Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The provisions relating to the appointment of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Care Taker Government is in Article 58C of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
   Options before the president: There are six options before the President relating to the appointment of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Care Taker Government.
   These options will have to be resorted to by the President exhausting all the procedures laid down in clauses (3), (4) and (5) of Article 58C and if he fails to appoint the Chief Adviser by meticulously observing the procedures of all these three clauses one after the the other, clause (6) will come into operation whereby he ‘shall assume the functions of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Care Taker Government.’
   Did the President exhaust all the options? In view of clause (3) of Article 58C the President ‘shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired chief justices retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser. The qualifications of an Adviser is in clause (7) (a) to clause 7(d) of the same Article. Justice K M Hasan is the last retired Chief Justice. So, constitutionally, the President is bound to appoint him unless the Proviso to this clause is resorted to i.e. if he is unwilling to accept the position or is not available.
   Justice Hasan expressed his unwillingness because of the tough but unjustified and unconstitutional objection by the 14-party alliance led by the main opposition party, the Awami League, on the ground that once upon a time he had been an office-bearer of the party in power then and had been appointed as an ambassador once during the tenure of that party many years, possibly more than twenty years, ago.
   Being a member of a political party in the past, is not, however, covered by clause (7) of Article 58C. To be a member of a political party at the time of his appointment would make a person disqualified to be appointed as Chief Adviser (See sub-clause (b) of clause (7). Past membership has by no means been made a disqualification under clause (7). Despite this, two leaders of two political parties decided to settle the question of Justice Hasan’s fate as to whether he was acceptable or not! The Constitution itself has settled this matter. But, the political parties presumed that this could be settled by the political leaders and that the political parties could settle the question of the acceptability of Justice Hasan. It appeared that by their decisions, they could unsettle a question already settled by the Constitution as if they were ‘super Constitution’!
   By expressing his unwillingness Justice Hasan had upheld the dignity of the office of the Chief Justice and has proved that the Chief Justice is not a Roman slave, far less a slave of some half-educated politicians. I pay my personal tribute to him. Because of his unwillingness the President would have appointed the Chief Justice who had retired just before Justice Hasan as Chief Adviser but he was not available as he had died.
   Constitutionally, the President was, therefore, bound to take recourse to clause (4) which lays down that in case the two Chief Justices mentioned in clause (3) were either unwilling or unavailable, he would appoint the last retired Judge of the Appellate Division, Justice M A Aziz. The President must be presumed to have asked him and he must have expressed his unwillingness, The Proviso to this clause would now come into operation and the Judge who had retired just before Justice Aziz would be appointed as Chief Adviser but this judge, M. Hamidul Huq, had also expressed his unwillingness by saying that if all the parties agreed to accept him, then and then alone, he would accept the office of the Chief Adviser. At this juncture, B N P expressed its reservation about Justice Hamidul Huq and as such, he must be deemed to have been unwilling as expressed by his statement that he would not accept the position if he was not acceptable to all parties.
   So, the President had to fall back on clause (5) according to which he would appoint a person who had acceptability to the major parties. He, accordingly, called the meeting of those parties which had representation in Parliament but they failed to reach a consensus.
   He had, therefore, no alternative other than to apply the last option laid down in clause (6) of Article 58C and assumed ‘the functions of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Care Taker Government.
   Some eminent lawyers (but politically interested) tried to interpret that the President must have appointed the Chief Justice who had retired just before the second last retired Chief Justice who is dead. I have not been able to comprehend their stand. They wanted to interpret the expression, ‘is not available’ occurring in the Proviso to clause (3) of Article 58C as ‘not available’ among the ‘living chief justices’ forgetting that the expression, ‘not available’ has been used in its generic sense and has not been limited in the Constitution by the expression ‘among the living chief justices.’
   In conclusion, it must, therefore, be said that application of Clause (6) by the President has been absolutely according to the Constitution.

