¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

Bangladesh still stands at a precarious crossroads with regard to freedom of expression. While the July uprising triggered hopes for reform, the ground reality as painted in ARTICLE 19’s Global Expression Report and the UN’s own debates is far bleaker: the country remains ‘in crisis’ for expressive freedoms. The UN’s Item 4 general debate underscored how new draft legislation, impunity for attacks on journalists, weak accountability mechanisms, and gendered threats to free speech combine to threaten the civic fabric of the nation. Unless Bangladesh undertakes bold, structural reforms — not merely cosmetic ones — it risks undermining not only its democratic legitimacy but also the rights of millions to speak, dissent and critique.

Ìý

The crisis designation

THE Global Expression Report categorises countries along a spectrum ranging from ‘open,’ ‘less restricted,’ ‘restricted,’ and ‘highly restricted,’ to the most severe category: ‘in crisis.’ Bangladesh’s score of 12 out of 100 firmly places it in this last group, which includes some of the most repressive environments for free speech worldwide. Being labelled ‘in crisis’ is not a symbolic gesture — it reflects systematic failures across 25 internationally recognised indicators that measure the health of expressive rights. These indicators include whether journalists can report freely without harassment or intimidation; whether citizens can access and share information online; whether laws protect or suppress dissent; and whether civic actors such as NGOs, artists or activists face retaliation for criticism of the state.

In Bangladesh’s case, the report highlights an alarming deterioration across nearly every domain. Journalists continue to face intimidation, arbitrary detention, and in some cases, physical violence. Digital rights are sharply curtailed through surveillance and arbitrary content takedowns, while broad laws incentivise self-censorship to avoid criminal liability. Independent media houses face financial and political pressure, and civil society organisations encounter bureaucratic hurdles and risk of reprisal. The overall picture is one where individuals and institutions alike operate under constant fear of crossing invisible red lines.

This designation is not new. For several years, Bangladesh has trended downward, slipping from ‘restricted’ to ‘highly restricted,’ and now sitting in the ‘in crisis’ tier. What makes 2025 particularly consequential is the political context. The collapse of the previous government and the rise of an interim authority in mid-2024 created a sense of both opportunity and danger. On the one hand, the repeal of the controversial Cybersecurity Law suggested that reform was possible. On the other hand, new drafts such as the Cyber Protection Ordinance 2025 threaten to entrench or even expand restrictive provisions under a different name.

When viewed regionally, the picture is stark. Bangladesh’s score of 12 is well below its South Asian neighbours. India, despite growing concerns about censorship and internet shutdowns, scored 26, placing it in the ‘highly restricted’ category. Nepal fared comparatively better with a score of 46, categorised as ‘restricted,’ reflecting its relatively freer civic space. Sri Lanka, grappling with political and economic turmoil, scored 32, also ‘highly restricted,’ but still above Bangladesh. Pakistan, long plagued by press crackdowns and online censorship, recorded 20, which is higher than Bangladesh. This regional comparison underscores the severity of Bangladesh’s situation: while many South Asian states face challenges to free expression, Bangladesh is currently the lowest performer in the region.

At the international level, the urgency of this crisis was underscored during the UN Human Rights Council’s ‘Item 4 general debate’, where ARTICLE 19 stressed that Bangladesh ‘remains in crisis for free expression.’ The organisation called upon the interim government to take meaningful steps to guarantee an enabling environment for free speech and access to information in the run-up to the 2026 elections. This appeal was not only a recognition of the grim reality but also a warning: unless Bangladesh seizes this transitional moment to reverse its trajectory, the window for reform could close rapidly, pushing the country deeper into a culture of fear and silence.

Ìý

Legislative backslide

ONE of the most alarming aspects of the current trajectory is how laws and proposals are being weaponised to criminalise criticism, expand state surveillance and grant the executive sweeping powers to suppress speech — often under the guise of ‘public order’ or ‘national security.’

After the July 2024 uprising, the government repealed the Cybersecurity Law, a move welcomed by civil society. Yet, new drafts such as the Cyber Protection Ordinance 2025 retain several concerning features: vague terms criminalising ‘hate’ or ‘disruption of communal harmony,’ overbroad authority for content takedowns, and minimal procedural safeguards or transparency (i.e. how decisions will be made, appeal rights, oversight).

Parallel to digital regulation, older statutes — defamation, sedition, public order laws — continue to loom large. Journalists and critics are frequently threatened or charged under these laws, often on flimsy grounds or spurious cases. Impunity for past killings remains unresolved: the murders of journalist couple Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi over a decade ago still lack credible accountability, and in 2025 new journalist killings (e.g, Asaduzzaman Tuhin and Khandaker Shah Alam) underscore the persistent danger facing media workers.

These laws and practices create chilling effects: media outlets avoid critical reporting, civil society self-censors, and dissenting voices stay silent. In legal terms, permissible restrictions on expression must be precise, necessary, proportionate and subject to independent review — but many of the current proposals and practices violate those principles.

Ìý

Impunity, harassment and shrinking civic space

LEGAL threats are not the only challenge. Violence, harassment and institutional pressure continue to embed fear. The interim government era (2024–25) has seen dozens of journalists harassed, criminal cases filed, press credentials revoked, and bank account investigations launched against media professionals.

Women journalists face particularly gendered risks—workplace harassment, online rape threats, assault, and physical intimidation. In a context where justice is rarely served, these attacks carry low risk for perpetrators. ARTICLE 19 emphasised the need for gendered and intersectional mechanisms to protect vulnerable voices.

