Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The attack launched on an under-construction Ahmadiyya mosque in Dakshin Khan of the city’s Uttara area the other day arouses yet once again our concern. The worry at this time is particularly weighty because it was only weeks ago that Prime Minister Khaleda Zia asked a group of Islamic scholars visiting her to use their influence in preventing any more assault on the Ahmadiyyya community. We noted her sentiments at the time and expressed our appreciation of the move she had taken. At the same time, we drew the attention of all to the bigger reality, which was that a surefire way of tackling the elements engaged in the anti-Ahmadiyya agitation was to employ the full force of the law against them. The very fact that nothing by way of legal means have been adopted so far to quell the agitation, one that is clearly aimed at stirring up sectarian trouble in the country, can today be cited as a major reason for all the unsavoury things that have been happening here. A senior government official has noted that any move to create chaos in the name of the anti-Ahmadiyya agitation will fail because ours is a democratic country, unlike the Islamic nature of the state in Pakistan where Ahmadiyyas are a minority in the official sense. One truly appreciates the sentiment of the official, for it is also the feeling of the nation that Bangladesh, by virtue of its long political struggle for sovereignty, is a secular republic where religion does not hold centre stage in politics. Even so, it must be admitted that over the past many years, a very well-organised group of people have consistently gone about trying to do politics on the basis of religion. As for those who have been agitating for a declaration of the Ahmadiyya community as a minority religious group, it is rather obvious that powerful quarters are involved in the making of this whole messy situation. There have indeed been reports in the media of so-called Islamic scholars from our neighbouring countries maintaining, over a long period of time, links with their friends in Bangladesh, the clear goal being a need to whip up agitation against the Ahmadiyyas. That sinister move, we have no doubt about it, is clearly geared to creating a situation that will divert people’s attention from the very real issues of politics and society that we in Bangladesh are today confronted with. It is through comprehending the nature of such a sinister plan at work that the government as well as the broad civil society structure in the country can defeat the elements engaged in the game. There is a clear need today for the Ahmadiyyas to be reassured about their full and inviolable position as citizens of Bangladesh, at par with the millions of others who may not share their religious perceptions. More importantly, the state, through the powers that be, must make it clear to the whole nation that the business of faith a citizen or group of citizens may pursue is one that has nothing to do with the principles of politics. Faith is always a matter between an individual and his or her God. Let it remain that way.

Of airports and potholes

Isn’t it time someone on the higher perches of authority went into reflections over the future of Zia international airport? We raise this question because of late there have been the many issues that have cropped up around the airport. And those issues relate to matters of security and safety. Not long ago, we were informed that the unscrupulous and unhindered manner in which high rise buildings were coming up around the airport was in fact placing aviation in danger. That was true and no one who knew something about the international aviation system wished to argue with the point raised. And after that came something of a much more worrying nature. That was the media report that the international civil aviation authorities had served warning on Dhaka that unless measures were taken to ensure a smooth landing and taking off of aircraft at ZIA, they would be compelled to go for penalising moves. One understands that the authorities here then really sat up and took notice. But an individual then filed a legal petition against any move towards a removal of tall buildings in and around the vicinity of ZIA and that was that. The concern now is that unless the Bangladesh civil aviation authorities get their act together, a day might come when people operating airlines abroad will simply put their foot down and refuse to have anything to do with ZIA. And as we worry about such a grim possibility, a local daily in a detailed report speaks of the many other problems that the airport in Dhaka is these days infested with. These include potholes on the runway, inadequate or broken lights that surely place incoming aircraft at risk and the poor quality of the radar system which just may land all of us in hot water. If you ask the civil aviation officials, they will think deeply over these issues and then inform you gravely that they cannot be solved overnight but will need two or three years to be put right. Of course problems of this kind cannot be solved overnight. Nobody said they could. But how do the officials explain the fact of all these problems accumulating through the years with no one really getting serious about tackling them? The minister of state for civil aviation told us some days ago that he could not sleep at night because of all those nightmares about the state of Bangladesh Biman. It is natural for him to feel that way, seeing that of late our pilots or their planes have developed a knack for landing anywhere but the runway. Think of Sylhet and Chittagong here. We sympathise with Mir Nasiruddin who, we are told, is these days keen on buying some new aircraft for the national flag carrier. That is all very fine. But might he be encouraged, slightly, into thinking of doing something about the potholes, radar and lights at ZIA? And, to be sure, something has to be done about the apartments around the airport. No pilot would want to run into them as he comes into the city or tries to fly out of it.

