& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Break this Uneasy Silence
The inexplicable silence of the ruling party on the future form of government is disconcerting. The first session of the parliament is about to come to an end and we are as much in the dark on this vital national issue as were when the parliament began. Throughout the six weeks long session we have proceeded as if such an important question c|id not really exist. The Treasury Bench took no initiative to include this topic in the agenda of this session and the opposition bench's attempts to do the same got bogged down for one reason or the other.
There appears to be a tendency to side-track the issue, to try to sweep it under the rug. or worst still to think that it will disappear if we do not talk about it. What else can explain the consistent silence of the ruling party on this matter ?
So far we have seen no clear cut indication as to their thinking on this question. Of course much of the energy of the government had to be diverted to the immediate task of disaster relief, and it could be argued that they really did not have the time to discuss the matter in the party circles as they had originally planned. While we sympathise with this position, we would also like to draw BNP's attention to the fact that the absence of any clear articulation of their thinking on this vital question is creating a sense of unease in the public mind which may hamper the effective functioning of their government. The administrative machinery is itself suffering from a sense of drift stemming from this confusion.
During the last few days two junior ministers of the government spoke on this issue in the parliament. (One wonders why the minister concerned. Mirza Golam Hafiz, a former Speaker, a man with so much experience and expertise on legal and constitutional matters, did not speak on the issue.) What the two ministers said further added to the confusion in the public mind.
One said that the President could hand over power to the Speaker if he wanted. Was he then indirectly hinting that the Acting President does not want to do so ? This comment has fuelled the already circulating rumour that there is considerable gap between the thoughts of Justice Shahabuddin and that of Begum Zia. Comments were also made that there could not be any question as to the "sovereignty" of the parliament as a legislative body. Is it then the view of BNP that the current parliament — without any amendments to the existing Constitution — is a "sovereign" one?
The other minister said that BNP's manifesto enjoins all MPs to support a presidential form of government. If so. then are we to understand that BNP's well known position that It will be the parliament that will decide on the form of government. has now been changed ?
It Is high time that the country is told as to what the ruling patty is thinking on this vital question. If they prefer a presidential form, the BNP should clearly say so and tell the nation why. It is possible that as the people were persuaded to vote the BNP way. they might once again be persuaded to accept the majority party's view on the form of government. But we must know. This silence on the part of the ruling party is unhealthy for democracy and effective government, unfair to the electorate and unnecessary if one trusts the people.