Gazi Nazrul, an expelled MP of Jamaat-e-Islami, was recently arrested on allegations of abetting the suicide of his second wife. A few months ago, several scandals involving Gazi Nazrul and his second wife went viral on social media. Since then, the woman had reportedly been subjected to continuous mental harassment. Yesterday, she died by suicide, following which Gazi Nazrul was arrested on allegations of abetting her suicide.
It is worth mentioning that Gazi Nazrul is a Bir Muktijoddha (freedom fighter). Yet today, nowhere has the headline read: ‘Bir Muktijoddha Gazi Nazrul Arrested.’
However, after August 5, the media appeared to engage in a particular kind of narrative framing. Whenever a freedom fighter was subjected to public humiliation over various allegations or for alleged wrongdoing, the media brought their identity as a freedom fighter to the forefront. Such incidents were widely reported and framed in a manner that suggested that a Bir Muktijoddha was being humiliated.
In other words, an impression was created that freedom fighters were being subjected to humiliation in post-Mass Uprising Bangladesh. Meanwhile, why that particular freedom fighter was being subjected to public humiliation, what allegations had been brought against him, or what he had allegedly done became a secondary issue.
On December 22, 2024, Abdul Hai Kanu, a member of the central committee of the Krishak League, was publicly humiliated by locals, who placed a garland of shoes around his neck. According to local accounts, the incident was linked to allegations of long-standing oppression of local people and persecution during the fascist regime.
Yet the media did not frame the incident as a central Krishak League leader being publicly humiliated. Instead, it framed it as a Bir Muktijoddha being humiliated.
The headline in Prothom Alo was:
‘Freedom fighter humiliated after being made to wear a garland of shoes in Chauddagram.’
Similarly, on December 4, 2025, Abdul Karim (76) was detained by locals over allegations of attempting to sexually assault a teenage girl. He was tied to a tree, made to wear a garland of shoes, and handed over to the police. He was later shown arrested in connection with the case. Here too, the media presented his primary identity as that of a Bir Muktijoddha.
Samakal: ‘Freedom fighter tied to a tree with a garland of shoes around his neck.’
Kaler Kantho: ‘Freedom fighter in Gafargaon handed over to police after being made to wear a garland of shoes.’
Manabkantha also published a similar headline.
Jago News: ‘Bir Muktijoddha tied to a tree and handed over to police after being made to wear a garland of shoes.’
But where is that ‘freedom fighter’ framing in today’s headlines?
Why is Gazi Nazrul’s identity as a freedom fighter not being brought to the forefront?
Because Gazi Nazrul is not Awami League. Bringing his identity as a freedom fighter to the forefront does not serve the narrative of ‘the Liberation War is unsafe in Bangladesh without the Awami League.’
If it did—or if Gazi Nazrul were associated with the Awami League—then his primary and most prominent identity would have been that he is a Bir Muktijoddha.
This is precisely what reveals the double standard in the media’s framing after August 5. It demonstrates how these media outlets have attempted to portray the Mass Uprising as being in opposition to the Liberation War.
[The opinions expressed in articles published by The Dacca are solely those of the respective authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of The Dacca or its editorial team.]