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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

That the Dhaka University campus is not a safe place for teachers to live in, particularly those holding unconventional opinions, has again been proved by the murder of Professor Aftab Ahmed. He was shot in his campus residence on Fuller Road — to be more precise, in his bedroom. He succumbed to bullet wounds at the Combined Military Hospital in Dhaka on Tuesday, three days after he was shot. He was unconventional in more ways than one.
   Reports have it that the police are yet to identify the murderers, let alone nab them.
   The heinous attack on Aftab Ahmed, his subsequent death in hospital and the police’s failure to find the murders make it imperative, once again, to recall the government’s failure to bring criminals responsible for attacks on some other university teachers to justice.
   Professor Humayun Azad of the Bangla department of Dhaka University, who was known for his unconventional opinions, came under serious attack on the campus. He, however, survived the injuries that time – thanks to better treatment abroad. The government has not yet been able to punish the culprits, even after some members of an Islamist group made judicial confessions about their active involvement in the attack.
   The same is the case with the murder of Nuban Ahmed 11 years ago. Nuban, a young lecturer of the economics department of Dhaka University, was severely injured in an attack in the premises of Sangsad Bhaban in December 1995. Later, he also succumbed to his injuries. But the murderers of Nuban are yet to be brought to book. Even before that, Humayun Kabir, a teacher of the Bangla department of the Dhaka University, was murdered on the university campus in 1972. The killers of Humayun also went unpunished.
   Going by the pattern, one can hardly expect that the police will find out and nab the killers of Aftab Ahmed. But the students, the teachers, the civil society groups realise that it is time for them to compel the government to apprehend the criminals who are killing teachers one after another.
   The former president of the Dhaka University Teachers’ Association, AAMS Arefin Siddique, has rightly pointed out that the murder of Aftab took place as none of the previous killings was properly investigated and the murderers punished. Now, if murderers of Aftab are not nabbed and punished, no one can rule out the murder of another teacher, and then another, in the days to come.
   The murders of teachers, in other words the members of our society’s intelligentsia, are not just the perennial case of law and order failures on the part of the government. It is something more than that, which amounts to the attempts to break the backbone of an independent nation. High time to confront the phenomenon!

Power shortage and Ramadan

The whole country has been reeling from a chronic power crisis for months now. Despite promises, that have later only turned out to be empty, and a change of the state minister, the situation has not improved.
   The only change in the entire scenario has been that the government has shifted its position from outright denial to implicit acknowledgement and overt expression of concern as electricity generation dwindled over time and people’s tolerance waned and gave way to open hostility.
   There have been a number of incidents where citizens lay siege to the offices of power agencies in their localities and went on a rampage. According to reports, devotees vandalised power agency offices at Fatullah, Narayanganj and Daudkandi, Comilla on Tuesday. That too only a day after the state minister for power, Anwarul Kabir Talukder, told the parliament that power crisis would be over in another six years!
   In light of the government’s actions to increase power generation in the last five years—during which period the ministry has been headed by the prime minister herself—it becomes evident that there remains an absence of genuine commitment. There is no reason to believe that at the very end of its tenure the government will now undertake measures to increase power generation.
   Whatever the measures, they have evidently had no effect on the state of power generation that continues to worsen. Moreover, the arrival of Ramadan, coupled with the heat, has led to an increased demand for electricity. This has naturally resulted in more frequent and longer load shedding. While the current demand is around 4,500 megawatts, power generation hovers at around 3,000 megawatts. Even the capital, generally spared from bearing the brunt, is deprived of its required power supply.
   We acknowledge that the power crisis cannot be solved overnight. It requires long-term planning and much capital investment that has been absent during the present government’s tenure. This is not acceptable.
   We expect that the government acknowledges the grave situation and takes a pragmatic approach to handle the situation making power management and distribution more equitable and efficient. There should also be a public announcement detailing schedules of load shedding in order for the people to prepare themselves beforehand.
   The government has rightly made a general request to refrain from excessive lighting during the Ramadan, which has become a rather wasteful practice. We expect the government to enforce a strict restriction on wasteful consumption of electricity that will help better distribution. The general consumers should also exercise discipline and abstain from wasteful consumption.