Since the fifties, the course of political development has consistently followed politics of demand. The demands articulated by the political parties, generally in opposition, are often mixed with political and constitutional reform agenda. Sometimes, the demands are in the shape of electoral promises. The 21-point electoral manifesto of 1954 elections is one such instance. In this election, Muslim League, said to have pioneered the movement for the independent state of Pakistan, was squarely defeated in what was then East Bengal.
   Then came the two-economy theory later given full shape in the famous Six-point demand, which also included reforms of the 1962 constitution of Pakistan. The overriding objectives was to achieve maximum possible autonomy for East Pakistan as part of a loose federation of Pakistan. It was on the basis of this agenda for political reforms that the Awami League (AL) won majority of the seats in the then central and provincial legislatives.
   The unwillingness of the martial law regime backed by the Peoples Party of Pakistan (PPP) to allow AL to form government followed subsequently by the genocide of March 25, 1971, eventually merged all demands into one, that of independent and sovereign Bangladesh.
   Post-1971 period
   The political demands and alliances of political parties to realise the demands were revived during the second half of the eighties. The striking feature of the political movement of those days centred on the formation of two major sets of political alliances against Ershad regime. Eventually, it led to a mass uprising that led to the fall of Ershad. The concept of non-party caretaker government was then put in place in an embryonic form but did not take definite constitutional shape. It achieved constitutional recognition in 1996 in the wake of the much controversial Magura by-election followed by the 1996 February elections, which had the lowest turn out of voters in our electoral history. As a way out to break the political impasse, the concept of a non-party caretaker government was built into the constitution by consensus and later ratified by the parliament. This was also the case earlier in the period of Shahabuddin interregnum. All actions taken or done by the Shahabuddin government were ratified later when it provided for a parliamentary form of government.
   Disillusion with reforms already achieved
   The process of disillusionment with the non-party caretaker government started since the first election was held in 1991 under such an arrangement. However, it was not as intense as it came to be in 2001 when the present four-party alliance got two-thirds majority in the parliament which, by all accounts available, soon became dysfunctional through the continued boycott of the parliamentary sessions by the AL. This was only one major aspect of issue of governance. It soon became linked with other wider issues of governance such as deteriorating law and order situation, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and violence, politicisation of higher judiciary and of civil service.
   To top it all, gruesome acts of political terrorism, extrajudicial killings, failure to bring the perpetrators of major political killings combined to create a highly unstable political and legal environment for practically all sections of the society. To this has recently been added the soaring prices of essential commodities, an issue often denied by the government leaders.
   Electoral reforms
   The demand for electoral reforms came to be added to the demand for reform of the non-party caretaker government. To start with, this demand was initially voiced by the civil society groups in order to ensure free and fair elections based principally on a set of disclosure requirements of persons contesting the elections and empowerment of the election commission (EC) to make it totally independent of executive control. The major opposition political party and other parties labelled as parties with leftist leaning joined hands to form political alliance to realise the demands that saw the light of the day on July 15, 2005.
   The agenda
   The two sets of reform agenda, one relating to non-party caretaker government and the other to electoral reforms are said to contain 31 points. The framing of the reform proposals came in the wake of the response of the ruling coalition party that it is prepared to discuss the electoral reforms only but not reform of the non-party caretaker government. Further, it needs concrete proposals for electoral reforms. Besides, such reform proposals should be discussed in the parliament. The total exclusion of the reform for non-party caretaker government is not well-understood by many, not simply those in opposition. Consequently, there appears now to be an element of uncertainty about the shape of things to come.
