|
EDITORIAL
Emergency should go soon
For quite some time the country’s political parties are demanding for withdrawal of emergency regulations to facilitate intra-party consultations on reforms as laid down by the Election Commission (EC). Besides, economists, rights groups and international quarters are increasingly demanding that the interim government should lift the state of emergency in order to free the political process as well as to make the sluggish economy functional.
Responding positively to this demand the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) ATM Shamsul Huda on Sunday said the state of emergency should be lifted before the elections, adding that he did not understand how polls could be held under emergency. With a fair measure of candour the CEC said at the dialogue with political parties, “I do not understand how the election can be held under a state of emergency, because the necessary scope for electioneering should be facilitated.”
To look back, the President declared a state of emergency on January 11, 2007, in accordance with article 141A of the Constitution which mandates him to do so when “a grave emergency exists in which the security or economic life of Bangladesh, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression or internal disturbance.”
Time and again we have emphasised in this column the crucial importance of rule of law and abidance thereof, which presupposes the very structure of a civilised country. But much to the chagrin, in fact horror, of the body politic the reverse of it -- utterly stark disorder, turmoil, mayhem; in a word, lawlessness -- was becoming all-pervasive prior to January 11, 2007 when the present Army-backed Caretaker Government (CG) was in place.
As a matter of fact, all hell would, beyond any speck of doubt, break loose consequent upon murderous violence, extreme brutalities, explicit and overt threat of unleashing 'rakta ganga' or widespread bloodshed by a large alliance led by a major political party, which targeted - for convincing reasons of course - the pre-one eleven CG. And the silent, powerless people helplessly shuddered as the juggernaut of impending doom was approaching to crush the country under its wheels. In a nutshell, recalcitrance was at its extreme and get hold of order was an impossible proposition at that time.
A great French sage, Montesquieu was of the view that the culminating point of administration is to know well how much power, great or small, we ought to use in all circumstances. Application of extreme force upon an innocent person or coercion can be of little use in the long run. True wisdom lies in assigning enough cogent reason and proof before detaining a suspect or an individual assumed to be corrupt. The lack of this wisdom is likely to arouse public panic and alarm. It must be borne in mind that an overwhelming majority of the people earn an honest living, and only a few are deviant. The bottom line is: the true strength of any government depends on confidence and trust of the polity. We hope the CG enjoys spontaneous, not per force, public support till its last day in the affairs of the state.
Notwithstanding demerits, counter arguments and criticisms against it, democracy still is the best form of government which is ideally inclusive, meaning respect for diverse opinions. However, it can not be gainsaid that in this least developed country with colonial, quasi-colonial and authoritarian legacies from time to time the suave and admirable aspects have more often than not been ignored and at times abused. Despite Westminster model of democracy in place for long 15 years Bangladesh’s politicians [there is no statesman amongst us, unfortunately] on both sides of the divide, did not or could not learn democracy’s essential values mutual respect for each other’s opinion. Boycotting parliament became eternal. Things came to such a pass that opponents began to settle score on streets. While the ruling party felt itself all-powerful, the opposition politicians considered the rulers to be their sworn enemies. This was not the case even under British colonial rule or even in Pakistan time. Our politicians must try to learn that democracy is an attitude of tolerance, a way of life. Let the EC prioritise this subject now.
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
THE MORIBUND CLINTON CAMPAIGN
Will sign of desperation against Obama work?
A. H. Jaffor Ullah
While the Democratic primaries have passed the midway in which Senator Barack Obama had garnered nearly 56 more elected delegates than his opponent; the Clinton campaign had experienced a snag because she lost 11 consecutive primaries since Super Tuesday (February 5, 2008). On that day, Senator Clinton had won 9 states including delegate-rich New York, California, New Jersey and few other states while receiving more elected delegates than Barack Obama who came out victorious in 13 states including his home state Illinois (delegate-rich), Connecticut, Minnesota, Missouri and 9 other states elsewhere. Since Super Tuesday Obama won 11 states consecutively. Therefore, the momentum had shifted in his favour.
The next crucial primary elections will be held in delegate-rich Texas and Ohio on March 4, 2008. If Senator Obama comes victorious in those 2 states, then, Senator Hillary Clinton could say sayonara to her bid for the White House. She was ahead in polls just weeks ago but similar to other races the polls have tightened and she is running neck-to-neck with Senator Obama in these two states.
