SPEAKING ALL TRUTH TO THE ESTABLISHMENT
[How long we have to fight for the Freedom of Speech & Expression!]
Speaking all truth to the
establishment, especially in public, is not that easy and some time it is risky
too. Here the term establishment signifies people at the power centre who run
the state machineries and their cohorts.
The establishment, since the ancient
time seldom likes to embrace unpleasant truth voluntarily. If we probe into the
ancient history, it will reveal that in 399 BC, the great philosopher Socrates
had to face trial and subsequent execution when he was nearly 70 as he spoke
the truth following his conscience to the establishment. His unconventional
attitude and expressions towards divinity contrary to the established norm of
Athens at that time angered the people at the power centre. The quote from 'The
lives of Eminent Philosophers', authored by Diogenes Laertius of the 3 AD
supports this assertion. He explicitly pointed out that "Socrates
discussed moral questions in the workshops and the marketplace." Often his
unpopular views expressed disdainfully and with an air of condescension, provoked
his listeners' anger. Laertius further stated that "men set upon him with
their fists or tore his hair out," but that Socrates "bore all this
ill-usage patiently." Eventually Socrates was tried and convicted by the
courts of democratic Athens. He was charged of corrupting the youth and
disbelieving in the ancestral gods as he exposed his truth that went against
the belief of the establishment.
The history of the Semitic religion
has revealed that Jesus Christ (7–2 BC—26–36 AD) had to undergo Jewish and
Roman trials and was sentenced to death by crucifixion as he introduced new
truth concerning religion contradicting Judaism and pagan Roman beliefs which
the establishment at that time followed. The prophet of Islam, Hazrat Muhammad
(sm) (570-632 AD) also had to face much struggle and hardship as he attempted
to introduce monotheistic belief replacing the prevailing pagan polytheistic
religion despite the fact that he was born into the Koreish, the leading tribe
of the establishment in Mecca of his time. Ironically, his preaching of Islam
was not accepted even by many powerful members of his own tribe and so
eventually he was forced to leave Mecca in 622 AD with his followers and had to
take refuge in Medina until he along with his followers succeeded to conquer
Mecca in 630 AD.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), the
great scientist also fell under the rage of the establishment of his time while
he tried to reveal the truth of science observing physical reality by stating,
"I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the
heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself
and moves around it." In this context it is worthwhile to note that
throughout Europe, the church still held the core power of the establishment
during Galileo's time. And the new discovery of Galileo contradicts the
biblical creed which holds the notion of earth centric universe. So, after his
scientific write-up entitled "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of
the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican" containing the new discovery
discarding the divine quotes of the Bible was published, Galileo was condemned
to lifelong imprisonment.
In ancient and medieval times,
religions played crucial roles in establishments and so speaking the truth cost
enormous suffering for those who following their conscience revealed the truth.
However, in modern age too, due to fanatic opposition of religious bigots
especially in the Muslim world including ours, many free thinkers undergo
miserable sufferings in their lives. For instance, we can mention the name of
Araz Ali Matabbar (1900-1985), an eminent self educated intellectual who tried
to judge the religion rationally and asked unpleasant questions in his
write-ups, became a victim of the establishment during the pre-independent
period of Bangladesh. Even after the independence in 1973, poet Daud Haider was
set upon by mullahs and their thugs for a poem in which he had raged at God for
allowing the massacre of three million Bangladeshis during the liberation
struggle and criticized leading religious leaders including Muhammed (SM). The
Government of Bangabandhu, hailed for guiding Bangladesh to the path of
secularism, imprisoned Daud for 'his own protection." Later in 1979,
during Zia's regime after being released from the jail he had to flee to India
for saving his life from fanatic groups as his passport was impounded and
later, he took asylum in German.(Still he is in German). For viewing religion
through their rational lens, litterateur Ahemed Sharif (1921-1999), Humayun
Azad (1947-2004) and some others in our country had to face much struggle
including death threat from the religious bigots. In all cases the
establishment took least interest in protecting these freethinkers showing
little respect to freedom of expression.
Perhaps the most heinous slap on
freedom of expression in the world occurred in the case of the feminist writer
Taslima Nasrin who wrote Taslima some columns that have exposed how the
medieval traditions of Islam have become major obstacle on the way to women
emancipation and empowerment in our contemporary society. The Islamic goons of
the country did not tolerate and subsequently they started agitation.
Portraying her as Murtad they declared bounty for her head as it was in the
case of Salman Rushdi. Instead of protecting Taslima from the rage of the
Mullahs, the then government banned her book 'Layjja' and in 1993, she was
charged with blasphemy. An arrest warrant was issued and Taslima went into
hiding. After two months she surrendered to the High Court and immediately
after receiving bail left Bangladesh. Since 1994 she has lived in many
countries in exile including France, Sweden and India. However, the acts of the
government on Taslima's issue did not translate that the government did all the
things due to its love for Islam. Rather, in our country, all governments
patronize Islamic fanatics for political reasons—for safeguarding its vote
bank.