   Lack of action on electoral reforms
   As stated earlier, the need and urgency of electoral reforms have long been voiced by various groups of civil society but to no avail. Since 1991 elections and even before, the complaints of rigging of elections by one party or the other have been made but no initiatives other than few changes in electoral laws have taken place. The high court (HC) division recently took the initiative to ensure disclosure requirement of persons contesting elections. The EC move particularly, the newly appointed chief election commissioner (CEC) affirmed that this would be made effective in Sunamganj by-election. Some civil society groups involved in advocacy for electoral reforms appear to hold the view that the principles of disclosure laid down by the HC are not being implemented. The EC appears to hold a view different from the one articulated by the civil society groups. The public, in particular the voters, appear to be no wiser in getting at the crux of the issue. Incidentally the disclosure requirement also forms part of the agenda for reforms demanded by the 14-party alliance. Can this be made more specific in operational terms? Otherwise, such a reform, even if made part of the law to the extent required, will remain in paper only. In any case, the HC has recently called upon EC to show cause why its directives are not implemented.
   Political and constitutional reforms
   The reform agenda relating to non-party caretaker government is, in fact, bound up with the questions of political and constitutional reforms. The major pillars of reforms include, but not necessarily limited to (a) eschewing ex-officio mode of selection of the immediate past chief justice (CJ) as the chief adviser (CA), (b) limiting the functions and role of the non-party caretaker government to routine activities and in assisting the EC in holding free and fair elections and (c) making use or abuse of religion and communal propaganda in elections a punishable offences.
   Our constitution (article 58C) does provide for the appointment of a person as CA other than a retired CJ or retired judge of the appellate division of the supreme court only after exhausting all attempts to appoint a retired CJ or retired judge. Viewed from this perspective, the demand now being voiced can be interpreted as something within the substantive scope of constitutional mandate. The only issue is the question of making the mode of appointment wider and more flexible than present requirements. On the question of limiting the functions and the role of the non-party caretaker government to routine activities, the requirement is also there in the constitution except for the proviso (article 58D). This proviso talks of necessity for making policy decision in the discharge of its routine function. The need now is to define what is or is not a matter of policy.
   Are defence services law-enforcing agencies
   Some clue for the controversy over law-enforcing agencies is found in the fact that ordinance no. 1 of 2001 amended the definition of the term law-enforcing agencies to include defence services. The constitution dose not have any definition of law-enforcing agencies. It only speaks of and defines disciplined force in which is included, apart from defence service, the police or any other force declared by law to be a disciplined force. It is necessary, therefore, to more closely examine the rationale of inclusion of defence services in the definition of law enforcing agencies in the law for holding elections. Law-enforcing agency has traditionally been a popular, not a legal term.
   Abuse of religion
   Finally, the issue of use or abuse of religion and publicity of communal nature for elections may be discussed. With a kind of hindsight, one may recall that in the unamended constitution of 1972, there was a prohibition of association persons or union which, in the name of or on the basis of any religion has for its object, or pursues, a political purpose (article 38). This part was revoked in 1977 by a proclamation of the then martial law administration. This according to some researchers, laid the door open to parties which wish to use or abuse religion for political gain.
   Viewed from this perspective, this demand is going to be the most contentions of all demands. Further, it will require a major amendment of the constitution. However, the aforesaid demand should be seen in light of the prohibitory provisions of the Representation of the People Order, 1972. There are at least two such provisions [Section 77(1) (c) and (d)]. A person is guilty of undue influence in elections if he (a) calls down or threatens to call down divine displeasure or the displeasure of any Saint or Pir and (b) gives or threatens to give any religious sentence. Whether or not the above punishable offences meet the requirements of the demand is a matter for the constitutional experts to decide.
   As things stand now, it is too early to predict how much will be the give and take in the game of political demands. For the ordinary citizens, it is peace and order in society that are needed most.