In the winter of 2024, a phone call from an Indian friend caught me off guard.

We had initially connected through a book group, and despite years of online communication, we had never spoken directly. This time, he reached out, visibly worried after seeing reports in the Indian media about the “dangerous” situation in Bangladesh following August 5th.

An assistant professor in India’s history department, his concern seemed to extend beyond the immediate incident to the wider implications it held for Bangladesh-India relations.

During our conversation, a range of topics came up—from the dynamics of foreign relations between the two countries, the complicated history of river treaties, to the deep-rooted and often divisive communal tensions that have shaped much of South Asia’s political landscape.

Our conversation left me with a stark realization: there is a vast gulf in understanding between those of us on social media, writing passionately about politics and society, and the academic world that delves into these issues with nuance and historical rigor.

As someone who considers him/herself politically aware, yet not academically trained, I was forced to confront a difficult truth: bridging that gap on my own seemed impossible.

The more I reflected, the more I saw how academia in Bangladesh—once an essential part of public discourse—has been sealed off in an ivory tower.

The barrier between the intellectual world and the public is so wide, and the access to academic resources so limited, that public discourse has devolved into a kind of empty, unfounded chatter.

On Facebook, in particular, we have fostered a culture where uninformed opinions are voiced with startling ease, shaping our collective political consciousness.

The more we engage in these uncritical exchanges, the more deeply flawed ideas become embedded in our national narrative.

Yet, because we’re only talking within our own echo chambers, we rarely recognize the depth of this disconnect. It takes only a brief conversation with someone from outside our bubble to realize how shallow our understanding often is.

An older brother of mine has often remarked that Facebook is nothing more than a “place for crows to squabble,” a space where meaningful dialogue is nearly impossible.

I’ve come to see the truth in his words. Yet the problem is that, for all its flaws, Facebook has become the primary platform for public discourse in Bangladesh. For better or worse, it is where the conversation happens.

If we are to confront the rise of shallow, often damaging chatter that dominates this space, we need to take the fight directly to this very medium.

Rather than retreating from it or decrying its limitations, we must learn to work within it—using the same tools that perpetuate misinformation to create spaces for informed, reasoned, and respectful dialogue.

The challenge, however, will be in transforming a space often defined by ignorance into one that fosters genuine understanding.

The gap in public discourse in Bangladesh

In the current climate, Bangladesh needs academic activists like Bell Hooks, Cornel West, and David Graeber—scholars who seamlessly navigate both academia and popular media.

The good news is that some such academics have recently emerged in Bangladesh.

However, there is a significant obstacle: the political pressures and institutional challenges within academic circles that hinder these scholars from fully utilizing their expertise in public discourse.

In light of this, a critical need in Bangladesh, in my view, is for a collaboration between academics and individuals like myself—generalists who are engaged but lack formal academic training.

To illustrate, let’s consider a recurrent issue in Bangladesh: commodity prices.

This problem, which affects the population cyclically like the changing seasons, often resurfaces in a simplistic manner, reduced to a “syndicate problem” narrative that circulates on Facebook every couple of months.

However, the problem is far more complex, influenced by factors such as the country’s supply chain, fiscal policies, extortion, and international geopolitics.

Through my own research, I’ve come across substantial international work on agricultural supply chains, and I’m confident that there are numerous English-language papers and articles on this subject in Bangladesh.

However, most of this research is either inaccessible or buried within academic circles.

What is urgently needed is a concerted effort to compile and synthesize these existing analyses within a broader theoretical framework—essentially creating a semi-academic meta-analysis that can be communicated to the public in a digestible format.

This could take the form of a working paper or blog post, which could then be disseminated through video media, Facebook posts, or blogs using infographics and other visual aids.

Such an approach would require minimal funding and could be driven by collaboration, time, and goodwill.

The key is to build a working relationship between “those who know the issues” (the academics) and “those who know how to communicate these issues” (generalists like myself).

This type of collaboration is something that is often done abroad by economic and political columnists in major newspapers or review journals.

In Bangladesh, similar work is done in publications like Prothom Alo’s Protichinta or other quarterly articles.

However, due to the lack of collaboration between academics and generalists, these discussions tend to remain confined to niche publications and rarely reach the broader public through platforms like Facebook and YouTube.

Consequently, these important discussions lose momentum and are eventually abandoned (like the eventual discontinuation of Protichinta).

While it may not be feasible to bring the full depth of these academic discussions to Facebook or popular social media, it’s essential that we at least acknowledge the existence of rational, empirical debates on the issues that deeply affect the lives of citizens.

We need to make sure that this intellectual world, which exists beyond the shouting and knee-jerk reactions on social media, is visible in public discourse.

The case for academic-generalist collaboration

Academic-generalist collaboration holds great potential for addressing critical issues in Bangladesh, such as the socio-political and legal roots of gender-based violence, the dysfunctionality of the country’s legal system, the intricacies of Bangladesh’s foreign policy, and the politics behind environmental challenges.

While there is always a risk of misinterpreting academic knowledge when it’s disseminated to a wider audience, these discussions and debates about potential misinterpretations would, in my view, make these subjects more accessible and encourage broader engagement.

Embracing the risk of misrepresentation could help move us towards a more critical or radical pedagogy, making complex issues more comprehensible to the public.

In my opinion, many of the general reading or study circles in Bangladesh fall into a repetitive, circular pattern.

These circles tend to be dominated by generalists, and they often lack a defined focus or specific study goal. Rashtrachinta is one notable exception, offering more structured discussions.

While I value the pursuit of "knowledge for knowledge's sake" or "study for study’s sake," I believe these study groups should be more issue-oriented, particularly on topics that directly affect the public and the political landscape of Bangladesh.

For instance, study groups could focus on issues like commodity prices or gender-based violence.

These groups would also benefit from cross-pollination, exchanging theoretical insights that highlight the interconnectedness of various societal problems—such as understanding violence against women within the broader context of social collapse or rural violence.

Ideally, these discussions would take place within formal institutions, particularly universities. However, since much of Bangladesh’s public discourse now unfolds on chaotic and fragmented platforms like social media, the most practical way to introduce this idea is, ironically, through Facebook itself.

That said, I hope that those with access to academic circles or institutional platforms will take the opportunity to explore these ideas more thoroughly within their respective fields.

—

Mikail Hossain is a researcher and analyst