The Clinton camp is now nervous because they know that their candidate is having difficulty connecting with the voters. The campaign to win more delegates has therefore turned ugly. Under this dire backdrop the two candidates met at the arena in the University of Texas at Austin on February 21, 2008. Overall, it was a very civil discourse between the two candidates.
Everyone expected Hillary Clinton to be on the offensive in the debate. She brought out the charge against Senator Obama of political plagiarism and she said he represented “change you can Xerox.” This barb of Hillary Clinton did not sit well with the spectators who booed her instantaneously. She also said that words are important and words matter but actions speak louder than words. Senator Obama agreed with that, and then pointed out that she lately had been urging voters to turn against him by saying, “let’s get real.” Obama replied, “And the implication is that the people who’ve been voting for me or are involved in my campaign are somehow delusional.” At the end of the debate she was conciliatory, though. She said, “No matter what happens in this contest — and I am honoured, I am honoured to be here with Barack Obama,” she said at the conclusion of the 90-minute forum. “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine.”
Was that a valedictory speech by Senator Clinton? The answer is yes and no. In one sense by now she is realising that the momentum is not on her side. Also, in order to pass Barack Obama in delegates count she has to win big in Texas and Ohio. Earlier polls have indicated that she was ahead in the race. However, all the recent polls indicate that the race is tightening. In Ohio, where many manufacturing jobs have gone south (read Mexico), Obama campaign had made it an issue that Senator Clinton had supported NAFTA, which made it possible for the export of the manufacturing jobs. Senator Clinton had mentioned it far too many times that she would bring 35 years of experience to the White House if elected in November 2008. Eight years of that come as the first lady. Many analysts think that the way Hillary Clinton brings up her experiences as the first lady, she gives the impression that she was a co-president during 1992-2000. In that capacity, she supported NAFTA and was very effusive about her husband signing the act. Now that in the industrial rust belt of the Midwest tens and thousands of factory workers are out of job, this support of her for NAFTA is not sitting well with the laid off workers.
The Obama campaign is now making it a big issue on Senator Clinton’s support for NAFTA. On record, Senator Obama says that he raised his voice against NAFTA while Senator Clinton had said that NAFTA had been a good treaty for America. We shall have to wait until March 4, 2008 to see if Senator Clinton’s stance on NAFTA would cost her some votes. As I pointed out, the race is becoming very tight in Ohio and she may defeat Obama in central and southern parts of Ohio where agriculture is the mainstay of economy but in the northern Ohio, which is industrial, Obama may garner more votes. No wonder that Obama campaign is using NAFTA as their trump card.
There is another factor that will go against Senator Clinton in Texas and Ohio. Unlike many other states, these two states allow independents and crossover Republicans to vote in their Democratic primaries. All the polls have indicated that Obama wins hand down among independents (by 14 percentage points). Also, some moderate Republicans favour Obama over Clinton. If this trend continues, Obama will benefit in the primaries in Texas and Ohio.
Quite a few pro-Clinton Democratic political pundits thought that Ohio and Texas were Clinton’s firewalls against Obama campaign. President Clinton also said earlier that if his wife wins these two delegate-rich states, then it will be possible for her to win the nomination. But others have pointed out that she has to win very big in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania because she is lagging behind by 56 elected delegates. If Senator Obama loses by 1-2 per cent votes, Obama will still be ahead in delegate counts.
The Clinton campaign knows all of the above mentioned obstacles; therefore, they started a mean campaign against the frontrunner. On February 23 (Saturday) in perhaps her sharpest attack of the 2008 presidential campaign, she accused her Democratic rival of “using tactics that are straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” declaring at one point, “Shame on you, Barack Obama.”
Coming out of the debate in Austin, Texas we all thought both sides will refrain from making personal attack. But knowing what is at stake here both the Obama and Clinton campaigns are furiously going after each other. The Clinton campaign now says that the leaflets from Obama campaign are filled with lies and deceit vis-à-vis her position on healthcare reform and global trading, which the Obama campaign vociferously denies. Senator Obama told reporters in Columbus, Ohio, “It makes me think there’s something tactical about her getting so exercised this morning.”
