Kazi Anis denies 'Awami League partisanship' in response to Daily Waadaa

Publisher Kazi Anis Ahmed has rejected allegations that his international political commentary largely promoted the Awami League, citing articles in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and an academic journal in which he criticised aspects of Sheikh Hasina's government.

In a written response to Daily Waadaa's October 13 report, The publisher who had a political agenda, Anis also accused his former Dhaka Lit Fest colleagues, Sadaf Saaz and Ahsan Akbar, of seeking proximity to Awami League politicians and opening the literary festival to government influence.

“Allegations that I only promoted the Awami League from my perch as a writer are quite false,” Anis told Waadaa.

He cited three examples: a Wall Street Journal article condemning the disappearance of BNP leader Ilias Ali, a February 2017 New York Times column criticising government changes to school textbooks, and a December 2018 New York Times essay describing Hasina's governing style as “authoritarian.”

“None of this is consistent with the work of a writer who's mainly an Awami partisan,” he said.

These articles demonstrate that Kazi Anis did criticise the Awami League government on specific issues on some occasions. But they do not necessarily contradict the central findings of Waadaa's report, which examined the broader political framing of his international commentary, his financial links to a Washington lobbying operation and his overlapping roles as publisher, businessman and cultural organiser.

The original report did not claim that Anis had never criticised Hasina's government. Rather, it examined whether his political commentary consistently presented the Awami League as a preferable alternative to its principal opponents, even while acknowledging the government's failings.

One article Anis cited was his February 2017 New York Times essay, Bangladesh's Creeping Islamism.

The article criticised changes to school textbooks under the Awami League government that removed secular and Hindu literary references and accommodated demands associated with Islamist groups.

The criticism concerned the government's concessions to religious conservatives and their implications for Bangladesh's secular cultural identity.

But criticising the Awami League for accommodating Islamist demands was not necessarily inconsistent with portraying the party as the country's principal defence against religious extremism.

Indeed, such criticism could reinforce the argument that Hasina's government needed to uphold secular principles more firmly, rather than challenge the broader political case for its continued rule.

His December 31, 2018 New York Times essay, Bangladesh's Choice: Authoritarianism or Extremism, offered another example.

Published around Bangladesh's disputed parliamentary election, the article acknowledged the authoritarian character of Hasina's government while framing the country's political alternatives through a comparison between authoritarianism and extremism.

Describing Hasina's governing style as authoritarian was a clear criticism. But the essay's central framing could also present her continued rule as preferable to an opposition associated with the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami.

A writer can criticise a government's conduct while advancing a political argument that favours its continuation over the available alternatives.

Kazi Anis also cited his Wall Street Journal article, Bangladesh's Vanishing Justice, saying he strongly condemned the disappearance of BNP leader Ilias Ali.

Such criticism challenged an alleged abuse under the Awami League government. It does not, however, independently establish the overall political orientation of his commentary.

Anis further pointed to his December 2018 article in The Journal of Asian Studies, titled In Bangladesh: Direct Control of Media Trumps Fake News.

The article addressed restrictions on Bangladesh's media, including political interference and threats to independent journalism.

It provides another example of Anis publicly criticising conditions under the Awami League government while the party remained in power.

Taken together, the articles substantiate his argument that he was not an uncritical supporter of Hasina's administration.

But Waadaa believes, they do not, however, resolve whether his international political commentary, viewed as a whole, favoured the Awami League over its opponents or whether his other political and financial activities should have been disclosed to readers.

Beyond his published writing, Anis rejected allegations that he had made Dhaka Lit Fest politically sympathetic to the Awami League.

“For my former co-directors to argue that I made Dhaka Lit Fest biased towards the Awami government is also false,” he told Waadaa.

He accused Sadaf Saaz of approaching the government for financial support despite his objections.

“Sadaf Saaz went seeking government funds over my vehement objection, and that opened up DLF to government influence,” he said.

Kazi Anis also alleged that both Saaz and Akbar had been eager to develop relationships with ministers and lawmakers.

“I recall them both eager to cozy up to ministers and MP's,” he said.

He claimed those relationships extended beyond appearances alongside cultural ministers or Radwan Siddiq on the Dhaka Lit Fest stage.

“And Ahsan Akbar often bragged about his close friendship with Tulip Siddiq,” he said, referring to the British politician and niece of Sheikh Hasina.

Anis also pointed out that all three festival directors had served on the Translation Committee of the committee responsible for implementing programmes marking Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's birth centenary.

He accused his former colleagues of overlooking his contribution to discussions about fundamental rights at the literary festival.

“My former co-directors are choosing to forget now that most of the rights-focused panels at DLF were conceived by me,” he said.

Referring again to his academic writing on restrictions on the media and freedom of expression, Anis added: “My soundings on attacks against fundamental rights by both state and non-state actors span years. My co-directors have no such record.”

These allegations present a sharply different account of the festival's relationship with the Awami League government from the one offered by his former colleagues.

They also raise separate questions about who sought government support, how decisions were taken and whether political relationships affected the festival's independence.

The allegations against Saaz and Akbar remain Anis's account and require their responses and independent corroboration.

The questions concerning Washington lobbying, however, remain largely unaddressed in his written reply.

Waadaa's October 13 investigation examined Anis's political commentary alongside a Washington lobbying operation previously investigated by Netra News.

A September 2024 Netra News investigation identified Green Perspective, a Dubai-based company reportedly controlled by Anis, as a source of funding for lobbying activities associated with Washington lobbyist Seth Oldmixon.

The lobbying disclosures examined in that investigation showed $430,000 in reported expenditure between 2015 and 2019, although only $80,000 was explicitly attributed to Green Perspective. The disclosed records did not establish the complete source of the remaining expenditure.

The lobbying activities involved congressional resolutions and political messaging concerning Bangladesh, including Islamist militancy and the country's opposition parties.

Waadaa examined the overlap between those themes and arguments Anis advanced in international publications.

The investigation did not establish that his newspaper columns were commissioned or directed by the lobbying operation.

Instead, it raised questions about potential conflicts of interest, financial disclosure and whether readers had sufficient information to assess his political commentary.

Anis's response does not explain the objectives of the lobbying operation, identify its intended beneficiaries or directly address the reported financial connection between Green Perspective and the Washington activities.

Nor does it address whether his financial involvement in politically aligned lobbying should have been disclosed to the publications carrying his commentary.

His criticism of the Awami League on textbook policy, enforced disappearances and media restrictions is relevant to assessing his political record. But those examples do not independently settle questions about the lobbying arrangement or possible conflicts of interest.

The original Waadaa report also examined the rupture among Dhaka Lit Fest's three directors following the Netra News disclosures.

Saaz and Akbar had accused Anis of financing a political influence campaign without informing his fellow trustees, raising concerns about the festival's independence and reputation.

Anis now disputes their account and alleges that they themselves cultivated relationships with Awami League politicians and sought government support.

Those competing accounts leave unresolved what the festival directors knew about the lobbying activities, whether relevant information was disclosed internally and how political relationships influenced the organisation.

Waadaa had sought Anis's response before publishing its October 13 investigation but he didn’t respond. His subsequent written reply is now being presented alongside the allegations and questions raised in the original report.

—