Obtaining license for political goals means blocking scope for journalism

Amid the multifaceted and deep-rooted crises facing the media landscape in Bangladesh, the 11-member Media Reform Commission formed by the interim government has already submitted its report proposing timely and effective reforms. Headed by Kamal Ahmed, the commission has made 20 major recommendations covering issues such as media ownership, revenue and expenditure, the advertisement market, financial security, the future of BTV, Bangladesh Betar, and BSS, as well as the freedom and protection of journalists and media organisations. Each of these 20 points includes several subpoints with detailed explanations. Alongside the recommendations, the commission has also submitted a draft ordinance titled Bangladesh Media Commission Ordinance: 2025, which is now under consideration by the interim government. Media professionals and stakeholders are hoping that the proposals will soon be given legal standing. In this context, Kamal Ahmed sat down for an in-depth conversation with Rahat Minhaz, Assistant Professor of Mass Communication and Journalism at Jagannath University. They discussed the formation and work of the commission, the obstacles and resistance it faced, and the broader challenges at hand. This interview is being published in installments by Views Bangladesh. Today, we present the first part of the five-part series.

Views Bangladesh: You've already completed a major responsibility—submitting the Media Reform Commission’s report to the Chief Adviser. To begin with, could you share how this journey started for you?

Kamal Ahmed: The government contacted and asked whether I would be willing to take on this responsibility. I agreed and took up the role. After that, I was consulted regarding the finalisation of the commission members’ names. They asked for my suggestions—who would be suitable choices. I made it very clear that if we were to carry out any meaningful reform, it would be essential to include participation from relevant stakeholders. Their representatives needed to be part of the commission to make it representative and inclusive. Through discussion and collaboration, the recommendations we came up with would then be easier to implement. We could say to them, since you’ve actively contributed to formulating these recommendations, it’s also your responsibility to help ensure they’re implemented. Based on that, the commission was formed and we began working together.

Views Bangladesh: When you were preparing the report or working on it, did you face any major challenges?

Kamal Ahmed: We didn’t face any major problems. The powers and facilities granted to us by the government were, I would say, adequate. They certainly deserve credit for not interfering in any way. No one tried to exert influence or gave us any instructions like, ‘This is what we want; please write it accordingly.’ Rather, the interim government instructed the administration to provide the commission with all necessary support. We, from the commission, requested documents from various government departments, and there was no obstruction from the government in making those documents available. Whatever we asked for, we received. In that regard, I would say our experience was very positive.

Views Bangladesh: Any other obstacles or hindrances…

Kamal Ahmed: If you ask in terms of obstacles, there was one. That was, we couldn’t directly speak with a segment of stakeholders. The main reason behind this was that some of our journalists and a portion of the intellectual community misunderstood us. When we invited television channel owners to hear their opinions—and we also tried to get answers to some specific questions from them—questions regarding licensing, how they have run their channels, and the public resentment that has built up against them, we believed these were important matters. We thought if we could hear from them, our report would be enriched and people’s understanding would be clearer. But then, a certain group claimed we were trying to rehabilitate the agents of fascism. They called these media owners allies of fascism and accused the commission of aiding them. We were ultimately compelled to cancel that scheduled meeting. Because if any law and order situation had arisen later, it wouldn’t have been wise for us to take responsibility for it. The country's law and order situation was already somewhat unstable—full of uncertainty and tension. So, we didn’t want to worsen things. As a result, we never got answers to those important questions. Later, however, their organisation ATCO (Association of Television Channel Owners) submitted a written statement outlining their views and recommendations. We included those in our report. Everything is available on the website.

Views Bangladesh: What kind of recommendations did they make? What issues did they raise?

Kamal Ahmed: Among their recommendations, they mentioned that interference or influence from syndicates and malign groups—those supportive of fascists—has, in their view, hindered independent journalism. It is a positive sign that they at least acknowledged the existence of syndicate influence and political interference. However, what explanation do they offer for their own active role in these practices in the past? In their licence applications, they explicitly pledged in writing that they were seeking television licences to work towards realising the political ideology and goals of the ruling party and government. What explanation is there for that? Because when you apply for a licence by pledging to fulfil the political objectives of the government, you are effectively closing off any scope for practicing journalism—and in such a scenario, that space simply does not exist. We had no opportunity to ask these questions. That is what I would identify as the negative aspect or the primary obstacle we faced.

