Pegasus spyware in Bangladesh's political domain

In times when the threads of technology have irretrievably interwoven themselves into the labyrinth of political games, the revelation of sturdier capabilities of Pegasus spyware has evoked a heated debate on the fragile line between the private and the secure, and the length to which state authority extends. Developed by the Israeli outfit NSO Group, the capacity of this tool for surreptitious monitoring of phones of political dissidents, activists, and journalists has raised profound ethical and legal questions-as indeed pointedly warned by Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The in-depth analysis investigates a variety of allegations and pieces of evidence related to the deployment of Pegasus in Bangladesh, and how previous governments could have used this immensely powerful technology to suppress dissent and mold political discourses to their advantage. As George Orwell poignantly observed, “Big Brother is Watching You,” a sentiment that resonates strongly in the context of Pegasus, where surveillance transcends Orwellian fiction and becomes a disconcerting reality.
This article also intends to explore the status of such surveillance tools under the current government of Bangladesh. Do those tools remain in play, and if so, how are they being regulated? Critical questions will be asked to find out whether the current administration continues the practices of its predecessors or if there has been a shift towards more transparent and accountable use of surveillance technology. The aim is also to call for the creation of an investigative committee that would document the use of such technologies by past governments and their consequences on political freedom and journalistic integrity.
As James Madison had said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” In this review, we try to arm the citizens and policy thinkers of Bangladesh with the knowledge needed to address the increasingly complex interaction between technology and human rights so that surveillance tools may be used responsibly and in an ethical manner to enhance security without sacrificing any of the values of liberty and privacy enjoyed by its people.
Pegasus Spyware - WHERE SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE MEET GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY: Understanding Pegasus spyware requires a look into an apex of technology in the world of surveillance, which is built to infiltrate smartphones undetected and reach deep into the user’s personal messages, emails, cameras, and microphones. Sold originally to governments as a strategic tool in the fight against terrorism and crime, the application of Pegasus has ironically grown to include the surveillance of citizens-many of them internal threats, according to their very own governments. This extension of use underlines a profound ethical paradox in which tools designed for protection subtly morph into instruments of political control.
In Bangladesh, the use of Pegasus spyware is infamously recognised, highlighting a tension between national security imperatives and the sanctity of individual privacy rights. The narrative of its use has been particularly controversial under the past Awami League government, which has been accused of leveraging claims of terrorism and fostering Islamophobia to suppress political opposition and control religious groups adhering to Islamic principles. Critics further say that all those moves were strategically enforced in liaison with a neighbouring country’s intelligence agency to protect the unilateral interests of both parties, apparently to keep the Awami League in power through controversial electoral processes. This situation invokes the cautionary words of Aldous Huxley: “Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.”
The allegations hint at a misuse of the surveillance technology, not only in the interest of public safety, but also for political hegemony, and raise serious questions about the ethical responsibilities of governance. As James Madison once said, “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” In this case, the ‘enemy’ is ostensibly terror and dissent, but the silent battle is with the freedoms of the very people the government pledges to serve.
It now becomes incumbent on the current government to come clean as to how these surveillance tools were used and who was involved in their deployment. Transparency in this area is not about airing past grievances; it is about restoring trust in a system that seems to have exploited technology at the expense of human rights. As astutely observed by George Orwell: “In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” In that case, for Bangladesh, Pegasus spyware might stand as the point from where their integrity starts all over, which re-reshapes lawful limits of surveillance.
The real questions now are: What does the current government know about the previous deployments of this technology? How complicit were the previous administrations in the potential overstepping of ethical boundaries, cloaked as an interest of national security? Most importantly, what is being done to ensure responsible uses of such technologies in the times to come?
In addressing these questions, the Government of Bangladesh is under the spotlight to set a precedent for accountability and ethical governance over the use of surveillance technologies. This befits the statement of Thomas Jefferson: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” Thus, vigilance should not only be projected outside in defense against external threats but also inside to ensure that powers given to protect do not turn into tools of oppression. It is in this delicate balance that true security and responsible governance lie.
