AK Khandker and his book
M. Serajul Islam
AK
Khandker (AKK) has enflamed the political platform with his book “1971 Bhetoray
Bairay”. The book has also brought the former Deputy Chief of the Mukti Bahini
bagful of abuses and insults. The ruling party supporters have condemned him
into the same league as late President Ziaur Rahman whom they called a Pakistan
ISI agent, and Kader Siddiki, whom they named as a neo-Razakar. They have
accused AKK of taking money from ISI to write the book as a part of conspiracy
by anti-liberation forces against Bangladesh!
Critics
have used the meanest adjectives to attack the war hero where even his presence
at the historic surrender ceremony on December 16, 1971 as Deputy Chief of the
Mukti Bahini has been trashed. They have stated that AKK was loitering in
Kolkata on 16 December 1971 and was lifted by the Indians and taken to Dhaka
for the ceremony, thus undermining the role of Mukti Bahini in the liberation
war and India in that war. They further stated that even his dress in shirt and
trouser and not war fatigues indicated that he was not actively involved in the
liberation war!
The
ruling party supporters and other critics of AKK are shocked because he said in
the book that Bangabandhu ended his historic March 7 speech with “Joy Pakistan” after saying “Joy Bangla.” They
have also been angered because AKK has said that Bangabandhu did not announce
the independence of Bangladesh before he surrendered and that the Awami League
was not prepared to fight the war of liberation. These statements in AKK’s book
have hit the AL’s interpretation of the 1971 war of liberation with the force
of a political tsunami.
Ironically,
in attacking AKK, the Awami Leaguers have bit at their own base. They have used
foul language to abuse him but have not been able to put forward convincing arguments
to dismiss the issues of history that the war hero has raised in his book. Instead
of convincing arguments, they have argued that anyone who contradicts or
questions the zero-sum contribution of Bangabandhu in the war of liberation of
Bangladesh is a traitor and does not deserve to live in Bangladesh.
I
have worked with AKK for five years; between 1980-82 in Canberra and between
1983-86 in New Delhi. He talked to me about the events of 1971 many times over.
Except the issue of “Joy Pakistan”, all the other issues that have brought AKK heaps
of abuse from the Awami League have been written the same way as he had told me
in one to one conversations I had with him. The
“Joy Pakistan” issue has surprised me as it has many others. But the
other issues that have angered the Awami Leaguers have been discussed and
written in the public domain before AKK’s book. Tajuddin’s daughter’s book is
more graphic against the AL’s version of history on the issues of declaration
of the war and its preparedness than AKK’s book.
AKK
to those who know is nothing like the villain that his present opponents have
tried to make him. If patriotism means being prepared to do for the country
whatever it requires to ensure and protect its independence, then he should be
anyone’s patriot. In those long conversations I had with him, he would tell me
repeatedly how from March 1, 1971 he would walk from his residence to the old
airport and watch the Pakistanis bring in every flight of PIA paramilitary from
West Pakistan dressed in the Awami dress. His own intelligence being the second
in command of the East Pakistan base of the Pakistan Air Force told him in no
uncertain terms that the Pakistanis were involved in sham negotiations with
Bangabandhu to buy time to strike upon the people of East Pakistan.
AKK
had also told me of his closeness with his Punjabi boss and how easy it would
have been for him and those in contact with him before March 25 to destroy the
Air Force arsenal. As many would remember, the Pakistanis used the Air Force
extensively for strafing to physically control the land after the Pakistanis
started their genocide on the night of March 25, 1971. AKK’s contact with the
AL’s political leadership to destroy the Air Force’s arsenal was turned down
with contempt. Similar attempt by Brigadier Majumdar in Chittagong from where
the announcement of independence was made and the first salvos at the Pakistani
army by the freedom fighters to make the first move was also turned down.
