Matir Moyna premiere; civil liberty infringement?

British film-goers have had the chance to see a few other films by Bangladeshi directors before this, like Nasiruddin Yousuf's 'Ekattorer Jeeshu', Tanvir Mokammel's 'Chitra Nadir Paray' and 'Lal Salu', and Shamim Akhtar's 'Itihas Konya', but they were all shown in special events such as the London Film Festival or National Film Theatre shows, whereas 'Matir Moyna' is the first Bangladeshi film to be released in the mainstream cinema in this country. And the most heartening thing is that it is attracting -- and being liked by -- people from every walk of life regardless of their racial and communal differences.

At the ICA screening which I attended, the director Tareque Masud and his wife and producer Catherine Masud were present to introduce the film and answer questions from the audience who, to say the least, were quite enthusiastic in their appreciation. The film had been released in Bangladesh (Dhaka), in October last year as Tareque and Catherine told me, and many readers of London Letter may already have seen it, so there is probably not much point in my dwelling on the storyline etc. They will also be aware of the strong autobiographical element inherent in the story. So far Tareque had been a maker of documentary films -- Matir Moyna is his first feature -- and I do hope a forerunner of many more to come, and as he said, because the film is based on his personal experiences as a young Madrasa student, he had to make a feature film since "one simply cannot make a documentary on one's own life."

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

A couple of days later, my wife and I were driving by the Genesis cinema in East London when we spotted Tareque and Catherine among the crowd of people in front of the theatre. So we stopped and went over to say Hello. There was a long line of people at the box office, most of them apparently queuing up for tickets of Matir Moyna (although a few were there for Charlie's Angels too). The Bangla film had been allocated a smaller theatre at first, but all the seats were sold out really fast with many more people clamouring for tickets. So the theatre manager decided to shift Charlie's Angels to the smaller theatre and Matir Moyna to the bigger one and everyone was happy. My wife and I were happy too, as must have been Catherine and Tareque, at the runaway success of a film made in our own mother tongue. Since then the Genesis cinema has extended the booking for the film as it is steadily drawing more and more viewers.

There is just one more thing I would like to say in conclusion. The two principal child actors in Matir Moyna, Anu and Rokon -- Nurul Islam Bablu and Russell Farazi respectively in real life -- are simply fantastic. Bablu, I was told, used to work as a domestic help and also went to school, whereas Russell used to be just a street urchin. Being selected for the film must have made a tremendous difference in both their lives and, understandably, it may also make it difficult for them to revert to their old ways. What, now, is going to happen to them, I wonder? The RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) in Britain frequently runs a very interesting advertisement on television with the caption: "Pets are for life, not just for Christmas." I certainly don't wish to compare the two boys with pets, but somehow I feel there is a parallel of some sort here. Will the people who have the means to offer some practical assistance to these children -- Tareque and Catherine Masud included -- think about it?

Curbing civil liberties by the back door? In the last few months the British Home Office has introduced a series of measures for identifying "legal migrants" to this country and checking the flow of people seeking immigration under false pretenses. The inclusion of Bangladesh, along with Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, South Africa and Ukraine as "safe" countries in the recently published White List is just one such measure designed to prevent continuous violation of asylum regulations. Out of these seven countries, Sri Lanka is to be subjected to a special treatment -- from now on, Sri Lankans who wish to visit the UK through legitimate immigration routes will face a 'biometric investigation' in order to determine that they are not among those who "on or after arrival in the UK, make fraudulent asylum or immigration applications in a false identity." Put simply, this biometric investigation will require everyone applying for a UK visa from Sri Lanka to provide a record of their fingerprints which will form part of the 'biometric data' to be used for electronic vetting of the applicants.

A Home Office press release describes this measure a tool that would "help to return failed asylum seekers from Sri Lanka who destroy their documents by helping to establish their true nationality." Many civil liberties campaign groups, however, fear that this process is just a covert pre-trial run for the integration of fingerprints (in other words, 'biometric data') into all UK passports in the not-too-distant future. This fear is compounded by the fact that the Home Office has failed to provide a clear and definitive answer to the question whether this information will be held by UK authorities alone or whether they may be shared with other intelligence services as well. If the latter happens, that will mean that sensitive data on even those people who may not be guilty of any crime or illegal activity will automatically be on the databases of more than one security agency. And a simple law of averages means that the greater is the number of agencies holding such information, the bigger will be the chances of abuse or a breach of the confidentiality of the information thus retained.

Meanwhile, the Home Secretary David Blunkett has disclosed that plans are being devised to issue everyone living in the UK with a National Identity Card. The last time a similar scheme was in force was during World War II when all British men, women and children had been issued identity documents which were abandoned more than 50 years ago. Mr Blunkett prefers to describe his proposed ID card as an 'Entitlement Card', perhaps to soften the blow of its impact on people who are suspicious of the motives behind the scheme, since, as he explained, it will "affirm people's rights as citizens." The computerised card will store the bearer's photograph, fingerprints and personal information including name and address. The police have provisionally welcomed the scheme because they believe it would help them to do their work more effectively. A high-ranking official of the National Criminal Intelligence Service said: "An Entitlement Card could have a major impact in the prevention of certain areas of organised crime, for example, widespread benefits fraud."

On the other hand, opponents of the proposed ID card scheme, ranging from civil liberties groups to MPs, have criticised it, arguing that the scheme will be too expensive, costing the Government anything up to £3.1 billion, and also prone to fraud as well as a violation of civil liberties because it will give the State too much control over the daily lives of individuals. The Liberal Democrats Shadow Home Secretary said that his party considers it a bad idea, although they were not entirely opposed to a pilot scheme to test its feasibility. A spokeswoman for the democracy campaign group Charter 88 felt that the idea infringed upon her rights as a British citizen. "We should not need to carry a card," she said: "and have our privacy infringed on in order to affirm our rights as citizens to have use of public services like education and healthcare." There is a general feeling, however, that although the voices of dissent against the Entitlement Card may be fairly loud, they may not be loud enough to make a perceptible dent in the Labour Government's current belligerent mood.