A Closer Look at Allegations of Use in Bangladesh: Context and Preliminary Findings. Today, in this modern world, the potential misuse of such surveillance technologies engenders long shadows over democratic institutions and the freedom of the press. There are persistent reports in Bangladesh, now allegations too, that the Government of Bangladesh could have used spyware Pegasus for keeping a track of political rivals and critical journalists who scrutinise its actions. These allegations acquire further credence from international investigations that listed Bangladesh among the countries probably affected by the Pegasus-related infections. These reports need an in-depth investigation of the spyware deployment along with its general implications on political and journalistic freedoms within the national context.
Surveillance of Political Opposition. In Bangladesh, an interesting pattern has been observed where several opposition leaders have fallen victim to suspicious activities on their mobile phones. These reports often come at the height of political tensions and public outcry against the government. For example, during the highly contested elections of 2018, several opposition figures reported that their communications were mysteriously intercepted, and devices malfunctioned in ways consistent with the symptoms of a Pegasus infection. Though none of these incidents has been explicitly linked to Pegasus, the level of sophistication combined with the timing of these intrusions strongly indicates that advanced spyware technologies are being deployed.
Impact on Journalists and Activists. Independent journalism and activism, in general, have equally suffered under this pressure of surveillance, especially those who report on governmental corruption and the struggle for human rights. These include a number of journalists from leading Bangladeshi newspapers who, while investigating in several years since the spyware was bought government corruption links, have reported strange malfunctioning of their devices and suspected eavesdropping during their investigations. Incidents like these have a tangible chilling effect on free speech and press freedom, stifling the critical voices needed in a transparent and accountable governance structure.
The impact of such surveillance is deep: it represents the suppression of a free press-a requisite tenet for democracy-and the right to political opposition. The chilling effect engendered through possible, if not actual, monitoring engenders not only a cold wall of silence from journalists and activists but also threatens, across the media landscape and into opposition parties, the sense of fear and intimidation.
The following allegations and cases show a disturbing trend in which surveillance tools, instead of being applied to the core purpose of securing national security, were used in attempts to silence the opposition and control the story by tracking outspoken critics. This practice starkly contradicts any notion of democracy and the due process of law, aptly captured in the words of George Orwell: “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
As Bangladesh presses ahead with its journey toward technological advancement and increased political accountability, all stakeholders-government, civil society, and international partners-must press for strict regulations and transparency in the use of surveillance technology. Only a collaborative effort to balance security imperatives with the basic rights to privacy and free expression will constitute real progress toward the protection of democratic values in the digital era.
Impact of Political Freedom.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Thus said Edmund Burke, but this is particularly poignant considering the chilling effect on free speech in light of Pegasus spyware within Bangladesh. The feeling of being followed, observed, has created an environment of pervasive fear among the political opposition and dissenting voices, ultimately leading to an act of self-censorship. In societies where privacy in conversations and communications can be covertly breached, people will more often than not remain silent rather than risk retribution. This is directly undermining the democratic freedom of expression that should be an imperative ingredient of health and vitality for any society which genuinely claims to be free and open.
Manipulation of Political Narratives. As Niccolò Machiavelli once noted, “The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were reality.” In the context of Bangladesh, the speculated use of surveillance technologies like Pegasus allows the government to watch and manipulate the political landscape. The state is able to get prior information on the planning sessions and private discussions, and it may disrupt them in order to pre-empt any political protests and movements before they build momentum. This undue advantage gives an unfair benefit to those in power to shape and perpetuate the desired political rhetoric, usually to the detriment of any actual democratic discussion or the real concerns of the citizens.