No
historical evidence has yet turned up to suggest that the AL had contacted the
Bengali members of Pakistani’s military, EPR, Police to prepare for the war of
independence. There is no evidence either that the AL itself had any armed
cadre for such a war in which the Pakistanis massacred hundreds of thousands of
men, women and children. In fact, these Bengali officers/soldiers/ armed
personnel defected and spontaneously started their armed response to the
Pakistani genocide on their own and did not wait for a declaration of
independence. The AL’s leadership had crossed into India and Bangabandhu had
surrendered to the Pakistanis without any contact with them.
AKK,
like the rest of those who joined the freedom movement from armed cadre
background, decided to join the war of liberation on his own accord. He left
Dhaka within days of the start of Pakistani genocide with his family and joined
the liberation war risking his life and those of his wife and children who
accompanied him. The way the members of the ruling party in which the
opposition JP also joined and abused AKK in parliament was unbelievable.
Members wanted the book banned; AKK arrested and tried as a traitor. The body
language of these members was particularly significant, full of venom like they
wanted to physically tear the war hero apart. Those who watched this surreal
session in parliament were left wondering where those who attacked AKK with
such venom were during the liberation war.
The
AL came to power in 2008 riding the crest of a popularity wave. AKK as the
President of the Sector Commanders Forum was instrumental in motivating the
Projonmo to vote for the AL on the spirit of 1971. It is also significant that
those who were with AKK at the launching of his book were not BNP or Jamat but
stalwarts of the AL’s cultural front. They must have read the book underlining that
many prominent Awami Leaguers like for instance Dr. Anisuzzaman have not
dismissed the book the way Awami League’s top political leadership has.
AKK
has not been disrespectful to Bangabandhu personally in the book. His book’s
basic theme nevertheless is that the genocide of the Pakistanis that started on
March 25, 1971 transformed people in such manner that it did not matter who announced
the independence or who led it because the people were determined to die for
freedom. His regret is that had the AL been better prepared for the war of
liberation, there would have been lesser miseries and deaths in that war. In
fact, dispassionate reading of his book would give the BNP many issues to
criticise because AKK does not give Ziaur Rahman any of the credit that the
party gives him for announcing the declaration of independence and his role in
the liberation war.
There
is nothing wrong in the criticisms against AKK’s book but there is nothing
right either in the manner the Awami League supporters have subjected him to abuse/humiliation and insults.
Finance Minister AMA Muhit made this point explicitly when he asked those who oppose
his book to write his/her own book and refute the points/issues with which they
differ. However, the Awami Leaguers have shown no intention of taking up AMA
Muhit’s suggestion and have kept up their abuse on their belief that all glory of
independence of Bangladesh should go to Bangabandhu and the Awami League; a
belief that is now falling apart. AKK’s book and that of Tajuddin’s daughter
would be of tremendous value when attempts are made at some future time to get
out of the AL’s zero-sum interpretation of history and seek out a balanced view
of the 1971 liberation war.
Doubt
lingers also in the minds of many who are not AL supporters whether Bangabandhu
said “Joy Pakistan”. However, the onus is on AKK’s opponents to prove he is
wrong. The only way to do this is to bring out a record of the entire speech. Meanwhile,
the Awami Leaguers who are now attacking AKK should spare a moment and consider
that they are not doing Bangabandhu or their role in 1971 any favour by
condemning the country’s top liberation war heroes – Maulana Bhasani, MAG
Osmani, Ziaur Rahman; Kader Siddiki; and now AKK - as anti liberation force and
ISI agents. Meanwhile AKK has resigned as Chairman, Sector Commanders’ Forum
that has enhanced his standing with those who think that those who fought with
arms in 1971 are the country’s real heroes. He has not budged even a bit from
what he wrote in the book.