Views Bangladesh: The reform commission’s report says that currently 53 television licences have been issued in Bangladesh, of which 40 are on air. Were those statements included when they applied for their licences?

Kamal Ahmed: Yes. We’ve cited them as direct excerpts. From memory, I can mention two channels right now. One is Ismat Kadir Gama’s channel, where the application clearly states, "I am a dedicated worker of the Awami League. I want a television licence to highlight the ideology of the party and the government’s development agenda." A similar statement appears in the application of Harunur Rashid, a member of the Awami League’s advisory council and the owner of Asian TV. He too is an Awami League leader, and his channel’s application contains the same kind of declaration. What’s remarkable is that even the first-generation private television channels in our country made similar commitments in their applications to promote the government's development efforts—for example, ATN Bangla.

Views Bangladesh: So, you're saying that this kind of commitment predates the current Awami League era in private television?

Kamal Ahmed: Yes. The licences granted between 1996 and 2001 also contain such statements. Channel i, for instance—their application stated they would showcase the government's development activities. They even committed to rebroadcasting content aired by Bangladesh Television (BTV), such as national art, literature, culture, and various types of informational broadcasts. So how can you expect anything different from them? Or why would they be interested in doing anything different? Their commitments, after all, explicitly say they will replicate what BTV is doing. Look, media like television, radio, broadcasting—these are creative platforms. Creativity is vital here. Critical thinking, the ability to view things differently, to ask questions—these are essential. But they’ve shut down that space themselves through their licence applications and the commitments they've made. It’s profoundly disappointing.

Views Bangladesh: I’ve worked in journalism for 7–8 years. As far as I know, state intelligence agencies have—or used to have—influence, contact, or interference in newsrooms and various sectors of journalism. Did your commission investigate that issue?

Kamal Ahmed: We received information on that matter. We didn’t summon any intelligence agencies. There was some debate within the commission about whether we should or not. Ultimately, we decided not to. Because inviting them would mean legitimising their activities—it would imply recognising them as stakeholders, acknowledging that they have a legitimate presence in the media. And by doing so, we would be giving weight to their opinions by formally inviting them. Considering all this, we decided against it. So, while we did not invite representatives of state intelligence agencies, we did receive various kinds of evidence and accounts pointing to their interference and involvement.

Views Bangladesh: Can you share one or two examples with me?

Kamal Ahmed: As part of the commission’s work, we held discussions with journalists, publishers, and editors from the three districts of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In that meeting, several specific examples came up. In 2018, a journalist was approached by a state security agency with an offer: "We’ll provide the funding if you obtain a declaration for a daily newspaper and start publishing it." That journalist accepted the money, obtained the declaration, and began publishing the newspaper. After a few issues, he realised the agency that had provided the funding no longer showed any interest. So, he stopped publishing it. Later, he discovered that an online portal had been launched using the same title as his newspaper—and that the intelligence agency was actively using that portal to disseminate messages and propaganda. It was a bizarre incident. We’ve heard similar accounts from other places as well—cases where intelligence agencies gave money to media personnel or arranged funding to establish outlets. Whether that money came from the state treasury or some other source, we don’t know.

In this context, it must be mentioned that there are serious allegations—particularly against military intelligence agencies—regarding their direct involvement in politics. These are not casual accusations. In fact, such concerns were raised in the Jatiya Sangsad (National Parliament) even after 2009, specifically in 2010 or 2011, by the late Abdul Jalil, former General Secretary of the Awami League, and Rashed Khan Menon, President of the Workers Party. They demanded measures be taken to stop such interference because they themselves were victims—subjected to harassment and repression by those agencies.

The unfortunate truth is that the government did not take those allegations seriously. It did not acknowledge them, let alone investigate or take action. On the contrary, those very agencies were used by the government to serve political, personal, and factional interests. As long as intelligence agencies are used in this way—within democratic and political processes—there can be no independent media. These agencies will continue to interfere in journalism, and there's no way to eliminate that risk without meaningful reform.

(To be continued)

Interview conducted by Rahat Minhaz, Assistant Professor, Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, Jagannath University.

Also Read
Part 2: 90 percent media outlets do not submit income-expenditure reports on time