Loss of Confidence. As Benjamin Franklin warned, “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” But this ever-present fear of surveillance degrades that imperative duty and corrodes trust in not just government but also between different political parties and activists. Suspicion runs riot when one feels watched, and that basic trust, so necessary for collective action and united opposition, is dissipated. This only leads to fragmentation of opposition movements, weakening the general effectiveness and thwarting democratic processes. Such lack of confidence in political structures leads to a vicious cycle of cynicism and disengagement of citizens, which in turn can be destabilizing to the fabric of society.
The use of Pegasus spyware, as claimed in Bangladesh, underlines how security and freedom exist in a delicate balance. Yet, while governments can dispute the necessity of surveillance in the name of national security, it would do well to heed John Stuart Mill’s warning: “A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.” If Bangladesh is to truly thrive as a democracy, then it needs to ensure its methods of guaranteeing security do not trample on the very freedoms it promises to uphold.
Legal and Ethical Implications: The use of Pegasus, without stringent legal oversight and ethical boundaries, creates a deep threat to individual freedoms and the rule of law:
• Legal Framework. The digital security laws of Bangladesh are often vague and prone to wide interpretations that could facilitate governmental overreach.
• International Norms. Misuse of such spyware could amount to a breach of international human rights standards, inviting international censure and damaging diplomatic relations.
Recommendations for the Media Reform Commission of Bangladesh: The Media Reform Commission of Bangladesh thus has challenges as well as opportunities in light of the allegations of political surveillance with spyware Pegasus. With increasing strides into technological development, reforms that would mean ethical uses of such surveillance technologies are needed more and more. Recommendations towards establishing a sound framework for political accountability, enhancing the legal frameworks in place, and protecting the digital rights of the populace are enumerated below.
Well-defined Legal Framework on the Usage of Surveillance. (a) Design and institute solid, strong legal frameworks that clearly define when and how surveillance should be carried out. This should be done to indicate under what circumstances it shall be allowed, with a view to ensuring legality, necessity, and proportionality. (b) “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This is a guideline principle in setting laws that avoid the abuse of surveillance technologies.
Establishment of Independent Oversight Mechanisms. An independent body that oversees the deployment and use of surveillance technologies. This body should have the power to audit, review, and approve surveillance operations, ensuring they comply with legal standards and respect human rights.
Judicial Oversight. Introduce mandatory judicial oversight for all surveillance requests. Judges should be trained in issues pertaining to digital privacy and human rights to make informed decisions on surveillance warrants.
Promoting Transparency. (a) Regular transparency reports from governments and private sectors regarding the extent and level of surveillance operations. The information report must be publicly available and understandable. (b) “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” -Louis Brandeis. Transparency in surveillance operations brings accountability and instils confidence among the public.
Public Consultation and Participation. Engage civil society, media, and the public in the formulation and review of policies touching on surveillance. Public consultations will also enhance democratic participation.
Improving Public Awareness. Engage in aggressive sensitisation to enhance awareness about the rights associated with living in the digital era, including the right to privacy. This shall include the ways in which citizens can protect themselves against unauthorised surveillance.
As Malcolm X said, “Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.” It is about the time that knowledge is given to citizens in a digital era.
Investigative Journalism Funding. Grants to support investigative journalism in monitoring and reporting on issues of surveillance and privacy. Media acting in this watchdog capacity adds to democratic health.
Conclusion: Use of Pegasus spyware, amongst other surveillance technologies, goes deep in terms of political freedom and personal privacy in Bangladesh. As the nation strides into the future, so much more concrete steps should be taken by the Media Reform Commission to see that advancement of technology does not come at the cost of basic rights. Recommendations go to the balancing act where technology acts as an empowering tool, not a tool of suppression. It calls for commitment and vigilance but is of immense importance as far as the future of Bangladeshi democracy and the confidence of its citizens are concerned.
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” -Mahatma Gandhi. In the virtual world, protection for those who could become targets of surveillance is a yardstick for Bangladesh’s commitment to justice and democratic principles. Decisions made by the Media Reform Commission today will shape the political and social course for generations.

Dr Serajul I. Bhuiyan, Professor and Former Chair, Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia, USA. [email protected]