The writer is a retired
career Ambassador. His email is ambserajulislam@gmail.com
Abe’s Dhaka visit and Japan’s
strategic interests
M. Serajul Islam
Japan
has been Bangladesh’s most trusted friend. It has always treated Bangladesh as
special since recognising the country in February 1972. Bangladesh was the
largest recipient of Japanese ODA for a long time. In the 1970s 80s and 90s, when
its development partners were literally underwriting the country’s development budget,
Japan was Bangladesh’s number one provider of development assistance. Japanese
assistance was of the highest quality going to the country’s economic and human
infrastructure building. Although Japanese aid has been both in aid and grant, most
of the aid has been subsequently written off as grant.
Development
assistance, however, is no longer as critical as before to Bangladesh’s
development efforts. Nevertheless, Japan’s importance to Bangladesh has not
diminished even a little bit. In fact it has enhanced significantly because
Japan can now literally lift Bangladesh the quickest towards its destination of
becoming a middle-income country through trade and investment. The ground work
for such cooperation was laid out during the successful visit of Prime Minister
Sheikh Hasina to Japan in the end of May when
Japan pledged US$ 5.96 billion
over next five years in assistance and proposed the formation Bay of Bengal
Industrial Growth Belt (BBIGB) to help Bangladesh realise its huge economic potentials
and expedite its growth.
Both
were major overtures by Japan to become deeply involved in Bangladesh. Nevertheless,
the decision of the Japanese Prime Minister to come to Dhaka so soon after
Sheikh Hasina’s visit emphasised a paradigm shift in its interests in
Bangladesh. The offers/proposals that
Japan made to the Bangladesh Prime Minister in Tokyo were expected to mature
over time. In fact, a number of
high-level visits from Tokyo to Dhaka were undertaken already to carry forward
the discussions and decisions reached in Tokyo at the Summit meeting. There was
no need for Japan to pursue those decisions at another Summit level meeting. In
diplomatic parlance, visits at summit level that take place in such quick
succession hints at something unusual and extraordinary.
Therefore,
the reason for Shinzo Abe’s Dhaka visit was an urgent one and perhaps had
little to do with the decisions reached between the two countries in Tokyo.
Subsequent to her visit to Japan, Sheikh Hasina had visited China. A number of decisions
were reached there on Bangladesh-China relations that must have worried Tokyo.
One was the discussion on the Chinese offer to build the Sonadia deep seaport.
The others were the decisions on enhancing military and economic cooperation.
The offer on Sonadia and decisions of cooperation in economic/military areas underlined
that Chinese involvement in Bangladesh is deepening and entering into strategic
areas. In particular, the offer to build the Sonadia deep seaport where Chinese
also have stated they would keep control had the potential to directly conflict
with the Japanese offer of the Bay of Bengal Industrial Growth Belt.
Japan
and China have historical enmity with a lot of it emanating from Japanese
occupation of China during the Second World War. That enmity has now taken a
new dangerous dimension over the issue of the islands in South China Sea.
Japan’s BBIGM offer has been made keeping in view the strategic location of
Bangladesh and its importance vis-à-vis China. Amitava Mukherjee has recently
underlined that strategic value in an article
“Is Bangladesh the newest acquisition to China’s pearl of strings? in the
Internet based web paper geopoliticalmonitor.com. In the article, the writer
highlighted Bangladesh “as a
country which overlooks the strategically important sea lanes of the Indian
Ocean linking China with the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, thus
playing a role in securing energy supplies for Beijing”.
Therefore
there are ample reasons to believe that the overtures by China to Bangladesh during
Sheikh Hasina’s China visit taken after her Japan visit have worried Tokyo and necessitated
the visit of Shinzo Abe to Dhaka to woo Bangladesh from China. Meanwhile, the
new government in New Delhi is coming come closer to Washington. Secretary of
State John Kerry has already visited New Delhi and Narendra Modi would be visiting
Washington later this month. The Indo-US strategic partnership that President
Obama had announced in 2011 to stop Chinese influence in Southeast Asia and Pacific
that was sent to cold storage as US-India relations deteriorated under the
Congress government over a host of issues where Bangladesh’s elections of
January 5 also played a role is now warming up again.