The most important challenge Pranab Mukherjee, India’s new external affairs minister, will face is to manage contradictions. These relate to the accentuated imbalances in the world and New Delhi’s place in changing power equations. The somewhat comforting Cold War divisions ended years ago, but New Delhi’s efforts to build a special relationship with the sole surviving superpower have disturbed the essentially consensual nature of Indian foreign policy.
   Let’s face it: the Manmohan Singh coalition government is functioning under many constraints, among them the dearth of talent in the foreign policy field at the political level. The fact that Mukherjee had to be plucked out of the defence ministry and still has a large footprint in managing domestic affairs speaks for itself. And it needed the Prime Minister nearly a year to fill Natwar Singh’s slot, with the former external affairs minister still sniping at the heels.
   No Prime Minister, however brilliant, can manage foreign affairs in today’s complex world unaided, particularly at a time India is seeking to find a place in the sun and the constellations are favourable for a revisionist power. Thus far, the United Progressive Alliance government’s foreign policy has been highlighted by the July 18, 2005 Washington agreement between US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, which has become mired in the controversial nuclear deal waiting for US Congressional approval.
   There are no two opinions on the merit of cultivating good relations with the United States, despite the stark contradictions of President Bush’s enthusiasm for close India relations for his country’s interests and his selfish unilateral, hegemonic view of the world. Deep divisions in India have arisen over the price demanded of it in the nuclear deal and an overriding concern over New Delhi’s ability to maintain an independent foreign policy.
   Some missteps by the Indian government are part of recent history. The Prime Minister must take the responsibility for fielding an Indian candidate for the UN Secretary-General’s post without doing his homework and hence weakening the country’s bid for the bigger prize of a permanent seat in the Security Council. Similarly, the fine-tuning in promoting the country’s larger interests in the troubled immediate neighbourhood has been missing outside the special treatment relations with Pakistan require.
   Only a dynamic foreign minister on top of his job and possessing sufficient clout in the government can function effectively in a fast-changing world. Mr Mukherjee can measure up to his job if he devotes full attention to it, but the prevailing widespread belief that he wants zealously to guard his home turf and raking can do him and the country no good. There is no place for a part-time foreign minister in today’s world. To be effective, the foreign minister of a rising power such as India must become a modern travelling salesman. The bane of the former US secretary of state, Colin Powell, was that he was so mindful of guarding his home turf that he curtailed personal diplomacy at his country’s expense. His successor, Condoleezza Rice, is fast catching up with his travel miles in the short time she has been in the post.
   India’s priorities in foreign relations are well known. They are in managing relations with immediate neighbours, building a special relationship with the US without being sucked into following its strategic view of the world, improve relations with Russia, China and Japan and give greater priority to the European Union for its potential power, if not its present status. Latin America is destined to play a greater economic and political role in the world and should be cultivated.
   The problem is in following this multi-faceted approach while retaining domestic consensus. There is no reason why India should remain in the old groove of nonalignment, which itself is in the process of being redefined. Perhaps the US Houses of Congress will relieve India of the burden of the nuclear deal by refusing to endorse it. But the scope of building a close and mutually profitable relationship is immense and should be promoted. New Delhi will need to define the areas in which it disagrees with Washington without apology; friends can disagree without being disagreeable.
   Perhaps what has been missing in Indian foreign policy has been the spark of vision, an overarching view of where the country is going and where it seeks to take the world. Jawaharlal Nehrus are not born in every generation, but dedication, hard work and vision can take India forward. The last thing India needs is a part-time foreign minister.
   India needs to do a lot of homework in the broader field of foreign policy. There is growing recognition of the roles economic and trade relations and energy play in a world that has dramatically contracted in the Internet Age. Implementing these ideas is still very much a work in progress. Americans are great devotees of playing war games, sometimes to the point of absurdity. By the same token, New Delhi must surmount its inhibitions in envisaging different scenarios to test its own possible responses. The US “war on terror” has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in Iraq and is a catchall phrase to promote its foreign policy interests. India must stick to its own definition of terrorism even while accepting foreign help in countering it.
   Diplomacy, they say, is the art of the possible but a good diplomat and foreign minister can stretch his country’s foreign policy options a considerable distance. If war is diplomacy by other means, it is far preferable to avoid the violent option through diplomacy. Apart from finding the right wavelength in promoting close relations with the US, India is still seeking to manage relations with Pakistan. The domestic storm raised by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Havana meeting with President Pervez Musharraf agreeing on a joint mechanism to tackle terrorist attacks in India is a pointer to the difficulties in evolving a new relationship.
   The Prime Minister’s effort to insulate the dialogue from individual acts of terrorism, often sponsored by establishment elements in Pakistan, touched a raw nerve in India. The history of the partition of the subcontinent accompanied by much bloodshed cannot be erased, but a capable and devoted foreign minister can explain policies in the national interest that grate on the collective memory.

