership...."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77589
I'm curious; but tell me, Mahfuz Anam, just how many dead bodies would it take for you to CEASE to praise the sagacity of the present political leadership? 200? 500? 1,000?
And how many would it take for you to begin to QUESTION the sagacity of the present political leadership? 10,000?
And how many would it take for you to IMPUGN the sagacity of the present political leadership? 100,000?
"It would have been a most satisfactory ending but for the fact that" - there were just too many dead bodies around, right?
What kind of an editor are you: can you distinguish between sagacity and stupidity? Honesty from mendacity? A mission accomplished from a bungled and botched operation?
"some unseen quarters with an ill motive..."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77743
Well, they got all the help they needed from our government, didn't they?
They got away scot-free, with the lights turned off, after getting more than enough time to go on an orgy of killing, looting, burning, and more - from inside the city, under the gaze of the entire nation, with the military only a few blocks away!
With friends like these....
"Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina showed tremendous sagacity, farsightedness and patience in handling the crisis."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77746
Does that include waiting 32 hours before deploying tanks, Mahfuz Anam?
"PRIME Minister Sheikh Hasina's stern call hs had the desired effect, and has led to the surrender of the rebel BDR troops. This brought to a peaceful end in Dhaka to what can be termed as the most serious...."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77589
That giant sucking sound was that of the lips of the Daily Star editor coming off the backside of the prime minister.
It wasn't the prime minister's speech that ended the mutiny: it was the tanks.
It took 32 hours for tanks to be deployed: incredible!
The entire affair could have been ended in at most 10 minutes if the army had been allowed by the prime minister to act in its professional capacity. The army's arsenal was several thousand times that of the BDR personnel with their peashooters.
But for the amnesty and the shocking delay, the wives of the officers would have been spared the indignity they suffered. For once, Khaleda Zia has spoken the truth and put the blame where it belongs: why were the lights turned off, why were the soldiers withdrawn...?
This was not a civilian issue, but an issue for the military: yet civilians went in waving white flags and claiming to be 'like the mothers of the jawans'. There was absolutely no sense of urgency, as though a picnic had gone wrong
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77589
I'm curious; but tell me, Mahfuz Anam, just how many dead bodies would it take for you to CEASE to praise the sagacity of the present political leadership? 200? 500? 1,000?
And how many would it take for you to begin to QUESTION the sagacity of the present political leadership? 10,000?
And how many would it take for you to IMPUGN the sagacity of the present political leadership? 100,000?
"It would have been a most satisfactory ending but for the fact that" - there were just too many dead bodies around, right?
What kind of an editor are you: can you distinguish between sagacity and stupidity? Honesty from mendacity? A mission accomplished from a bungled and botched operation?
"some unseen quarters with an ill motive..."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77743
Well, they got all the help they needed from our government, didn't they?
They got away scot-free, with the lights turned off, after getting more than enough time to go on an orgy of killing, looting, burning, and more - from inside the city, under the gaze of the entire nation, with the military only a few blocks away!
With friends like these....
"Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina showed tremendous sagacity, farsightedness and patience in handling the crisis."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77746
Does that include waiting 32 hours before deploying tanks, Mahfuz Anam?
"PRIME Minister Sheikh Hasina's stern call hs had the desired effect, and has led to the surrender of the rebel BDR troops. This brought to a peaceful end in Dhaka to what can be termed as the most serious...."
http://thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=77589
That giant sucking sound was that of the lips of the Daily Star editor coming off the backside of the prime minister.
It wasn't the prime minister's speech that ended the mutiny: it was the tanks.
It took 32 hours for tanks to be deployed: incredible!
The entire affair could have been ended in at most 10 minutes if the army had been allowed by the prime minister to act in its professional capacity. The army's arsenal was several thousand times that of the BDR personnel with their peashooters.
But for the amnesty and the shocking delay, the wives of the officers would have been spared the indignity they suffered. For once, Khaleda Zia has spoken the truth and put the blame where it belongs: why were the lights turned off, why were the soldiers withdrawn...?
This was not a civilian issue, but an issue for the military: yet civilians went in waving white flags and claiming to be 'like the mothers of the jawans'. There was absolutely no sense of urgency, as though a picnic had gone wrong
Thursday, February 12, 2009
"We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
I remember, back in the late '90s, I submitted an article to the Daily Star, the last line of which Mahfuz Anam refused to publish – and I refused to alter. His sub-editor, Modon Shahu, called me once day and urged me to change the line.
He chuckled and said: "We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
My piece finally appeared, but – lo and behold! – when I opened the paper, I did a double-take: instead of my last line
"We can either have democracy or safety, but not both";
instead of this last line, the wise Mahfuz Anam or one of his lackeys printed the final paragraph in the picture scanned from the paper above.
Pause and ponder the implications of the sub-editor's statement and the self-censorship of the Daily Star (we were taught that only military rulers imposed censorship!).
The battle-cry of The Daily Star is "Committed to the People's Right to Know"; also, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". Add "Not" before the first, and change "Without" to "With" in the second shibboleth, and you have an accurate idea of the newspaper's ethos.
When a newspaper knows what people want, and what they are saying, it is its duty to report that. Instead, we have a so-called newspaper in cahoots with western donors and NGOs, trying to force-feed democracy down our collective throat.
Well, we finally regurgitated on January 11, 2007 – the day democracy ended: the conclusion of a sixteen-year-old nightmare. But the nightmare has been resumed, for it seems that without a certain politician, the daughter of a certain father, in short, without a certain dynasty, there can be no democracy in Bangladesh.
And that's not a democracy, but a caricature.
Monday, September 15, 2008
"We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
I remember, back in the late '90s, I submitted an article to the Daily Star, the last line of which Mahfuz Anam refused to publish – and I refused to alter. His sub-editor, Modon Shahu, called me once day and urged me to change the line.
He chuckled and said: "We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
Pause and ponder the implications of the sub-editor's statement.
The battle-cry of The Daily Star is "Committed to the People's Right to Know"; also, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". Add "Not" before the first, and change "Without" to "With" in the second shibboleth, and you have an accurate idea of the newspaper's ethos.
When a newspaper knows what people want, and what they are saying, it is its duty to report that. Instead, we have a so-called newspaper in cahoots with western donors and NGOs, trying to force-feed democracy down our collective throat.
Well, we finally regurgitated on January 11, 2007 – the day democracy ended: the conclusion of a sixteen-year-old nightmare.
He chuckled and said: "We know people want martial law, but we can't print that!"
Pause and ponder the implications of the sub-editor's statement.
The battle-cry of The Daily Star is "Committed to the People's Right to Know"; also, "Journalism Without Fear or Favour". Add "Not" before the first, and change "Without" to "With" in the second shibboleth, and you have an accurate idea of the newspaper's ethos.
When a newspaper knows what people want, and what they are saying, it is its duty to report that. Instead, we have a so-called newspaper in cahoots with western donors and NGOs, trying to force-feed democracy down our collective throat.
Well, we finally regurgitated on January 11, 2007 – the day democracy ended: the conclusion of a sixteen-year-old nightmare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