Japan,
a traditional US partner, under Shinzo Abe’s second term, has also targeted Southeast
and South Asia as a new focus in foreign affairs where it sees China’s
influence the same way, as does the United States, perhaps even with more
concern. Thus the US/India and Japan are getting closer in a strategic
partnership that wants to contain China from expanding into South Asia and
Southeast Asia vis-à-vis China. In the evolving strategic equations,
Bangladesh’s geopolitical location has become very important. Bangladesh may
thus be moving into a position where USA/India/Japan could be vying for
Bangladesh’s support to keep China from getting any foothold in the
geopolitical location that is emerging as one of tremendous strategic value. In
fact, US’ massive investments in Myanmar that is equally important in this
emerging cold-war type of conflict have been made with containing China in
view.
One
is not sure if the Bangladesh foreign policy strategists have considered its
attempts to deal with Japan and China with these strategic issues in mind. It
does not appear to be so. In fact, one could suspect that the Bangladesh Government
has inadvertently walked into a situation that could turn for it into a hot
potato where the way the issues would be resolved would depend not on it but on
the international players. This would explain why Shinzo Abe’s Dhaka visited
Dhaka so soon after Hasina’s Tokyo and also visited Sri Lanka together with his
Dhaka visit where the Chinese are creating a foothold through helping that
country with its deep seaports.
In
fact, the media has openly stated that Shinzo Abe’s Bangladesh and Sri Lanka
visits were undertaken to offset China in South Asia. These views have
connected Narendra Modi’s visit to Tokyo before he visited Dhaka/Colombo to conclude
a Japanese-Indian meeting of minds on China vis-à-vis China. Shinzo Abe did not
cover any new issue in Dhaka in Bangladesh-Japan bilateral relations except
those covered in Tokyo. He reiterated again the importance of the BBIGB that
only exposed further Japan’s interest to use this proposal to offset the
Chinese offer on Sonadia and thereby get a strategic stranglehold in the Bay of
Bengal.
Shinzo
Abe steered clear of Bangladesh’s internal politics. He said nothing that was
of use for the AL led government to score points over the issue of legitimacy
of the government. In fact, his meeting with Begum Zia and his emphasis on discussion
among the parties suggested that Japan considers that Bangladesh is still in
the midst of a political crisis that needed to be resolved. In all these, he of
course did not fail to get from a government willing to do anything to please Japan
a commitment on its candidature for a seat as a non-permanent member in the UN
Security Council. The large business/investment delegation that went the
Japanese Prime Minister nevertheless that Japan is looking at Bangladesh
seriously as a major investment destination.
Shinzo
Abe’s visit was pursued in Japan’s long-term strategic interests with
Bangladesh with the immediate objective to stop China’s influence in the
country and South Asia growing. He has left the Bangladesh Government with the
task of finding a way to deal with China with which it has wittingly or
unwittingly gone deeper in economic/defence and strategic cooperation after
Sheikh Hasina’s visit; a task that will now get more difficult as USA and India
are expected to join Japan in encouraging Bangladesh to disengage from China’s
strategic goals in the region.
The writer is a former Ambassador to
Japan. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com
President’s Obama’s present predicament: A deer before headlights
M. Serajul Islam
The
President who had ignited so much hope in not just his own country but the rest
of the world with his message of change is now fighting his own personal battle
to keep his name from heading the list of US’ worst Presidents. President Barak
Obama entered White House in 2008 after 8 years of President Bush had pushed US
economy into depression that in turn ruined the world economy because of two
disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
President
Obama decided to be presidential upon assuming office. Hence he owned
everything his predecessor left on his plate including the two wars although by
that time, public opinion in USA had already shifted against the wars because of
the humungous costs, both financial and in terms of lives of US men/women in
uniform lost. Instead, President Obama
who as a rookie Senator from Illinois from 2005 till he became the President,
had opposed the wars, decided to send additional troops to Afghanistan and took
time to end US involvement in Iraq thus allowing the economy to bleed further.