MEXICO CITY, Oct 22: Only six short months ago, the town of Texcoco, in Mexico State, was made infamous throughout Mexico and the world as the place where one of the worst police massacres in recent Mexican history began. Today the town of Texcoco is making history yet again, but this time as the site of an historic encounter of representatives from three of the Mexican left’s most significant political movements: The Other Campaign of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), the Peoples’ Front in Defence of the Land (FPDT) from San Salvador Atenco, and the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO), comprised of teachers and social movements from Oaxaca. On October 20, the three organisations pledged mutual support to fight for the liberation of political prisoners and to create a united front against municipal, state and federal authorities.
   With less than a month and a half to go before the controversial inauguration of rightwing President-Elect Felipe Calderon, today’s encounter in Texcoco underscores the strength and willingness of the Mexican left to forge alliances and to defy the political establishment in the battle for Mexico’s social and political destiny in years to come.
   On May 3, a holy day in Mexico, flower vendors selling their goods attempted to set up shop outside of Texcoco’s municipal market. After police tried to prevent them from setting up shop, they were joined by the People’s Front in Defence of the Land (FPDT) from nearby San Salvador Atenco. Farmers from Atenco gained international recognition in 2002 when they successfully stopped construction of an international airport that would have been built over more than half of the town’s land. Since that time they have provided tactical and moral support to dozens of social movements throughout the country.
   Local, state, and federal police were dispatched to arrest the flower vendors and their companeros from the FPDT. Not content with the arrest of the FPDT’s leaders, the following day authorities sent thousands of police to the town of Atenco itself to systematically raid houses, beating and arresting hundreds of people as they went. By the end of May 4th, two young men were fatally shot by police, 209 people were arrested, and 47 women detainees were raped or sexually assaulted by their captors. The Atenco massacre has been widely seen by observers as an attempt by government forces to settle scores with the Atenco rebels, whose successful defiance of the airport project humiliated President Vicente Fox in the world arena. It is also likely that the Atenco attack was meant to discourage communities from supporting the EZLN’s Other Campaign (the FPDT from Atenco are ardent supporters of the Other Campaign and served as Subcomandate Marcos’ bodyguards during a May 1 march in Mexico City) and also to bolster the ‘fear vote’ against centre-left candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in favour of the rightwing Felipe Calderon. In September, Felipe Calderon was named victor of the July 2 presidential elections, despite widespread evidence of fraud and a refusal by electoral authorities to recount ballots.
   But despite these developments, today’s events in Texcoco clearly demonstrate that the Mexican left, far from defeated, is today better poised than ever to organise, collaborate, and forge effective alliances. At approximately 2 p.m. on October 22 at the entrance to the University of Chapingo, farmers from Atenco and other members of the FPDT greeted a contingent from the APPO’s Mexico City encampment. After 145 days, the APPO continues its civil occupation of the city centre of Oaxaca to demand the resignation of corrupt governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz. The Ruiz administration has become notorious for widespread human rights abuses throughout the state. And in what appeared to many to be an attempt by Oaxacan authorities to replicate the Atenco attacks, Oaxacan state police attempted to dislodge the teachers’ strike from the centre of the state’s capital city on June 14.
   However, striking teachers repelled police and in the days following indigenous communities and social movements joined with the teachers to form the APPO. The APPO has taken control of the centre of Oaxaca’s capital city and is now maintaining a permanent encampment outside of the Senate building in Mexico City where 21 people are in the midst of a hunger strike. Like the FPDT, many members of the APPO remain imprisoned. At least nine APPO members have been murdered in recent months. Today in Texcoco, members of the two organisations appeared at a public demonstration for the first time.
