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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The official policy on enrolment to higher secondary courses is being undermined by students of major political parties acting in tandem. The ruling BNP’s student wing Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, Islami Chhatra Shibir of Jamat-e-Islami and Bangladesh Chhatra League of the mainline opposition Awami League have forced a ‘quota system’ on college authorities, according to a report in yesterday’s New Age. To force this quota students of the three parties have resorted to violent and semi-violent means. Our report says the three student parties are taking money from admission seekers in amounts ranging from Taka 5,000 to 20,000. Needless to say, academic performance of the candidates has no relevance in this new scheme. Even a student who made the top grade in SSC had to buy his admission on payment of Taka 20,000. If credulity has not yet been stretched to the limit then there is more to the story. The Dhaka College JCD unit leaders have submitted to the principal a ‘list’ for admission and the principal has assured them that things will go smoothly! For obvious reasons JCD and Shibir leaders dominate the scene but it seems that in a limited way the BCL has also created its own space in the admission scenario. The fact that this year tough competition in college admission had been predicted and admission test is abolished has strengthened the brokers.
   In a moment of cynicism it is possible to say that after all the student leaders are not fighting among themselves or blasting bombs but have found a peaceful and coordinated way of helping candidates who have money but nowhere to go. But what will happen to the challenge of fostering academic talent in these competitive times? What will happen to administration? What will happen to academic discipline, or whatever is left of it?
   What looks strange is that college authorities are sheepishly obeying the dictates. If a principal accepts a list of admission from a student party and acts on it then he has institutionalised a malpractice. And demeaned himself and his profession and his institution. And if teachers cannot resist interference by student leaders then how can they resist interference by political leaders? So much for their autonomy. When they demand autonomy of educational institutions and end to government interference, we support them. But they will have to learn to protect their autonomy. If they do not resist even at this stage in future student leaders will want examination copies to be marked according to their desire. The slavish ministration to the wishes of the strong and powerful will land our education, and everything with it, to the brink of a precipice from which there will be no retreat.

Mahmud’s remark on CPD:
intolerance to criticism

Mahmudur Rahman, the executive chairman of the Board of Investment, and also an adviser for energy and mineral resources, on Sunday, at a programme of the Economic Reporters’ Forum, criticised a research organisation and its executive director regarding several reports that the organisation had prepared.
   But his allegations, entailing serious implications for the government, were completely devoid of any accepted norms of courtesy and professionalism that is expected, especially from such high level government office-bearers as Mahmud.
   He alleged that the Centre for Policy Dialogue had political agenda and was therefore demeaning the government with partial reports and surveys. He also questioned the centre’s executive director, Debapriya Bhattacharya’s calibre as an economist. Mahmud had suggested that the government review the current agenda of the centre to ascertain whether it indeed abided by its charter. In his spiteful fit Mahmud had said they were ‘shameless liars’.
   The Centre for Policy Dialogue, an organisation of international repute, organised a press conference on Tuesday to reply to Mahmud’s remarks. The executive director of the centre, Debapriya Bhattacharya, a noted economist, pointed out that the centre’s research was based on information in government documents and there was not much scope to ‘hide’ certain facts. Instead Debapriya stated that it was the investment board that cooked up investment figures to inflate them.
   The Centre for Policy Dialogue collaborates with a number of mainstream international organisations including the World Economic Forum, the World Trade Organisation and other lending agencies. There is significant opposition and resistance to the agenda of these organisations both within the country and beyond. But criticism, if it is necessary, to that end must be in a civil form and much more academic; certainly not vitriolic.
   The Centre for Policy Dialogue is the leading thniktank in the country. Mahmud’s uncivilised attack on it smacks of government’s intolerance to criticisms.
   Considering that Mahmud is an adviser to the government, that too for energy, his remarks have serious implications and should raise grave concerns of national security if the research organisation is indeed espousing an agenda that compromises national interests.
   The government must take a clear position on whether Mahmud’s remarks were made in an official capacity, and if so address the matter urgently to leave no equivocations, especially since CPD is also involved with a number of government initiatives. The government needs to clarify its position as far as Mahmud’s allegations are concerned.

A private TV channel is doing good service as far as awareness building on fundamental rights is concerned. It is regularly arranging a discussion session on article 39 of the constitution that relates to some fundamental rights. Cynics may be right when they say that judged by the number of people having access to TV, the exercise, though well intentioned, has limited impact. They may further argue that TV is accessed largely by urban dwellers. This class of people is also well aware of the gap between fact and fiction of law or the constitutional safeguards as they relate to fundamental rights.
   