President
Obama had other ideas in mind as the country’s first African-American President
for which he even set aside what most politicians would have done almost
naturaly; update the nation on the poor state of the union he inherited. He
thought his destiny was to carve for himself a name as one of the country’s
great presidents. His role model was President Abraham Lincoln who attained
immortality for the way he united a nation torn by civil war through political bipartisanism. President Obama like President Obama believed
that bipartisanship was of the need of the hour to unite the nation that
President Bush had divided. He thus accepted bipartisanship as his guide to
presidential glory.
He
thus gave the key post in his cabinet, that of the Secretary of Defence in his
first term to a Republican and it is a Republican again who holds that office
in his present term. Till 2010, President Obama did not feel how serious was
the opposition to his administration and to him personally because the
Democrats held the majority in the Senate as well as the House. President Obama
began to see the true face of his opponents once the Republicans gained
majority of the House in the November, 2010 elections. They made it a policy to oppose the President
to make it difficult for his administration to achieve and bills proposed by
the White House were turned down routinely simply because they did not want to
work with him. President Obama wanted to make his name in US history by
bringing the country’s 50 million poor; unprivileged and uninsured under an
affordable heath insurance. He was able to enact the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
while the democrats held the House. The Republicans took the ACA to court and
when the Supreme Court vacated the case in 2013, they refused to fund the
federal government and stopped it for 11 days to impede the implementation of
the ACA.
That
effort failed and ACA was implemented. The Republicans have now passed the
resolution to take the President to court for not implementing parts of the ACA
underlining so far their relationship with the President is concerned; to them
he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. The President who had
entered the White House with faith in bipartisanship as his guiding principle
in politics found to his dismay as he started his second term that his
opponents were determined to condemn him to the list of the country’s all time worst
presidents and had little intention of working with his administration. In
fact, there are many who are now convinced that the Republicans are
articulating the views of the country’s large conservative base that have never
felt comfortable with an African American President in the White House with
visions of becoming a great American President.
By
their actions, the Republicans have trashed the vision of the founding fathers
of the US constitution of a government of checks and balances among the 3 branches
of the government to encourage them to cooperate rather than dominate one
another and enhance democracy and democratic ways of governance. The Republicans by their deliberate policy not
to work with the President, have pushed the President to fall upon his power to
issue executive order to run the government by bypassing the Congress because
important issue of national interest related to the economy, taxation,
immigration needed to be resolved.
President
Obama’s presidency has thus turned full circle; from bipartisanship in the
Congress to according to New York Times “ moving assertively and in private to
fashion government policies by executive order on issues ranging from
immigration to tax law”. The White House has made it clear that where the
Congress is willing to work with the President, it would go there but where the
Congress showed unreasonable opposition, it would depend on all means available
to the President including executive order to move the administration’s agenda
along. In fact, lobbyists/pressure groups/stakeholders who were seen in the
Congress not too long ago are now engaged with the White House for furthering
the interests of those they represent. And for the White House, it is not
issuing executive orders at will but through deliberations and consultations
with the stakeholders.
Nevertheless, the president’s opponents have been incensed
by the use of executive orders. There was already a resolution by the House to
take the President to court and Republicans have now threatened to impeach him
over the use of executive orders. Presidents in the past have used executive
order to move their administration along. President Bush issued 291 executive
orders and President Bill Clinton 395 compared to President Obama’s 184 to date.
Past Presidents Franklin D Roosevelt and Harry Truman issued many times more.
Unfortunately, past Presidents issued executive orders not to challenge the
Congress; President Obama has been compelled to issue these orders because the
Congress has decided not to let his administration work.