   Soon after the historic encounter, the two contingents along with nearly a thousand supporters began a march from the entrance of the University of Chapingo to the centre of the town of Texcoco. Armed with their trademark machetes, the FPDT chanted slogans demanding not only the release of their own political prisoners, but also the release of the APPO’s jailed companeros, and demanding that the disgraced Oaxaca Governor resign. Members of the APPO reciprocated, chanting ‘Atenco, amigo! Oaxaca esta¡ contigo!’ (Atenco, friend! Oaxaca is with you!) The march came to a halt in front of the Texcoco town hall, where demonstrators blocked the street for 30 minutes and reminded Mayor Nazario Gutierrez Martinez that the fight for the release of Atenco’s political prisoners is far from over.
   Members of the APPO spray-painted ‘Oaxaca and Atenco: united against bad government’ on the sidewalk in front of the mayor’s office. Members from the APPO then addressed the crowd to deliver an official message to the people of Atenco and Texcoco:
   ‘Today, the APPO declares its solidarity with our brothers from Atenco and together we denounce the criminal policies of Vicente Fox.’ said the official message. ‘The APPO will continue onward and here we want to tell all the murderers in the government that you will have to build thousands and thousands of jails to house all of the people of Oaxaca, because you aren’t going to be able to shut us up. You are not going to be able to stop this movement because we are filled with new life thanks to the people of Atenco.’
   As the march prepared to continue towards Texcoco’s town square, they were joined by indigenous EZLN comandantes Grabiela, Zebedeo, and Miriam. The three rebel commanders from Chiapas arrived in central Mexico earlier this month and have vowed to stay in Mexico City until all of the political prisoners from Atenco are released. Following in the footsteps of Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos –– who is now known as Delegate Zero as he tours through Mexico to organise the Other Campaign –– Grabiela, Zebedeo, and Miriam now go by the names Delegate One, Two and Three, respectively. They will soon be followed by other Zapatista comandantes-turned-delegates who will be dispatched throughout the nation.
   Upon arrival in the Texcoco town square, the Zapatista delegates addressed their companeros from Atenco, the APPO and to the rest of the crowd.
   Grabiela, Delegate One, began, ‘We are going to struggle together with you all. Together we will support each other and exchange our ways of organizing and our direction, so that we can all struggle together here. The same things happened in our towns as with you. They arrested our companeros and mistreated them. But look, I am here with you and we are going to struggle together with you all.’
   Miriam, the comandanta now known as Delegate Three, then made reference to Javier Cortes and Alexis Benhumea. Javier Cortes was shot on May 3 as police attempted to enter the town of Atenco. Although state officials initially claimed that he was killed by a firecracker shot by members of the FPDT, it was later proven that the bullet which pierced Javier’s body was consistent with the type of bullet used by police on the scene. Alexis Benhumea, an adherent to the Zapatista Other Campaign, was in Atenco on May 3 to show solidarity with the town of Atenco. He was mortally wounded when police shot him in the head with a tear gas canister. Had police allowed free entrance and exit to and from the town of Atenco on May 3 and 4, he would have been brought to a hospital where is life may have been saved. Instead he languished for hours in a house in Atenco until he was smuggled out to a hospital the next day. He died after spending nearly a month in a hospital bed.
   ‘We ask for justice for our murdered companeros,’ declared Delegate Three, ‘Alexis and Javier may be dead, but they aren’t dead to us because their blood will always remain a part of our history. We also demand the release of our companeros and companeras prisoners from San Salvador Atenco. And also the release of all the political prisoners in our country.’
   Following the demonstration, members of the FPDT showed a video to the crowd –– shot on May 2, one day before the Atenco massacre –– of negotiations between the Texcoco flower vendors, farmers from Atenco, and Texcoco authorities. In the video, town government representatives clearly state that until a settlement is reached, police force will not be used to evict the flower vendors. According to FPDT members, the video helps prove that the May 3 eviction was part of a deliberate plot to provoke and ambush the FPDT and the town of Atenco.
   Meanwhile, the transition team of President-Elect Felipe Calderon is pressuring the Fox administration to squash these social movements before Calderon takes office. Nothing would indicate that there is any real or remote possibility of this happening. All signs indicate, in fact, that these movements are getting stronger and increasingly relying on mutual support and unified action.
   ZNet, October 27, 2006.