   Fact and fiction
   Many examples of the gap between constitutional safeguards and the fiction of little or no enforcement can be given. These examples appear almost daily in the media. At their best, the streams of news so published create a ripple that vanishes the next moment. The Inspector General of Police (IGP) confirmed the fiction in one of his recent meetings with the police officers. As an Additional Inspector General, he once carried out a survey of the working of the police at police stations in relation to persons seeking justice. It was found that in at least 22 of the metropolitan police stations, the aggrieved citizens had to pay bribes to the relevant officers to record a general diary (GD) or a first information report (FIR). Such actions on the part of relevant police officials makes a mockery of the fact that every one is entitled to the equal protection of law as enshrined in the constitution.
   
   Custodial deaths
   The rather large number of custodial deaths is another example. Worse still, the cases of ‘crossfire’, which is now called death in ‘encounter’. Very recently, the state minister for home affairs directed the deputy commissioners (DCs) and superintendents of Police (SPs) to send reports of death by crossfire. The media reported that 400 persons were killed by crossfire across the country. The direction was to submit probe reports on such deaths. If memory serves one right, the decision thus given was not necessary. About a year back, the issue of death by crossfire was part of the agenda in the monitoring meetings chaired by the state minister for home affairs. It transpired in one such meeting that in a large number of cases, such probe reports were completed. Evidently, the monitoring mechanism has failed or has otherwise become dysfunctional consistent with the dysfunctional nature of the key organs of the state. This exemplifies the fact that not everyone is entitled to the due process and protection of law.
   
   Fatwa cases
   A local Bengali daily of December 2, 2000 reported the case of one Shahida of Naogaon district. Shahida was a victim of fatwa. A division bench of High Court took suo moto cognizance of the case. The judgment declared that all fatwas are unauthorised, illegal and punishable under the penal code. How many half-educated clerics who pass fatwas have been punished under the law of the land? The most recent case as published in a Bengali daily confirms the fact that although cases are filed with police, no action is taken. It cited the fact that in course of a year 20 police cases were filed by victims of fatwa in the police station of Tanore of Rajshahi district. The police is reported to have taken no action to ensure equal protection of law to the victims of fatwa.
   
   The impending shadow
   The most recent move by the government tends to point to the impending shadow on freedom of information. Although the right of freedom to information is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, the spirit and content of various fundamental rights do provide such a right to the citizens. Besides, the civil society and the donors have long been demanding appropriate legislation guaranteeing the right to information. It is considered essential for good governance. Already, most our South Asian countries, such as India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan have enacted such a law. Bangladesh still remains a laggard in this respect.
   The impending shadow on fundamental rights is the reported bill underway to curb the freedom of the electronic media. The bill is said to be in the relevant parliamentary committee. It is expected to be voted into a law next month.
   
   The political rationale of the bill
   As reported in the press, the political rationale of the bill is to force the cable operators to telecast the privately-owned TV channels most of which are owned by influential members of the ruling party. The government explanation is reportedly that the proposed law is applicable to both Bangladeshi and foreign TV channels. The proposed law confers the right to the government to close private channels on specific grounds. These include any programme which is contrary or prejudicial to the independence, sovereignty of the country or to the ideals of freedom struggle, the history, heritage, education culture, social and religious values including national unity and national image. Further, the government retains the right to close a channel if the channel fails to maintain objectivity based on material facts.
   
   Reactions from experts
   Some legal experts reacted to the proposed law, which, in their view is unconstitutional. Other experts held the view that when election manifestoes of political party affirm free flow of information and freedom of media, the proposed law appears to contradict what has been promised. The media experts see it as a threat to their freedom. They complained of complete absence of consultations with involved stakeholders before preparing the bill.
   
   There is more to it than meets the eye
   It seems unlikely, as was mentioned earlier, that the political intention of the proposed law is to benefit the private TV channel owners most of whom are from the major party in the four-party alliance. The key issue is why at the fag end of their tenure in office, such a law is felt necessary that too without any public consultation. Normally a bill is first approved by the cabinet before it is sent for parliamentary approval. The history of law-making in recent times confirms the impression that it is the cabinet which has the final say. Substantive changes are hardly made in course of parliamentary scrutiny. There are good reasons to believe that this bill will also go through the same process of routine approval by the parliament.
   
   What impact on elections
   The processing of the bill, its contents and timing should be seen in the context of the elections in early 2007. It is too early to say what impact will the bill have on election monitoring/news once it gets the final shape of law. Islamist militancy and the alleged collusion of some influential members of the ruling coalition government is likely to be a hot issue of election debate. There will also be many other issues such as corruption in high places, election engineering and all the rest of it.
   The proposed law accords overriding authority to the government which alone will have the unfettered right to interpret whether a new/programme is objective or not or whether a particular programme is prejudicial to the sovereignty of the country and other related matters. Article 39 of the constitution guarantees (i) freedom of thought and conscience, (ii) of speech and expression and (iii) freedom of the press.
   The above rights are, however, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. In all or most such cases, there are existing laws that provide reasonable restrictions. Why then the new law?