Mother is arrested in Bangladesh after son in US criticizes government online
nbcnews.com
nbcnews.com
The original post was about a witness, a Hindu witness, who refused to testify against the Islamist guy (saydee) government is after. His testimony was critical, Sayedee was charged with murdering his brother, but he kept refusing. You know how persuasive our govt can be- he even had to flee to India. But he never changed his position that in this particular case, Sayedee wasn't involved. It's an interesting post, but not enough to change the negative view an average Bangladeshi liberal have about Sayede.
What outraged us was what happened afterwards. The govt was a quite a bit tensed after Sayedee's death recently. There was lots of people coming out to praise this guy. Awami league had to sack hundreds of its own party members, particularly from its student wing, for their sympathetic posts. Rahman was unfortunate in that his post became perhaps the most viral one among so many.
Many members of the ruling party have been pretty open about the fact that they needed to make an example of out of him. Particularly egregious is the timing of her arrest, and the lazy excuse they came up with- this 60 yr old flail woman was a islamic terrorist planning to overthrow the government. It's a charge we've heard so many times over the years- the exactly same words.
Actually it's a genius charge. They know it's going to silence lots of potential western criticism by tying it to Islamic terrorism. And by being so transparently bogus to us, it sends the message govt intended to send all along- shut up or you'll be next.
> ruling party
Are there fair elections in Bangladesh? Why does this not hurt their election chances? Why would a people tolerate this of their government?
No.
I think that answers your other questions too.
[1]
> In July 1973 Kim Dae Jung spoke at [the University of Washington], in a classroom with no more than fifteen people present. A month later he was kidnapped in Tokyo by KCIA agents and nearly murdered. Seven years later when he was indicted for "treason," his criticism of the Park government at the University of Washington was included in the indictment, drawn from a tape of his remarks that one of the fifteen people had given to the KCIA.
[2]
> In mid-1973, amidst charges of KCIA harassment of Lee Jai-hyun, a Korean Embassy officer who refused to be reassigned to Korea, I took the initiative to meet with the FBI and called for an investigation of the KCIA in the U.S. After exploratory meetings, such an investigation began, but for reasons I have never quite understood, it did not get off the ground. When it finally petered out several months later, it had produced little more than mere confirmation of the basic information I had submitted initially. I concluded that the FBI, or those higher in authority, had no inclination to follow through on an investigation that could wind up embarrassing an ally.
[1] - Korea's Place in the Sun, p. 372
[2] - The Korean CIA in the USA, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/worldview/article/ab...
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/us-announces-banglad...
https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/us-did-not-discuss-taking...
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/foreign-affairs/3228...
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cyph...
https://theintercept.com/2023/08/26/pakistan-us-citizens-imp...
Now this routine has been extended to any PTI supporter overseas criticizing what happened to Imran.
IMO, the disagreement between the two political parties doesn't just cause domestic polarization, it also delays foreign progress towards democracy. People get jaded internationally from it. I'm hoping we can either have more parties or just help the two parties make up.
Back to the article, I guess one good thing coming out of this is that the guy can apply for political asylum green card now...
Thats funny because this is why I think I’m starting to prefer using my real identity.
When you use your real identity you behave in a way that you will stand behind. Anonymity goads you into acting in a way that you might feel embarrassed about or regret. And given that you are a real person posting online, there is always a chance you lose anonymity.
It’s complicated though. Anonymity to bypass authoritarianism is obviously good. More ideally speeking, we just have stronger free speech values across society so people don’t feel like they need to hide and discourse, think, etc in secrecy.
Whats the point of 'standing behind' if the consequencz is being arrested and thrown in jail.
"Better be alive than right" as the saying goes
See the history of nonviolent protest, civil disobedience, US civil rights movement, etc.
https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/c...
I didn't say it was without risk.
Gandhi's nonviolent resistance moved the British but did not persuade Hitler, though he tried.
Anyway, these are all good things. I don't mean to dissuade well-meaning activists. Just pointing out that you need to understand the environment you are operating in instead of blindly emulating others.
5 minutes spent on any Facebook comments thread proves this to be completely false - people are vile, disgusting, racist even when their real names are attached to what they are saying.
People use/present different 'selves' to different people all the time, even without using pseudonymous identities. It's a core part of navigating life. Online pseudonymous handles help facilitate more separation between contexts but it doesn't (necessarily) mean people change their integrity (I certainly don't).
There's a useful critique[1] of Mark Zuckerberg's 2010 quote that proclaimed there should only be a single identity for everyone. An excerpt that summarizes the piece:
> Individuals are constantly managing and restricting flows of information based on the context they are in, switching between identities and persona. I present myself differently when I’m lecturing in the classroom compared to when I’m have a beer with friends [...] This is how we navigate the multiple and increasingly complex spheres of our lives. It is not that you pretend to be someone that you are not; rather, you turn the volume up on some aspects of your identity, and tone down others, all based on the particular context you find yourself.