In summary, the moribund campaign of Senator Clinton is in do or die situation. On the hills of a civil debate hardly three days ago, the Clinton campaign had gone offensive. Is it a disparate Clinton campaign? If that is so, then we may see some fireworks in the next few days. March 4, 2008 primaries are hardly a few days from now and my guess is things may get very ugly. Thus far, the campaigns for Democratic primaries were civil. And the tone of the campaigns is changing very rapidly. Is it a sign of desperation for Clinton campaign?
Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
VIEW POINT
“Shariah is not Quranic code”
Aziz Islam in Australia
Taj Hashmi’s erudite piece titled as above (Holiday, 15 February 2008) would leave your readers much the wiser, but he over-reacted, nevertheless. Behind the facade of the Archbishop’s goodwill and understanding lie much deeper crises that seemingly require pleasing and/or placating; that is quite clearly militant Islam and terrorism. In the absence of anyone addressing the root of the problem, the Archbishop did what he can, offered some soothing balm to reduce the pain. In the early 1980s, once the compere of the weekly Asian Programme on BBC1 (TV) suggested to Mrs Thatcher that terrorism was the language of the unheard; ?the reference was to the IRA, Islamic terrorism was unknown then. Today though incidences of terrorism have increased, no one is asking if Islamic terrorism could be a language of the unheard. Those who have lost sleep over Islamic terrorism would not in the remotest possibility ever ponder the thought of those who waged wars under false pretences, destroyed countries, massacred peoples, committed war crimes and crime against humanity should be served with justice.
The Archbishop, it would seem, has largely been misunderstood. He did in no way mean one law for the Muslims and another for the rest of the Britons; the misinterpretation for which he has roundly been condemned by all and sundry. But some saw it as an attempt to reconcile the authority of the secular state and its impact on religious minorities. Arrangements already exist whereby the Jews can resolve their civil disputes at Beth Din, the Jewish courts; British food regulations allow production of Halal meat by Islamic practice of slaughtering; the Treasury allows Shariah compliant mortgages and investments. The Archbishop apparently spoke for more reconciliatory measures in these lines. Some took him kindly in this vein. The International Herald Tribune viewed the Archbishop’s comments with understanding and felt the need to integrate minority cultures within the secular culture, but also feared it could repeat the consequences of the acceptance of multiculturism in the past that encouraged segregation and ghettoising instead of integration into the greater community. The Times pointed the finger at ‘mishandling’ why any well-intentioned measures end up producing unintended results. It did not clarify ‘mishandling’ probably because it is obvious in widespread hypocrisy practised by the power that be. While the New York Post thought there were scopes in British law for private arbitration within clear limits, the Dagbladet Information of Denmark emphasised on clear separation of church and state. The disparity is obvious; the state patronising one religion against others while officially posturing as secular is one root cause of the problem. The patronised community takes the matter a step farther. Lately in Australia, there was community outrage against their Council permitting an Islamic school. It needs no mention that Christian schools abound the land. A cartoonist caricatured two men, one asking the other: would they teach liberalism and democracy? The other replied: yes, but we will teach them bigotry and hypocrisy before that. Referring to the Archbishop controversy, a letter writer wrote to Australia’s prime national daily: “The Church of England was established in order to permit the sexual adventures of an English king. No absurdity like Shariah law can beat that.”
Then you have the British political satire par excellence: Yes Prime Minister. To appoint a bishop to the Church of England, PM Jim Hacker must choose one from the two candidates presented to him: one is a Marxist; the other is ‘unemployable’. PM’s personal secretary insisted: ‘Take the card; you always end up with the card the magician tricks you to take.’ PM refused to be tricked, but ultimately he is manipulated by Sir Humphreys, the arch bureaucrat, to appoint ‘a Christian who is an expert on Islam.’ The British has a great sense of humour, and this matter will settle in good humour for no one remembering what the Archbishop might once have said.
Aziz Islam’s e-mail:
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
LETTERS
A traitor should be treated as traitor
Dear Editor:
The mass people started smiling going through the article (in English — “An Open Letter to the Chief Adviser and Army Chief’) in the daily Jugantar, dated 12th February, 2008, written by Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury, an eminent Bangladeshi columnist, a British national, living permanently in London. I personally not only smiled, rather was taken aback too to note the double standard of A Gaffar Chowdhury.