The President is in no fear of impeachment yet as the
Democrats hold the Senate. But the heat is increasing and present politics in
Washington suggests for the first time that the US Government as designed by
the founding fathers where the Congress would makes the laws and the President
execute them, is falling apart. The fault lies in both but the Congress started
the process of falling apart by refusing to work with the President thus
violating the spirit with which the founding fathers had written the
constitution. The President who desperately wanted to work with Congress in a
spirit of Lincoln inspired bipartisanship challenged the Congress out of need
rather than design. With elections due in the Congress due in November, the
President’s predicament could be worse if the Republicans are able to get the
Senate while holding on to the House. He could then indeed face impeachment
over the use of executive orders.
Meanwhile the President’s predicament has worsened with
James Foley’s beheading that occurred while he was on vacation. He played golf
right after speaking to James Foley’s mother and when it enraged even his
supporters on issue of insensitivity, the President played golf again to prove
a point to ISIS that threats do not work with his administration that convinced
only people still deeply devoted to him. The pressure on President Obama
increased when David Cameron threatened war against ISIS but he appeared
confused and admitted that his administration had no policy on how to deal with
the ISIS crisis. The president’s confusion encouraged the resolve of the
Republicans to make his tenure as difficult as possible. Even some Democrats
have joined the Republicans against the President leading the media to describe
the President Obama’s current predicament with that of a deer suddenly caught before
the headlights.
A tense fight is underway in US politics between the
White House and Congress without any clear winner yet where US’ way of
conducting politics in a democratic way is being dented. There is neither any
winner yet nor signs of compromise. The November Congress elections may provide
the winner or the answer.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com
Impeaching the Judges: A few
facts
M. Serajul Islam
The
cabinet has set the ball rolling for another amendment to the Constitution, the
16th. It approved the draft of the proposed amendment in a cabinet meeting
recently. Under the proposed amendment, the parliament would regain its power
to impeach the judges that was originally given to it by the 1972 Constitution
that it lost subsequently through the amendment to the constitution.
The
cabinet decision has since become a major subject of discussion everywhere because
it has introduced a new controversial issue in the public domain. Talk Shows
and newspaper columnists have gone overboard over it. In the Talk Shows and
newspaper columns, the pro AL participants and columnists have supported the
government’s move as a positive one for a number of reasons. First, they argued
it would strengthen the sovereignty of the parliament that is the spirit of the
1972 Constitution. Second, they further argued that it would be a positive move
towards reinstating the historic 1972 Constitution in its pristine glory.
The
pro-AL Talk Show participants and newspaper columnists are right in a way. In many
countries under the parliamentary system, the power of impeachment of the
judges rests with the parliament. In next-door India, article 126 of its constitution
gives the parliament that power. Nevertheless, the explanations in defence of
the proposed 16th amendment are too simplistic and do not reflect
the context in which these are being argued. They are defending the proposed
amendment by going into denial over nature and composition of the present
parliament, the timing of the proposed amendment and the current state of
politics in the country. If these were brought into the equation, their simple
and seemingly justified explanations would not stand to serious scrutiny. In
particular, scrutiny would show that the parliament lost its power to impeach
the judges by an amendment by the AL government and the opposition had nothing
to do with it.
The
first problem in giving the parliament the power to impeach the judges lies in
Article 70 of the Constitution that defeats the context in which the ruling
part/government has argued the need of the proposed 16th amendment.
Article 70 stipulates that members of parliament would lose their membership if
they vote on any issue against the party’s decision conveyed to them by the Party
Whip. Under this power, the parliament would become the judge, jury and
prosecution while impeaching a judge following the enactment of the proposed 16th
amendment. Even if mechanisms were built in the proposed 16th
amendment to safeguard the interests of the judge facing impeachment; his/her
fate would still be decided by the decision of the ruling party communicated
through the Whip. With Article 70 remaining in the Constitution, the proposed
16th amendment would give politics precedence over justice and force
judges to toe the line of the ruling party, thus destroying the independence of
the judiciary that has also been guaranteed by the constitution.