No more destructive politics, please!

Politics was always beyond my comprehension. In the last couple of years what really got into me was that politics is really all about arguments and accusations. But in our country, politics now seems to mean bloodshed and uproar. The current situation is the proof. The main political leaders refuse to adjust or listen to each others’ demands and the consequences that follow are dire — hartals, blockades and people all over the roads ready to even kill for power. Is that
   what we expect from politics? Certainly not.
   All the leaders should sit together and to sort out their differences. They should realise that people of Bangladesh do not want to be called ‘corrupted’ or a ‘disrupted nation’. We want clean politics.
   Ayesha Mahmood
   On e-mail

It is now very clear from the statement made by Justice KM Hasan on October 28 evening to the press that despite his all intentions to take up the position of the chief adviser of the caretaker government, he had to decide otherwise not to take the position due mainly to the anarchy let loose by the AL combine that killed about 30 people and injured thousands.
   The matter proved beyond any shadow of doubt that our sacred constitutional provision relevant to the issue was defeated by the notorious ‘mobocracy’ of the Awami League. Should we keep on praying only or be proactive for liberating the nation from the unbearably suffocating condition called ‘siege’?
   MT Hussain
   Ibrahimpur, Dhaka

This is a unique system. A system that proves that democracy and transparency does not work in Bangladesh. This is also a dangerous system which will return every five years putting the nation on the brink. The unfortunate truth is that the politicians are still not mature enough to create a condition of trust which is vital for democracy. The events of the last few days have amply proved how fragile this nation is. But this does not affect the nation’s power-hungry politicians. They are yet to learn a few realities of running a nation. The interest of the nation is secondary to them. They are not aware of the fact that letting loose frenzied mob in the street does not strengthen democracy. It only paves the path for undemocratic forces. It shakes the confidence of the people in the political process. It creates distrust, lawlessness and anarchy.
   Akbar Hussain
   Toronto, Canada

The formation of the Liberal Democratic Party is a positive and encouraging development in Bangladesh politics. But jumping out of a sinking boat is a familiar trend in the politics of the Third World countries. We will watch cautiously the agenda, constitution and behaviour of the new party. Not so long ago, some Jamaat politicians took shelter in the now-defunct Bikalpa Dhara. Badruddoza Chowdhury tainted Bikalpa Dhara by accepting Jamatis and lost some credibility that way. I hope LDP will not make similar mistakes and come out with a clear and positive agenda and guidelines.
   MH Khan
   On e-mail

Next on Quick Comments

a. President keeps his fingers on power buttons: Portfolios distributed among advisers (New Age, Front Page, November 2) b. Yunus gives A+ to chief adviser (Daily Star, Front Page, November 2) c. GMG flight lands with help of lamplight ((New Age, Back Page, November 2) d. Pakistan fast bowlers Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif have been banned from all international and domestic cricket for failing a drugs test. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/6061394.stm)