Also this cross-linked piece[2] by a teacher which brings up similar points.
[1] https://michaelzimmer.org/2010/05/14/facebooks-zuckerberg-ha...
[2] https://crookedtimber.org/2010/05/14/an-internet-where-every...
This allows for more extreme and less politically favorable ideas to be explored in anonymity while providing a public place that moves slower and takes longer for ideas that are less favorable to become more favorable.
We should start with congress. All votes yes or no must be attached to a name. No more of this yay or nay bs.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
IIRC, any senator can force a roll call on a vote. I think the House has a similar rule but requires a minimum number of House members to support the motion.
And even when Congress has internal rules (not US law) requiring a roll call vote, they can suspend those rules to permit a voice vote.
I’m not disagreeing, just had something to add, basically unrelated to the context.
That's a good place to start from, but the individuals in power protecting themselves via censorship etc won't be stopped by this.
And I'm sure he has no regrets regarding his mother's arrest.
And then, there are the multinational corporations, the ultra elite, leaders like Putin and MBS that will kill someone out of whim, etc.
As political institutions degrade, as in they become tools of the rich and influential rather than enforce human and constitutional rights and the fundamental rule of law, the world will become dangerous.
Man, I really shouldn't be writing this I guess.
I’m NOT justifying anything, but the story seems an opinion piece, or rather one side, purely based on the guys version. We don’t know why the mom was arrested.
Son seems like an Islamist or at least someone who sympathizes with them (see above). So, it is possible that his mother was involved in the protests or at least was arrested for reasons other than simply the son’s post.
I have noticed a distinct Hindutva streak on HN.
Many posters, including perhaps yourself, are giving the son & mother a benefit of the doubt. My comment above was about giving the other party an equal benefit of the doubt.
In end, no one except the involved parties know the truth. I certainly don’t.
Not sure why you’re bringing in hindutva to the discussion.
This is the basis of fair criminal trials. Also, Bangladesh seems to have a terrible human rights record [1]. So the presumption of innocence for the mother is strengthened absent evidence of a crime (which, in a competent court system, should be public record).
[1] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/bangl...
Does pointing out that someone's sympathies lies with banned pro-Hitler speech calling for the Holocaust in Germany makes one a Zionist?
Let's leave aside why being a Hindutva or Zionist is wrong.
Nationalism and pride for me but not for thee.
Bangladeshi politics still has the scars of their Independence War and the subsequent coups as the families leading both the Awami Party (the ruling party) and the Nationalist Party (the current opposition but formerly in power) have been in a violent struggle with each other since the 80s (eg. The current president Sheikh Hasina literally saw her father shot by the General who's wife is leading the BNP).
This rivalry has been further inflamed by the power struggle between China and India, as the BNP leans closer to China+Pakistan and the BAP leans closer to India. This has incentivized toxic political behavior - check out Nepal for another buffer zone seeing similarly dysfunctional politics.
Over the past few years, BNP multiple activists have been shot and arrested, and the party was essentially banned a couple years ago, and the US has starting placing limited sanctions against the BAP, though I doubt they would have much impact as UAE+KSA+India+Thailand+Singapore haven't enforced sanctions.
Also, from an ideology standpoint (though ideology doesn't really matter in Asian politics), BAP was traditionally center-left and Secular leaning while BNP was traditionally center-right and also Islamist leaning because the pro-Pakistan Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami was banned in 2013 and it's activists joined the BNP.
The politics of violence was really inflamed from the early 2010s when the founders of the JeI was executed after being found guilty of murders, rapes, and torture of Bangladeshi nationalists and Hindus during the Bangladeshi War of Independence, which then hardened the ideological battle lines. This lead to massive riots in retaliation, which had a direct impact on governance in Bangladesh and even India, as the same ethnicities live across the border.
On top of that, the Rohingya refugee crisis has destabilized Eastern Bangladesh as there aren't enough jobs or ability to provide aid, causing some Rohingya to turn to the Drug Trade as Myanmar is a major Opium and Meth (ever heard of Yaba in Thailand?) manufacturing region.
But in a country with the kind of history Bangladesh has had, minority movements can destabilize the government and overrule the will of the majority. It's hard to have free-wheeling political discourse in a country where people don't have a long history of democracy and aren't above using bombs and assassinations in the political process. (Last time I left the country, I did so under armed guard during a hartal.) Every fledgling democracy in Asia has gone through an authoritarian stage while the country developed and solidified its institutions. Good take from Charlie Munger on this: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8YND31g/. I don't think it's even limited to Asia. The U.S. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.
