In a Facebook post (Feb 4), my brief take on the much talked about Al Jazeera documentary ("All the Prime Minister's Men") was: "It is something that could have been part of an important conversation, but merely ended up being a cheap sensationalisation of some majorly unsubstantiated claims based on heaps of unrelated information, false insinuations, and deliberately omitted contexts." (Link) You wrote to me, asking what I meant by that. Since this relates to a matter that is now subject of public debate, I thought it would make sense to respond in a public thread. I hope you would not object to such a public nature of engagement. First of all, thank you for your willingness to discuss the AJ piece. I hope this will shed some light on some of the whats, whys, and hows of the documentary that many like me are curious about. I have noted your assessment of the documentary in an interview (Link) where

you attested the claims made in the programme as "well substantiated." So, I decided to watch the documentary for a second time just to be sure that we are referring to the same work, and found myself in agreement with you regarding its "sleek production quality" at least. It indeed gives the feel of watching a "thriller", as you rightly described. With regard to its content, however, I wish I could share your glowing verdict. Regrettably, the artistic liberty the makers took so abundantly in its treatment of "facts/evidence", did not quite make up for the journalistic rigour which the documentary generally lacked. Before elaborating why I found this documentary unsubstantiated, let me make a few things clear. I believe, every country, not just Bangladesh, needs a space for introspection on certain fundamental matters. These are, for example, power (and its abuse), influence (and its peddling), civil liberties (and its suppression), privacy (and surveillance), probity, integrity, transparency etc. While conscientious…