Civic space is also shrinking. NGOs working on human rights and press freedom face regulatory scrutiny, funding conditionalities, or obstructive bureaucratic oversight. Academics, social critics, and cultural commentators are often constrained by institutional pressures or threats of backlash. The result is a narrowing of the public square and a dominance of safe, state-approved narratives.

Ìý

Glimmers of hope

EVEN in this restrictive environment, digital activism and expressive resistance have found new avenues. The Monsoon Uprising of July–August 2024 underscored how social media — especially Facebook — became a space for mobilising collective identity, sharing dissenting narratives, visual symbols and memes. That movement revealed both the power and vulnerability of digital expression in Bangladesh’s current climate.

Online platforms became sites of solidarity and resistance, but also quickly targeted by takedowns, surveillance and intimidation. Authorities arrested or harassed activists and digital content creators; some were charged under older or new laws for ‘instigating unrest.’ The very space that sustained the resistance is under constant threat.

Moreover, as academic studies show, media representation of marginalised communities — indigenous groups, religious minorities, remote regions — tends to be stereotyped, negative or absent. Even when voices are present, framing bias or tone marginalises them (e.g. negative sentiment, conflict framing). This structural inequality effectively silences already vulnerable populations.

These dynamics illustrate that while expressive resistance persists, it is fragile, contested and uneven across social strata and geographic space.

The elections looming: stakes and strategic windows

BANGLADESH’S next national election, scheduled for February 2026, heightens the stakes of freedom of expression. The interim government holds a unique window of opportunity — and risk. Opposition parties, civil society, media, and citizens are watching to see whether reforms will be substantive or symbolic.

If the interim regime allows freer expression, repeals or amends restrictive laws, ensures accountability and enables a pluralistic media environment, it can claim legitimacy and restart democratic trust. But failure to do so — or worse, further tightening — could lead to a deeper erosion of civic trust, increased polarisation, and delegitimization in the eyes of citizens and the international community.

The recent Global Expression Report and the UN’s platform are reminders that external scrutiny exists, but domestic resolve is critical. The challenge is to move from rhetorical pledge to institutional transformation.

Ìý

What must be done

TO SHIFT from crisis to recovery in expressive rights, Bangladesh needs a multi-pronged approach:

Law reform with civic participation: All draft laws relating to digital regulation, media oversight, defamation, etc., must be subject to public consultation and peer review. Civil society, journalists’ bodies, legal scholars, and marginalised communities must be included from the drafting phase.

Repeal or rework restrictive provisions: Vague clauses criminalising ‘hate,’ ‘disruption,’ or ‘public order’ must be narrowed or removed. Content takedown powers should require judicial oversight and appeals. Any regulation must comply with international human rights norms (necessity, proportionality, fairness).

Establish independent regulatory bodies: Media commissions or digital oversight bodies should be structurally independent—free from executive appointment dominance — and staffed with experts and civil society representatives.

Ensure accountability for attacks on journalists: All past murders of journalists must be properly, impartially and transparently investigated and prosecuted. Active cases of harassment, defamation, credential revocation, or surveillance must be scrutinised and remedied.

Digital rights protections: Privacy, encryption, and anonymity should be guaranteed. Surveillance oversight mechanisms, transparency in algorithms and takedown requests, and protections against arbitrary content blocking are essential.

Support pluralistic and local media: Public and donor funding should support small, independent media — especially in rural and marginalised areas. Digital incubators, legal aid, training, capacity building, and grants can nurture emerging voices.

Gender and intersectional safeguards: Women and minority journalists need tailored protection mechanisms, safe reporting channels, and legal support. Harassment, threats and violence must be treated with particular sensitivity and urgency.

Civic education and public awareness: Citizens must understand their rights, the importance of free expression, and how to engage responsibly. Media literacy campaigns and legal aid hotlines can help mitigate misinformation and empower critical voices.

Leverage international norms and pressure: Bangladesh needs to adhere to international treaties (e.g., ICCPR) and subject itself to UN reviews (e.g., UN Human Rights Committee). Global human rights bodies, donor countries, and media networks must maintain pressure on reform commitments.

Ìý

Resisting silences, reclaiming public voice

THE narrative of strength and democracy cannot rest on electoral mechanics alone. The true measure of democratic health lies in whether dissenting voices — irregular, uncomfortable, critical — can speak without fear of retribution. Bangladesh’s freedom of expression is still far from secure. The Global Expression Report and the UN’s spotlight have called attention to a reality many inside the country have long felt: the space has shrunk, the laws bite, and fear stalks voices.

Yet, transformation is possible. The interim government now holds a rare lever: the potential to rebuild trust, nourish public discourse, and reclaim Bangladesh’s democratic promise. Reforms must not remain rhetorical. They must anchor in legal safeguards, independent institutions, accountability, and the protection of all voices, especially the marginalised.

In an era of digital reach, global connectivity, and youth activism, silencing dissent is no longer sustainable. Bangladesh must move swiftly — between words and actions — to prevent its public sphere from being hollowed out. Otherwise, the cost will not simply be restrictions on expression, but the erosion of democracy itself.

Let this moment be more than a report, more than debate at the UN. Let it be a turning point: of law, of hope, and of public voice reclaimed.

Ìý

Musharraf Tansen is a doctoral researcher at the University of Dhaka.