Family courts, which have been established in the country more than twenty years ago, need not be made familiar once again. If you are not a lawyer you may not have to learn the procedure of trial in the courts. It may even not be necessary for everyone to know the jurisdiction of the courts. But you must know your rights to be exercised through family courts. Hence, this write-up aims to make you informed about your dealings with a family court.
   By the Family Courts Ordinance 1985 the Family Courts get hold of exclusive jurisdiction for expeditious settlement and disposal of disputes only in suits relating to dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights, dower, maintenance, guardianship and custody of children. The courts began working all over the country except in the hill districts of Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachhari. Soon after the court began functioning, questions were raised about whether the Family Courts would deal only with the family matters of Muslim community or of all communities. The uncertainty lasted for a long time until in 1998 a special High Court bench of the Supreme Court in a path-finding judgment removed all the questions regarding family court’s jurisdiction. Every lawyer and judge dealing with Family Courts are supposed to be aware of the judgment. But the common people for whose benefit the courts have been constituted seem still uninformed about the great decision relieving the justice-seekers in the Family Courts of a harming uncertainty.
   Section 5 of the Family Court Ordinance, 1985 speaks about the jurisdiction of the Family Courts which reads as: Subject to the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 (VII of 1961), a Family Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of any suit relating to, or arising out of, all or any of the following matters, namely:-
   (a) dissolution of marriage
   (b) restitution of conjugal rights
   (c) dower
   (d) maintenance
   (e) guardianship and custody of children
   Just after coming into force, the family court faced a confusion, as mentioned above, about its jurisdiction that whether a Family Court is a court for Muslim Community only. In Krishnapada Talukder Vs Geetasree Talukder [14 (1994) BLD 415] the question was whether a woman, Hindu by faith, could file a suit in a Family Court for maintenance against her husband. The judge of the High Court Division held that ‘As per the provisions of the present Ordinance, all the sections of the 27 section statute have been made available for the litigants who are Muslim by faith only.’
   The said judgment came on 5th June 1994, and just a few days later on 25th July 1994 in Nirmal Kanti Das Vs Sreemati Biva Rani [14 (1994) BLD (HCD) 413], the High Court Division expressed a diametrically opposite view. The judge of the High Court Division referring section 3 of the Ordinance held that the provisions of Family Courts Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in ‘any other laws’ for the time being in force. From the expression ‘other laws’, it appears that the Family Court Ordinance controls the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and not vice versa. Thus, any person professing any faith has a right to bring a suit for settlement and disposal of disputes relating to dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights, dower, maintenance, guardianship and custody of children. And so, a Hindu wife is entitled to bring a suit for maintenance against her husband in a Family Court.
   In Meher Nigar Vs Md Mujibur Rahman [14 (1994) BLD (HCD) 467] the High Court Division corroborated the above-mentioned view by holding that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 introduced some changes in the orthodox Muslim personal laws relating to polygamy, ‘talaq’ and inheritance and in order to keep those reformative provisions of the Ordinance of 1961 effective it has been provided that the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961 shall not be affected by the provisions of the Family Courts Ordinance of 1985; and section 23 of the Family Courts has specified the area not to be affected. It otherwise indicates that the provisions of the Family Courts Ordinance are applicable to other communities which constitute the populace of Bangladesh.
   Following such dissimilar views and decisions, the confusion regarding jurisdiction of the Family Court was natural. And such confusion continued until 1997 when a larger bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court in its path-finding judgment in Pochon Rikssi Das Vs Khuku Rani Dasi and others [50 (1998) DLR (AD) 47] removed all the confusions. The special bench of the High Court Division comprised of three judges upheld that ‘the Family Court Ordinance has not taken away any personal right of any litigant of any faith. It has just provided the forum for the enforcement of some of the rights as is evident from section 4 of the Ordinance, which provides that there shall be as many Family Courts as there are Courts of Assistant Judge and the latter courts shall be the Family Courts for the purpose of this Ordinance.
   Moreover, the court also declared that ‘Family Courts Ordinance applies to all citizens irrespective of religion’.
   It seems quite pertinent to refer some of the submissions which the Court relied on. It was submitted that:
   If Family Court Ordinance is intended to apply only to the Muslim community then there was no reason for not providing it accordingly as has been done in case of Muslim Filmily Laws Ordinance, 1961. The Family Courts Ordinance should have been named as Muslim Family Courts Ordinance. .......in the Family Courts Ordinance there was no exclusive exclusion of any community and unless there is specific exclusion the law will have general application, that is, it will apply to the citizens of all faiths. ..... if sections 3, 5, and 24 of the Family Courts Ordinance are read together it will be evident that guardianship and custody of children were made exclusively triable in the Family Courts and unless the law is applicable to all how a non-Muslim can get a relief in the said matters. ...... 5 matters enumerated in section 5 of the Family Courts Ordinance are matters of personal laws of the citizens of different faiths who follow different rules in matters enumerated in the section or do not have any rule at all as in the case of Dower and Dissolution of Marriage in case of Hindus. All citizens may not be concerned in all matters but that cannot be a ground to hold that the Ordinance applies only to the Muslims. ......Family Courts Ordinance has not encroached upon the personal laws of the citizen of any faith. This Ordinance provided that Family Courts will have jurisdiction to entertain and decide suits on the matters enumerated in section 5 subject to the provisions of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance meaning thereby that while disposing of a matter amongst the Muslim the provisions of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance shall have to be kept in mind. .....had there been no exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts there may be complications in cases filed by husband and wife professing different faiths. ....not all the personal laws of the Muslim have been included in section 5. Some provisions of Muslim personal laws such as Waqf, Gift, parentage etc. have been kept out of the provisions of the Family Courts Ordinance. So it cannot be said that this is only for the Muslim.
   Accordingly, there should not remain any confusion regarding the jurisdictions of the Family Courts. Henceforth, it seems needless to mention that a Family Court can try suits under The Hindu Married Women’s Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act 1946, the law that has given a right to the Hindu wives to live in separate houses and to get the maintenance, but has not provided any forum to go to enforce the rights.
   Another matter that needs to be clarified is that the Family Courts Ordinance does not extend to the hill districts of Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachhari. The fact is that initially the hill districts used to be governed by Hill Districts Regulation of 1900 and it was repealed in 1983 but as no new law has been introduced for administering the area, as per provisions of General Clauses Act, the repealed law is still in force and the Hill Districts Regulation is still continuing, resulting in exclusion of Family Courts there. This does not mean that tribal people cannot take recourse to a Family Court. The suits among aboriginal or adivasi or tribal people can be tried by a Family Court if they reside within the local limits, that is, territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court.
   The writer is a law and governance researcher, currently working for Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust. He can be reached at: mandizpodetho@yahoo.com.

