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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

DEPLOYMENT of the army by the president on December 21 reminds me of the famous episode about two poets of Bengal. Many years ago, rebel poet Kazi Nazrul Islam entered Thakur Bari at Jora Sanko in Kolkata, the birthplace and residence of Rabindra Nath Tagore, shouting at the top his voice, ‘Wash the cow, wash off the cow (De Gorur Ga Dhuiye).’ Hearing his loud voice, Tagore came out of his room and with respectful cordiality received Nazrul and took him inside his study room. He then asked him, ‘Is it true, Nazrul, that you are using your sword for shaving your beard?’ Nazrul understood the implication of the question put by the poet.
   The president, Iajuddin Ahmed, has done precisely the same thing as Nazrul had been doing with his uncommon genius. During that period of his life, he was using his genius for writing lyrics for gramophone records and films. To Tagore, Nazrul had been dissipating and frittering away his genius after undeserving and unworthy purposes instead of employing it for creating great works of literature. Tagore was probably unaware that poverty forced Nazrul to use his genius for joining the film and the gramophone companies as lyricist and music composer.
   Deployment of the army by the president to tackle the ‘hatral’ called by the Awami League-led alliance on December 21 was like using a sword for shaving beard. Is the army meant for tackling a strike called by a group of people or for defending the country against external aggression which is their main function? The law, however, provides for calling for their assistance when the civil authorities fail to disperse an unlawful assembly.
   Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 contains the provisions as to when the civil authorities can seek the assistance of the army authorities for a specified purpose. Sections 127 to 131 of the code are relevant in this connection as these are interconnected and interdependent. As such, all these sections are required to be referred to. Section 127 runs as follows: ‘(1) Any Magistrate or officer in charge of a police station may command any unlawful assembly, or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, to disperse; and it shall thereupon be the duty of the members of such assembly to disperse accordingly.’
   Section 128 runs as follows: ‘If, upon being so commanded, any such assembly does not disperse, or if, without being so commanded, it conducts itself in such a manner as to show a determination not to disperse, any Magistrate or officer in charge of a police station, may proceed to disperse such assembly by force, and may require the assistance of any male person, not being an officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the armed forces of Bangladesh for the purpose of dispersing such assembly, and, if necessary, arresting and confining the persons who form part of it, in order to disperse such assembly or that they may be punished according to law.’
   Section 129 runs as follows: ‘If any such assembly cannot be otherwise dispersed, and if it is necessary for the public security that it should be dispersed, the Magistrate of the highest rank who is present or the Police Commissioner in a Metropolitan Area may cause it to be dispersed by military force.’
   Section 130 runs as follows: ‘(1) When a Magistrate or the Police Commissioner determines to disperse any such assembly by military force, he may require any commissioned or non-commissioned officer in command of any soldiers in the Bangladesh Army to disperse such assembly by military force, and to arrest and confine such person forming part of it as the Magistrate or the Police Commissioner may direct, or as it may be necessary to arrest and confine in order to disperse the assembly or to have them punished according to law.
   ‘(2) Every such officer shall obey such requisition in such manner as he thinks fit, but in so doing he shall use as little force, and do as little injury to person or property, as may be consistent with dispersing the assembly and arresting and detaining such person.’
   Section 131 runs as follows: ‘When the public security is manifestly endangered by any such assembly, and no Magistrate can be communicated with, any commissioned officer of the Bangladesh Army my disperse such assembly by military force, and may arrest and confine any persons forming part of it, in order to disperse such assembly or that they may be punished according to law; but if, while he is acting under this section, it becomes practicable to communicate with a Magistrate, he shall do so, and shall thenceforward obey the instructions of the Magistrate as to whether he shall or shall not continue such action’.
   Here, we must see what constitutes an ‘unlawful assembly’.
   The expression is defined in section 141 of the Penal Code 1862 as follows: ‘An assembly of five or more persons is designated an ‘unlawful assembly,’ if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -
   ‘First, To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, Government or Legislature, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
   ‘Second, To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
   ‘Third, To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
   ‘Fourth, By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
    ‘Fifth, By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally entitled to do.
   ‘Explanation: An assembly which is not unlawful when it assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
   So, (a) formation of an unlawful assembly as defined above or (b) assemblage of five or more persons to cause disturbance to public peace or (c) both, are the preconditions that must occur before taking action under sections 127 to 130 of the code.
   Did such situation as required by chapter IX of the code for invoking the provisions of that chapter prevail when the president called in the army in Dhaka streets and elsewhere in the country?
   Moreover, I am unable to find anything in the above provisions to show that the above provisions empower the president to invoke the provisions of Chapter IX. These provisions define the powers of a magistrate, an officer in charge of a police station and, in their absence, the powers of a commanding officer of the army.
   The great Thomas Babington Macaulay, who had, as chairman of the first Indian Law Commission, taken the lead role in devising the above procedural law, must be turning in his grave in England seeing the president of Bangladesh, a successor of the governor general of India, exercising the powers of a magistrate.
   The president may, however, as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, use the armed forces in emergencies for various purposes, such as natural disasters, etc. But to employ the armed forces to tackle street demonstrations, processions, etc by the people in exercise of their fundamental right of assembly and association guaranteed under articles 37 and 38 of the constitution is to make the armed forces controversial and partisan in the eye of the people. By calling the army to tackle the strike called by the Awami League-alliance, the president, therefore, did act neither according to law nor with prudence.
   Will the president refrain from doing so in future? I appeal to the president to uphold the dignity and position of his high office refraining from indulging in activities which are not sanctioned by law. I would like to close by quoting president Richard Nixon lamenting before his close aides, ‘I have my friend appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States and thereby I have for ever lost my friendship with him.’
   That is what is required of our president. He must forget the political party which nominated and elected him as the president, on and from the date of taking oath as the president. The Constitution and the law of the land should be the president’s only friend, philosopher and guide.
   My last comment is: consistent flouting and twisting of the constitution by every organ of the state as a result of politicisation of these organs by all political parties who had gained power, with a view to perpetuating it, although the sacred duty of all these organs is to uphold, protect and promote the constitution, is the main cause of the present crisis in the country.

