When actress and singer Meher Afroz Shaon was detained from her Dhanmondi home in February last year and questioned for hours by the Detective Branch, the episode should have been disturbing for reasons that apply to every citizen.
A state should not deprive anyone of liberty without due process. That principle does not become more important because the person detained is famous; it matters precisely because the law must not distinguish between the famous and the forgotten.
After her release, police claimed they had grounds to suspect her involvement in "anti-state" activities. Shaon later described the ordeal in her customary overdramatic terms, writing about the fear and vulnerability of being a “single mother of two” unexpectedly taken into custody.
On that point, she was right. No democratic state should ‘casually’ exercise coercive power over its citizens.
But there is another irony embedded in the episode. The machinery of the state should never have found Shaon worthy of such attention in the first place…because she doesn’t command the moral authority she appears to believe she does.
And a ‘public figure’ whose credibility has been so thoroughly diminished hardly warrants the expenditure of state resources. Beyond her shrinking circle of admirers, she has become politically and morally inconsequential, making the spectacle of detaining her even for a day an exercise in official futility.
Talent and moral judgment are rarely distributed in equal measure. Even many of Shaon's critics acknowledge that she is gifted. She has long been an accomplished singer and a familiar face on Bangladeshi television.
Her performances often veered toward melodrama, but she possessed undeniable screen presence. Her marriage to the country’s most celebrated novelist Humayun Ahmed generated endless controversy, yet it also reflected something undeniable…one of Bangladesh's greatest literary minds saw something in her.
For much of the last decade and a half, Shaon occupied a comfortable place close to political power. Her mother, Begum Tohura Ali, served as an Awami League lawmaker, and Shaon herself became one of the most recognizable cultural faces associated with the era.
That proximity appears to have come at a cost.
When a government steadily dismantles institutions, suppresses dissent, intimidates opponents and narrows the space for democratic disagreement, artists eventually face a choice. They may remain silent. They may speak for the vulnerable. Or they may lend their credibility and talent to those exercising power.
Shaon chose the third path.
She defended an autocrat and in doing so, she framed the largest popular uprisings in Bangladesh's recent history as little more than a misguided conspiracy while continuing to rationalize or minimize the abuses of a regime that, in the eyes of many Bangladeshis, had systematically hollowed out democratic institutions and reduced citizenship to conditional loyalty.
It was the deployment of artistic prestige to sanitize political repression. History offers remarkably few rewards for artists who make that bargain.
Authoritarian governments have always understood that brute force alone cannot sustain legitimacy. They require painters, singers, filmmakers, poets and actors to wrap coercion in the language of beauty and patriotism.
Benito Mussolini cultivated celebrated intellectuals. Adolf Hitler elevated filmmakers like Leni Riefenstahl, whose technical brilliance became permanently inseparable from Nazi propaganda. Joseph Stalin demanded socialist realism from Soviet artists while crushing independent voices.
Enver Hoxha built an entire cultural establishment dedicated to glorifying his isolationist dictatorship in Albania. North Korea continues to choreograph culture as an extension of state power.
Some of those artists remained technically accomplished. Few retained enduring moral stature after the regimes they celebrated collapsed or were morally discredited. Riefenstahl spent decades insisting she was merely an artist, yet her name today evokes propaganda before cinema.
Many once-celebrated Soviet cultural figures disappeared into historical footnotes after the fall of the Soviet Union, remembered less for artistic achievement than for their accommodation with power.
In post-communist Eastern Europe, countless writers and performers discovered that public admiration could evaporate almost overnight once secret loyalties became public knowledge. Dictatorships eventually fall. Their cultural courtiers often fall with them.
Bangladesh is hardly unique. What is perhaps distinctive is the scale with which segments of the country's cultural establishment embraced political power as evangelists.
Some of its most recognizable artists became willing participants in constructing what could fairly be described as a form of “cultural fascism.” It was essentially a falsified moral ecosystem in which dissenters were portrayed as enemies and critics as conspirators.
When political change finally arrived after the July uprising, many of these cultural figures initially retreated into silence. That caution did not last.
As the interim government confronted declining popularity and growing uncertainty over elections, many re-emerged. Their rhetoric shifted. Instead of openly defending the previous order, they adopted the language of moral equivalence, selective memory and both sophisticated and unsophisticated ‘ambiguity.’
Genuine mistakes and follies committed by some among the July movement front-soldiers became convenient instruments for erasing the vastly greater abuses committed under the previous regime. Complexity became camouflage. Nuance became a vehicle for historical amnesia.
None of this is to suggest that the July movement itself was beyond criticism. It was not.
Yes , some of its most visible proponents committed serious political errors and possible financial misconducts, including an understandable but ultimately counterproductive effort to package the July Uprising through the familiar mythological style of 1971, reducing a broad civic rupture into another monopolized national narrative.
Revolutionary legitimacy, like all political capital, can also be squandered. But acknowledging those failures does not require forgetting what preceded them.
The temptation among ‘intellectuals’ who outlive the regimes they once defended is to rewrite their own biographies before history does it for them. Sometimes they succeed. Increasingly, they do not.
The digital age has fractured public discourse into countless echo chambers, but it has also made reputation far more difficult to manufacture from above. The old cultural gatekeepers no longer monopolize memory. State television no longer determines who possesses authority to shape moral and cultural values.
Social media has undoubtedly amplified misinformation, but it has also dismantled carefully cultivated myths surrounding public figures whose prestige depended on institutional protection rather than public trust.
In another era, artists who aligned themselves with authoritarian power might have retained their carefully polished reputations indefinitely. Their works would have been archived ‘respectfully’ and their political choices quietly forgotten.
That bargain is becoming harder to sustain now. Art survives political transitions. Artists do not necessarily survive them with their reputations intact.
The tragedy is not that gifted people made political mistakes. Artists have always done so. The tragedy is that so many chose to subordinate genuine artistic independence to proximity with power, only to discover that power is temporary while public memory can be astonishingly durable.
Which brings us back to Shaon.
Her detention deserved criticism because arbitrary state power deserves criticism wherever it appears. But her subsequent attempts to reclaim the moral high ground ring hollow because talent cannot indefinitely compensate for the decision to become the cultural face of political repression and dictatorship.
Yes, she still commands attention within her echo chambers. Beyond them, however, the authority she once assumed increasingly appears diminished.
—
Faisal Mahmud is the Managing Editor of Daily Waadaa