Major obstacles still remain, but there appears to be a silver lining for peace in war-shattered Middle East in the aftermath of the immoral war in Lebanon. The war in Lebanon is an eye-opener that war does not bring any solution to the conflict and on the other hand, it brings further distrust, suspicion and hatred against each other.
   A flurry of recent diplomatic activities in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, and Israel may have broken the deadlock in Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking. Possibly European countries and some Arab countries have finally realised that Palestinian-Israel conflict is the root cause of tension and instability in the Middle East. Without the resolution of this decades-long conflict, no peace and stability is possible in the region. The spur for the European and Russian diplomacy was possibly the Lebanon war. The Europeans now seem to hold the view that an Palestinian and Israeli accommodation will boost the moderates and take much of the sting out of the radical complaints against the West.
   Cautious optimism has been expressed by Palestinian and Israeli leaders as well about chances for renewing the peace process following the visits of British prime minister Tony Blair, foreign ministers of Italy, Germany, Spain and Russia and UN secretary-general Kofi Annan to Lebanon, Palestinian territories and Israel in recent days.
   The possible formation of a unity government of Hamas and Fatah groups in Palestinian territories could improve the prospect of official contact between the Palestinian Authority and Israeli government. There has virtually been no contact between the two rival parties since Hamas came to power last January. Hama’s belligerent attitude towards Israel has led to curbing aids to the Palestinians by the United States and European Union. The new government has been facing economic boycott which has caused suffering to the Palestinians. On the other hand, Israel has launched aggressive attacks on the Palestinian Authority and destroyed some infrastructures on the pretext of recovering kidnapped Israeli soldier. The idea of formation of a national unity government has been well received by the European Union while with scepticism by the Bush administration and Israeli administration. The success of the formation of national unity government depends on Hamas’s acceptance of the existence of Israel.
   There has been dramatic change in the attitude of the Bush administration which reflects at the announcement made by the Quartet following the meeting between Mahmood Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, and President Bush of the United States in New York on September 19. It welcomes the efforts of Abbas in the hope that the platform of such a government would reflect Quartet principles and allow for early engagement. It also agreed to extend and expand a temporary international mechanism to channel aid to the Palestinians bypassing Hamas. If it happens, the suffering of the Palestinians would be mitigated to some extent. According to BBC, this statement by the Quartet is an apparent softening of tone.
   As a part of diplomacy moderate Arab leaders like president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan initiated positive moves to renew the Palestinian-Israel peace process and are working behind the scene to get things moving. Both Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic ties with the State of Israel.
   From Israeli perspective peace process would move successfully only if the national unity government of Hamas and Fatah accept the international community’s three conditions: recognition of Israel; acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements and renunciation of violence. Actually these conditions are laid down by the Quartet: US, European Union, Russia and the UN which proposed a road map of peace in the Middle East.
   This is one side of the development in the diplomatic arena. The other side of the development is the decision by Israeli court to release 21 Hamas leaders, including three Palestinian cabinet ministers. Israel took at least 30 Hamas officials into custody after one Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad shalit, was seized in a raid on June 25 by Palestinians. It is understood that Israel expresses its readiness to begin a dialogue with the Palestinian Authority following the meeting between Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni and Mahmood Abbas in New York. An Israeli official is reported to have said ‘We are encouraged by significant changes taking place on the Palestinian side, the international community’s readiness to invest diplomatic capital and the urgency moderate Arab countries attach to the need for immediate dialogue’.
   Kofi Annan, who ends his second term as UN secretary-general in December this year, told the UN General Assembly recently that as long as the Palestinians live under occupation, exposed to daily frustration and humiliation, there will be no peace. Against the backdrop of positive developments taking place, let us hope peace would prevail as war is expensive and destructive and peace is priceless.
   Mohammad Amjad Hossain, a former diplomat, writes from Virginia. He can be reached at: amjad.21@gmail.com