The
second problem for the proposed 16th amendment arises from the
nature of the present parliament. With the issue of legitimacy hanging over it
like the Sword of Damocles, with 154 of its 300 members without a single vote
to show, arguing that giving the present parliament the right to impeach the
judges would restore the sovereignty of the people makes no sense because this
parliament does not reflect the will or wishes of the people. Further, the
ruling Awami League did not seek any mandate of the people for such a fundamental
change in the constitution to empower the parliament that would destroy the
independence of the higher judiciary. Therefore,
it cannot be argued that restoring the right of parliament in its present state
to impeach judges would be democratic. In fact, no one without political motive
would argue that the present parliament deserves to be given such a power.
The
politics surrounding the proposed 16th amendment makes it most
controversial. Ruling party leaders have said that the power to impeach the
judges was taken away from the 1972 Constitution by President Ziaur Rahman and
given to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to make the judges happy for backing the
changes after August 15, 1975. This is not correct. The power was taken in 1974
through the 4th amendment and given to the President. Ziaur Rahman became President in 1977. In
fact, he could have benefitted from the 4th amendment. Therefore he should
be given credit for doing something that no one else in power has done in the
country’s history. He gave up the President’s power to impeach the judges to
the Supreme Judicial Council.
It
should also not be forgotten, that the 4th amendment ended the
parliamentary system and introduced the presidential one. Therefore the
parliament was no longer sovereign when Ziaur Rahman assumed political power and
the power to impeach the judges by then had already been given to the
President. Therefore, Ziaur Rahman could not have given the parliament the power
to impeach judges that it had under the 1972 constitution because it would not
have made sense to do so to a parliament that was no longer sovereign. President
Ziaur Rahman did the best thing he could have in terms of making the government
he had inherited less dictatorial; he created the SJC and handed to it the
power that he could have exercised himself.
Therefore
the initiative of the government to give the parliament the right to impeach
judges has caused many eyebrows to be raised in the country. There are many who
do not see any necessity at the moment for it to do so. They feel that the
judges have shown their willingness to back the ruling party without showing
any signs to oppose or embarrass it. Former Chief Justice Khairul Huq, the
architect of the controversial 15th amendment and now the Chairman
of the Law Commission came to the media and gave the government’s initiative a
carte blanche. He did not do his good name any credit by doing so but nevertheless
underlined that the present parliament is under no threat from the judiciary in
its dominance over the country’s government and politics.
Therefore
many are curious why would the ruling party initiate a move that raises so many
questions about its intentions, particularly on timing. The answer lies in what Ministers and AL
political leaders have said repeatedly in the media leading to the cabinet
decision o the proposed 16th amendment; that they intend to remain
in power till 2019 and beyond. The judiciary is still the guardian of the
constitution and therefore could be a threat to such a desire of the ruling
party however benign it may seem prima facae. The proposed 16th
amendment would take care of that possibility. Past experiences of governments
with adding to its powers to remain in power indefinitely have boomeranged. In
its 1972-75 term, the AL had enacted the Special Powers Act of 1974 but became
its victim. The BNP had given the police the power for permitting political meetings
in Dhaka and the ruling party has used this power against it very effectively
so far.
The
proposed 16th amendment could provide a future BNP government the
handle to mould the judiciary largely pro-Awami League to its advantage that
would be harmful for democracy. Readers interested on a detailed analysis of
the right to impeach the judges in the context of the 1972 Constitution should
read a very thought provoking article “
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: A Review” that appeared in the Financial
Express’ issue of July 20, 2013 in its Feature and Analysis section. All arguments in favour and against the
proposed 16th amendment apart, it has already created considerable unhealthy
controversy. Given the fact that parliaments worldwide have impeached judges
only in a blue moon (in India, it has happened only twice in over six decades),
one must wonder why the government has decided to initiate the 16th
amendment at a time when it could do very well with every bit of public
confidence in its intentions and its governance when the judges should be the
least of its worries.
The writer is a retired
career Ambassador. His email is
ambserajulislam@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment