Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
In the bustling tea stalls of Dhaka and the hyper-connected digital corridors of Facebook and WhatsApp, a new kind of warfare is unfolding. It isn't fought with bullets, but with pixels and "deepfakes." As Bangladesh navigates a transformative political era in 2026, we find ourselves at a critical crossroads: how do we protect the sanctity of free speech while inoculating our society against the toxic spread of organised disinformation?
The tension between these two pillars has never been more palpable. Free speech is the lifeblood of our democracy-a right hard-won through the sacrifices of the 2024 uprising. Yet, the very tools that empowered that revolution are now being weaponized to distort reality.
Recent months have seen a disturbing surge in sophisticated propaganda. We have witnessed AI-generated videos and doctored audio clips targeting high-profile figures, including the Prime Minister and their family members. These aren't just "internet rumours"; they are calculated strikes designed to erode public trust and incite domestic instability.
One prominent example involved a "deepfake" video circulating on social media that falsely attributed controversial statements to the Prime Minister regarding national sovereignty. Fact-checkers like BanglaFact eventually debunked the footage, but not before it had amassed millions of views and sparked heated, potentially violent debates across the country. When the "truth" finally arrives, it often finds the house already burnt down.
The challenge for the current administration and indeed for the judiciary is to distinguish between legitimate political dissent and malicious disinformation.
Free Speech includes the right to criticise the government's policies, question the Prime Minister's decisions, and demand accountability for the ruling family's influence.
Disinformation, however, involves the deliberate creation of falsehoods such as fabricating financial scandals or health crises with the intent to deceive the public.
In a polarised landscape, the line is often blurred. When the state moves to curb "misinformation," there is an inherent risk of overreach. We must ask: is a law being used to protect the public from lies, or is it being used to shield the powerful from criticism? The ghost of the Digital Security Act still haunts our legal discourse, reminding us that vague definitions of "propaganda" can easily become tools of censorship.
Curbing this tide requires more than just police action; it requires a societal "immune response." Tech giants like Meta and X must be held to higher standards for local language moderation. Much of the propaganda targeting Bangladeshi leaders originates from coordinated "bot farms," many of which operate outside our borders. We need an aggressive national campaign to teach citizens how to spot synthetic media. If every smartphone user learns to question a sensationalist video before hitting "share," the viral potential of disinformation drops significantly. The best antidote to a lie is the truth. When the government and the Prime Minister's office operate with radical transparency, they leave little room for "information vacuums" where rumours usually thrive.
Bangladesh is at a delicate stage of rebuilding its institutions. We cannot afford to let the digital well be poisoned by those who prefer chaos over conversation. However, we must be equally vigilant that our pursuit of "digital safety" does not come at the cost of the very freedom we fought to reclaim. Protecting the Prime Minister's family from slander is a matter of law; protecting the citizen's right to disagree is a matter of democracy. We must prove that we can do both.
Dr. Md. Abdul Momen, Associate Professor and Chairman, Department of Marketing, Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, drmomen.academic@gmail.com