In the said article Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury categorically told, “he is at all not against the Bangladesh armed forces.” This claim is nothing but a lie, and an utter lie.
If this utterance of his is a fact, then who uttered those treacherous words in the daily Amader Shomoy, dated 1-09-2007, in the following language? “Army is the root of all evils in Bangladesh. The demand of the time is to raise armed struggle against the Army. This Army cannot be removed without guerilla warfare. The Bangladesh Army can sell out patriotism. They are involved in all killings. The Army supported-Government is worse than the (Borgis and Dacoits)”.
Had Chowdhury been successful in materialising his venomous utterance, the Army Chief, whom he addressed in the article, would not have been alive by this time (may Allah forbid). And the whole nation would have moved in back gear to continue for an unknown period of time. How a mischievous man like him can dare to shower advice and sermons to the Chief Adviser and the Army Chief? What does he think? The cat is already out of his bag through his statement. All these exercise of him is nothing but hard attempts aimed at getting his leader out of the sub-jail and nothing else.
Chowdhury mentioned, he is an aged person (senior to these two leaders). Does he think these two leaders spoon feeding babies who need his advice and sermons? He attempted to annihilate the Army which includes its Chief and also branded Dr. Farkruddin Ahmed’s Government to be the Government of Borgis and dacoits. This sort of criminals should not go unpunished.
S.A. Hussain,
Pallabi Extension,
Mirpur, Dhaka.
Bangladeshi woman envoy to UN
Dear Editor:
The late Srimati Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, sister of 1ate Jawaharlal Nehru was the first woman Ambassador and Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations and also the late Princess Abida Sultana the was the first Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York.
We are proud of Ms Ismet Jahan the first woman Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations in New York. She was appointed in 2007. The said position is the most prestigious.
The government should publish her photo with life-sketch in our national dailies both in Bangla and English.
Mohammad Anwarul Quadir,
Advocate
Mati Manzil,
Naogaon.
Perpetual political feud
Dear Editor:
The native voters predict a summer of discontent. It is time for stock-taking and evaluation, by the voters, of the politicians, for the leaders. A political party does not fail; it is the leadership. Change the leader, if necessary, but do not ditch the party. Leaving the party is an act of desertion of an established institution built up brick by brick through many sacrifices and labour of love. How many times a political worker will change parties? If something is wrong with the basic principles, start over again.
The name of the party does not matter; what matters is the public service by the party. Change the brand, the style, or the principle. If not clear, replace the leader.
A new style is a new package, laced with the trademark. Learn the secrets of political circus. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; and the dinner party time is after the elections.
If the grass is greener on the other lawn, don’t jump the fence, but use the right fertilizer below your feet. Don’t forget the watering problem (avoid over-flooding). Gardening is a hobby, so what is wrong if you are seen carrying the watering can, as your own mall?
Do not tell the voter what he does not want to hear. Talk about his problems, not that of the opponent parties. In politics it is not opposition or equality, but the complementariness. There is unity in duality (day and night, good and bad, summer and winter, AL and BNP, etc).
If in doubt, resign from politics, and remain a voter only for five years. A voter is neutral till he casts his vote. Remember that the voting is secret, and every voter does not become a politician. All voters are not politicians, but all politicians are voters. The difference is simply staggering in its various implications. Do not expect the voter to think like a politician.
A politician should behave like a voter, act like a social worker, and talk like a leader whose political affiliation cannot be detected. Hide your party flag, and people will start asking nice questions. One candle light can remove darkness, but all the darkness cannot remove the light from a single candle. Give an example from the political angle.
All humans (6,000,000,000+) are 99.9 per cent the same the world over, with some variations in the DNA blueprint, the scientists tell us. So what is the big tamasha generated by the political parties? We all believe in world brotherhood; but what is happening to our national brotherhood? A leader leads, or is led.
One American leader said something like this: “I do not agree with you, but will defend your right to say it”. What do we see in our country? That is the secret of electioneering, many will agree.
A Mawaz,
Dhaka.
Bangabandhu granted general amnesty
Dear Editor:
Some political leaders and socio-cultural organisations take much interest in demanding trial of war criminals of 1971 these days for reason best known to them. They raise the issue in their speech at meetings, conferences and gatherings on any occasion anywhere in the country. They do not think at all whether at this time this issue is relevant or at all necessary or not.