Religion is a sensitive issue,
especially in the contemporary Muslim world and so the establishments there do
not take risk to give freedom for expression that goes against long practised
religious culture and beliefs. But what is the freedom of expressions in
democratic secular world? Are people there free to speak all truth to the establishment?
Take USA , the most powerful 'democratic' country in this uni-polar country, as
an example. Are Americans free to talk all truth to the establishment? To get
the answer to this question first we need to unmask the reality in USA
establishment. Who represent the US government? Either Democrat or Republic?
But both the two major parties Republic and Democrat are patronised by the big
multinational companies. As the other political parties who stand against
capitalism and who campaign for the working class including 13% of the people
who are under poverty line cannot succeed in the election, mainly due to crisis
in party funds. It may be noted here, in the developed countries also money is
the most powerful instrument in the national electoral process most like the
practice in our country. So, this assertion becomes evidential when we see that
over the half of presidents of the USA came from the wealthiest 3% of the
Americans while at least a dozen sprang from the loins of elitists in the top
of 1%. Statistics from 2005 shows that 143 of 435 US representatives and one in
three senators were millionaire. These people, no doubt, were connected to the
corporate world in one way or another. Presumably, recent statistics will
reveal the similar pattern of representatives in the US government. So, in
reality, deviated from Lincoln's philosophy, the USA has redefined its
democracy as "government of the rich, for the rich and by the rich"
Due to their inherent background,
the representatives of US government exert strong influence in formulating
policies in favour of corporate interests. If we investigate then no doubt it
will be revealed that the government of US itself follows the corporate
structure. In this context, we may argue that US is leading towards fascism in
line with Mussolini's fundamental definition of fascism: "Fascism should
more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and
corporate power." The dangerous implication of this is corporatism of the
mainstream media, the major tool for making public opinion. Presumably,
speaking the truth that goes against corporate interest has no access to the
mainstream media. So, when Bush administration imposed unjust war on Iraq, many
humanitarian intellectuals who were against the war opposing the corporate
interest got little access to mainstream media. Peace loving intellectuals at
that time vastly relied on alternate media but due to its limitation they
failed to create public opinion against fascist Bush and his cohorts. Due to
this failure Bush could succeed to get elected for the second term to run the
administration in a fascist manner.
Naomi Wolf, in her famous book 'The
End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (2007)', with concrete
evidences revealed the fact how the US controls the press. Referring the
Committee to Protect Journalists she points out that the arrest of US
journalists is at an all-time high. Contemporary US historian Prof. Carolyn
Baker in her book "US History Uncensored" (2006) has rightly argued that
over the decades US has turned into a close society from an open one. In a
close society, as we observed in the case of former communist USSR and its
folds, speaking all truth to the establishment was quite impossible. So,
Russian free thinkers like Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989), Boris Pasternek
(1921-1999) and many other had to face much hurdles and pains for expressing
truth to the establishment.
In contemporary West Europe,
especially in the UK, the scenario of freedom of speech is relatively much
better. Still the situation there in this context is not unquestionable. The
Civitas, an independent think tank has expressed its observation (2006), "For
centuries Britain has been a beacon of liberty of thought, belief and speech,
but now the freedom of its intellectual and political life is being subjected
to a subtle form of 'censorship'"
The world's largest democratic and
our neighboring country India although comparatively better than other
sub-continental countries, restricts freedom of expression in many political
and religious aspects. No political party there can boast of respecting the
freedom of the press. There have been numerous instances of newspaper offices
being vandalized and editors and journalists being roughed up by political
flunkeys for publishing articles that were critical of their leaders. Banning
of books is not uncommon by the central or state government. For instance the
ban on Dwikhandito, a book written by
Taslima Nasrin by the West Bengal Government can be cited.
Apart from the religious issue like
many other countries, speaking truth on other secular issues that go against
the interest of the establishment is also difficult in Bangladesh. So, for
implicit reasons our writers/journalists dare not unveil the fact on Chittagong
Hill Tracts turmoil or the much debated issue of 'cross fire.'
In conclusion, we can argue that the
freedom of speech or right to speak to the establishment will not be translated
into reality in this planet unless we work out for it. For this, we need to go
a long way overcoming all hurdles and pains following the footstep of the free
thinkers of the past. For this, we need to nurture the courage of our own
conscience so that we can make our planet a place blessed with the freedom of
expression.
(Mohammad
Anwarul Kabir is a university academic,
columnist and a poet)
0 Comments