A ‘Faustian bargain’ has been struck between the Awami League and the Khelafat Majlish, a political group of religious bigots, leaving millions of secular-minded people in dismay and shock. [Faust, in the legend, traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge. To ‘strike a Faustian bargain’ is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power.]
   With utter disappointment we observe how the Awami League has sold its most valuable ‘soul’, which is its secular principles, to a few religious bigots in return of their so-called political support. It remains a conundrum to every rational mind why and how the most powerful and popular secular party in the country could deceive millions of supporters by scraping its founding principle and tilting towards a new doctrine of appeasing right-wing fanatics. Did the Awami league forget its own history?
   The birth of the Awami League was a historical necessity derived from the rejection of the Pakistani model of an ‘Islamic Republic’. Realising the mindset of the people the Awami league itself discarded the word ‘Muslim’ from the initial name of the party, the Awami Muslim League. The idea was that the party would fight for a secular country where the people would have equal right to practise their respective faith without any intervention from the state. Our independence struggle was the final front where, under the leadership of the Awami League, we defeated Pakistan and its religious ideology. For the last three decades (except for the period of AL rule) our right-wing political leadership, especially military dictators and their political inheritors, relentlessly tried to destroy the secular fabric of the country by dismantling every institution that promotes the country’s secular identity. The first major strike to our secular character was led by President Zia who amended the constitution and inserted religious orientation as part of the country’s persona. A little more than a decade later, President Ershad made Islam the state religion, further damaging the secular nature of our constitution. The two Presidents who deflowered our constitution did not do so by popular mandate or out of their religious belief. Rather, they did so to legalise their illegal takeover of state power by playing on the people’s emotion and sensitivity to faith. In each of these instances, the AL protested vehemently and justified its inclination based on the principle of secularism.
   Now, nearly after five decades of its glorious history how could this party make a ‘U’ turn and sell its honour, history, tradition at a cheap price to militant Islamist outfits?
   There is no question that the leadership of the AL has made a fatal mistake. Its political leadership has failed. It failed to feel the pulse of the people. It failed in that it lent itself to the belief that the appeasement of those fundamentalists would help them secure ‘power’. Do the AL leaders have any hard evidence to show that these Islamists outfits have much political support to influence the electoral outcome? Have they forgotten the vote counts of the last national election? There is no evidence of likely benefit to be derived from the unholy alliance with religious opportunists.
   The illusions about the contemporary political reality on which the Awami League apparently seeks to navigate is not likely to yield the result that is sought. The illusion is based on the false perception that right-wing religious parties are on the rise. The Awami league must understand that a gathering of a few thousand madrassah students and their cheerleaders does not demonstrate the strength or vitality of an electoral base. Obviously, these religious political parties imparted to a minor section of our youth a flawed set of values which makes them more militant in their beliefs than the moderate section which is apparently invisible. The AL and its allies must bet on this invisible, hard-working, faithful segment of youth rather than those who live on public endowment and shout gibberish in front of our National Mosque. Besides the silent youths, there is the army of poor women who constitute a strong electoral base and whose pulse is extremely important for election victory. It is important to remember whatever those religious bigots do (fatwa, veil, restriction on the rights of women, etc.,) goes against the working women of the country. A betrayal of their trust could have fatal political consequences for the Awami League.
   In Goethe’s classic, Faust strives to attain the zenith of human happiness. He struck a deal with the devil (represented by Mephistopheles) who offered him superb service as long as he lives in return of Faust’s soul. Faust would serve Mephistopheles in the hell. The conclusion of the legend is that when Mephisto tried to grab Faust’s soul, he was overcome by the empowering force of love.
   In the context of the classic, time would tell whether the decision by the AL to sell its secular soul will achieve the desired result, especially at the cost of its reputation. Even if so, it will remain an infamous political scandal –– that the Awami League has betrayed the trust of its secular support. The only way the Awami League could save its image as well as politics is to void this communal agreement and apologise to its supporters. Otherwise, it would not be a surprise if the history of the country is written in the manner that the Awami League is the initiator of the nation’s secular politics and also the bearer of the coffin in which that sacred principle is buried.
   Hasan Reza Jami holds a faculty position at Shah Jalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet and is currently pursuing his doctoral studies in The University of Chicago, USA.

Saddam’s execution

Saddam Hussein’s execution was far from justice done by an impartial court. It was mob-lynching revenge by the Shia of Iraq. Although Saddam was a savage dictator with blood in his hands, he should have been tried in an international court and should have spent rest of his life in a prison cell. That would have been civilised and appropriate. The sight of a former president being lynched by the Shia mob and that too on the Eid Day was disgusting and will not go down well with one billion-plus Sunni Muslims around the world. This will further complicate the already dangerous sectarian situation in Iraq.
   Hasibul Haque
   Virginia, USA
   

Next on Quick Comments

a. Awami League-led grand alliance decides to boycott January 22 poll. b. Iraq investigates Saddam footage: video shows taunts at execution. c. New UN chief sets Darfur priority: New UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has begun work with a pledge to pay the highest attention to the conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region. d. Year 2007 welcomed throughout the world.