It appears that they raise the issue for their own interest. Bangladesh Mahila Parishad President in her presidential speech demanded trial of war criminals through special tribunal at the inaugural session of the 3-day 11th National Conference 2008 of Bangladesh Mohila Parisad held at Bangladesh-China Friendship Conference Centre in the city recently. The theme of the conference was 'Equality Needs Equal Opportunity'.
Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, Law Adviser A.F. Hassan Arif, special assistant to CA, Norwegian Ambassador in Dhaka Ingebjorg Stofring, Councilors of Bangladesh Mahila Parisad from 58 districts and distinguished personalities were present at the function.
As per theme of the conference it was said that a women's development policy to ensure equality of men and women in society would be announced soon. The Government has almost finalised the formulation of the 'Citizenship Act' aiming to ensure equal rights for all citizens of the country.
Now question arises whether it was indispensable for Mahila Parisad President to demand trial of war criminals which is not consistent with the theme of the conference. Was the Mahila Parishad President authorised by the nation to raise the issue?
The demand to try war criminals after 36 years creates suspicion among the members of the public. It is a settled issue. Bangabandhu granted general amnesty to war criminals in 1973. At that time a total of 195 war criminals returned to Pakistan without trial under Simla and Delhi agreements.
Moreover, the political parties who demand trial of war criminals now had been in power once. But they did not try the war criminals while in power. Some social and cultural organisations with signboard only want the trial of war criminals now for their own interest best known to them.
It seems by raising this settled issue after 36 years of independence they want to divert the anti-corruption drive of the Government towards another direction and to foil the general election. They want to create disorder in the country for the interest of their masters while preparation for the general election is going on as per the election roadmap. They are trying to fish in troubled water.
Bangladesh is an independent and sovereign country. We have achieved independence at the cost of three million martyrs after nine months' armed struggle. These people want to create disorder in the country by raising the settled issue to unsettle society. Our people want peace and not disorder, they should realise it.
A.M.K. Chowdhury,
West Masdhair
Narayanganj.
Marrying a foreign national
Dear Editor:
After reading a few correspondences in the newspapers on the above issue, I felt an urge within myself to clarify it further.
Following is the existing law in brief as per the gazette notification [vide the Ordinance No. LVII of 1976] relating to the Public Servants (Marriage With Foreign Nationals) Ordinance, 1976, issued under the signature of the late President A. M. Sayem dated 7th July, 1976.
The Ordinance inter alia states:
1.That a public servant in diplomatic service shall not marry or promise to marry a foreign national. 2. A public servant other than a public servant in diplomatic service shall not marry or promise to marry a foreign national except with the permission granted under Sub-Section (3). 3. The President may on an application made in his behalf grant a public servant other than a public servant in diplomatic service permission to marry or promise to marry a foreign national. C. A public servant who contravenes the provisions of the Sub-Section 1 or Sub-Section 2 shall, not withstanding anything contained in any other law or in the terms and conditions of his service, be liable to be removed from service.
The law seems to be devoid of natural justice and is not consistent and also harsh in nature. After all in this world, exchange of heart may take place between any unmarried grown up man and woman anywhere any time during the course of life, irrespective of nationality, religious faith and linguistic difference. This is the law of nature.
Now a public servant of non-diplomatic cadre if unwittingly or unknowingly commits the blunder, law has made no room for the marriage to be regularised by obtaining a post facto approval from the President of the country. For the sake of marriage he/she has to lose his/her bread and butter and be jobless.
Now the question is, in the light of all above how far the CG was right to award the foreign posting of Mr. Debpriya Bhattachariyya to Europe as an ambassador of the country? Was it justified within the provisions of the prevailing law of the land?
However a law is a law and it is effective as well as binding, though it may have deserved amendments in its proper perspective by the successive Governments in power. But no one had time to look at it. It sounds funny we have many such irrational laws like in the past during ex-president Ershad's tenure there was a law that a Govt servant or semi Government servant would have to forego his/her due turn of foreign posting if he/she has more than two surviving children. A law has to be humane. May be time permitting the CG would do something about it.
A.B.Mohammed Zakaria,
124, Whitley Close
Stanwell, Staines TW19 7EY
Middlesex U.K.
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
|