The most important thing, I think, is that America should leave Bangladesh the fuck alone, which it has not been doing: https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/08/03/washington-bangladesh-d.... The United States clearly has no idea how to build democracy in the developing world. I'm scared to see this article in the New York Times, and what it might mean for what the neocons have in store for the country.
Bangladeshis are perfectly capable of doing that on their own.
That entire generation is incredibly quick to conspiracy.
I understand people would think that their own population is capable of doing stuff, it's not. Having read about the history of US, I'd say that the world would be a better place without it, and would think twice before letting it off the hook with just some sarcasm, I know US it's very good at PR when it comes to funding death around the world, but there are writers who have told us what it actually is
So one reading of the US actions is just to try and push the BAP into cooling down the political temperature, and not exploit their dominant position so much that it incites further violent backlashes.
> I'm scared to see this article in the New York Times, and what it might mean for what the neocons have in store for the country
In all honestly, they can't really do much.
Bangladesh is pretty insulated because most critical services are provided by Chinese and Indian companies working closely with Bangladeshi companies.
Exports aren't drastically impacted either as anything Bangladeshi could be re-exported via the UAE, Singapore, or India, should worst come to worst.
And most critically, the US is a bit player in the region. They have no bases, local allies, or power projection in that region.
QatarGas and Gazprom are both the primary partners with PetroBangla, the Padma Bridge (one of Bangladesh's most critical logistics arteries) was constructed by Chinese companies using Chinese originated loans, and the expressway projects in Bangladesh are being built and managed by a major Thai construction company with close links to the Thai govt.
To be fair, American companies don't really touched LDCs anymore - they get better RoI in investing within North America.
Countries like Japan, South Korea, UAE, Qatar, KSA, Türkiye, China, India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Russia fill the financing gap in LDCs and Developing countries as they have more experience operating and executing in those kinds of environments.
That said, it doesn't seem to be that big a deal then. It would be better for BD to build their own, but Jharkhand's electric grid has always been closely connected with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan because it's always been an electricity export market due to cheap coal and (before de-industrialization) a large manufacturing base.
I'm going to steer clear from Al Jazeera reporting simply because there is some Gulf rivalry going on there (eg. MBZ of Abu Dhabi has a significant voting share in Adani) because Qatar got frozen out of the Indian market by the UAE and KSA.
Any how I’d like to read more on U.S position, this was new to me. Any recs?
This is a continuation of a position that’s been going on since the Bangladesh independence: https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/when-russia-stunned-us...
At least with India, the response is annoyed, not mad. Washington wants New Delhi to counter Beijing more than it cares about Russia, especially since Putin’s own goals in Ukraine. In a cynical calculation, Indian industry building up—even on Russian oil—is a net gain. (America and India are also fundamentally aligned on a lot of values, both good and bad.)
Bangladesh doesn’t have similar military potential, so the calculation is less clear. But given its size, its primary value is in respect of its effrct on India, so the same logic (with a bias towards stability at all costs) ports.
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/economy/2023/3/30/bangladesh-i...
I don't know how connected you are with Bangladeshi politics right now, but poll-hacking through extreme repression is the first trick Sheikh Hasina/her party Awami League mastered. I am not surprised to see such a high approval rating, rather, I'm surprised to see 30% people signal disapproval in an environment with extreme political speech suppression. If you doubt that, read the story we're discussing under again. This is a government that's been jailing people without trial for their Facebook posts.
If you want to know some indication of the true feeling of the people, go check out the Facebook posts of anything related to the ruling party, and check the ratio of "haha" reacts to likes or hearts. Generally, that's 4:1 in my experience.
Then again, he also complained about dressing up on Diwali maybe turning his daughter Hindu so IDK
Edit: AFAIK (edited because I’m rate-limited for some reason) he did support independence or was at least reconciled to it but was nostalgic for the unified country.
Western polls are pretty accurate. Modi is popular, Hasina is popular, Erdogan is popular, Crimeans in 2014 wanted to join Russia... all of these things are likely true.
In this specific case, the woman was likely arrested because of her son's post, which is obviously worse.
But the rest is common even in so-called "liberal democracies": folks are jailed after arrest for months or years before trial, and folks are arrested and jailed for "hate speech" and "causing offense" via online posts -- or the government just creates a pretext for arrest, but it was really because of the person's legal speech.
So, yes, Bangladesh is worse, but the Good Guys™ are increasingly authoritarian. The gap isn't as large as most folks think.
It did not go as bad, as my relatives got detained. But unfortunately everything you say online, the government can read and use against you or your family.
Edit: Added link
That might be a step up from the mob justice currently doled out to people with bad opinions?
It's clear that society no longer values freedom of speech, so maybe we should consider formalising the punishment for expressing wrongthink, so at least there's rules that can be applied fairly and consistently?