Patriotism vs. vandalism
The scenes of vandalism to protest against an isolated incident at DU, is not an example of unity for a cause. It is a stark example of unity for violence and destruction.
We the people of Bangladesh should be ashamed of ourselves. The jubilant faces of the protestors are an indication of their happiness in being able to come to the streets after a long break. Only students cannot possibly organise such widespread demonstrations. It certainly has the hands of power hungry politically motivated people whose activities are now curbed. They are looking for an opportunity to create problems for the present CTG. No government can possibly be anywhere near 100% performance in all its steps/policies, but certainly this is not a way to show disapproval.
Is it possible for a patriotic citizen to cause/support intentional damage of public transport, private vehicles and even traffic lights (just a sign of their desperation!)? I personally feel that we the people of Bangladesh lack patriotism. Patriotism only lies in the cinema halls where on hearing the national anthem, people very reluctantly stand up. From the very childhood our parents and teachers together with the media have to play a role to imbibe patriotism in us. If we had a little bit of patriotism in us, we could not have gone on the rampage like this.
What image of Bangladesh do these pictures portray to other nations? Do we want ourselves labelled as an uneducated, uncivilised, emotionally driven, sadistic nation? When will we be able to go for nation building, rather than anarchy building strategy?
An ashamed citizen.
Shahlin Hossain, Circuit House Road
Dhaka
***
The incident that took place on the Dhaka University campus is indeed regrettable. However, what is surprising is that the newspapers have reported these incidents in a very biased manner. While it's true that the army and the police instigated the violence and mishandled the situation, it is also true that the actions of the students are equally unacceptable and unethical. Violent protests whereby innocent civilians and their businesses are hurt do not represent democratic practices. Your paper has failed to criticise such actions and this is very disappointing indeed. The paper is also not critical of the strike that has been called at different educational institutes. It seems the media is naturally inclined to accept this evil and self-destructive practice as the ethical norm. We should not forget that it is due to such violent protests that our country is consistently rated as a high risk country not suitable for travel, tourism or business - all contributors to our economic quandary. Yet the media is unable to speak out against such atrocities. Your editorial on Tuesday was full of advice to the present government on how to better themselves in dealing with the general public but not once did it mention that the student bodies also need to behave lawfully and they have an equal responsibility in protecting people's rights.
While there are many things to be criticised about the caretaker government, they have more positives than our 'democratic' governments. Yet you open the daily newspapers and all you see is criticism of the current government.
Providing constructive feedback is of course very important but one must also remember to provide encouragement something the country's media seems incapable of.
The free press is supposed to be the conscience of the nation and if this is what our conscience has become, then there is very little hope for us.
Tarique Haque, On e-mail
Comments