*** The effect of the law could be seen to deny our next generations the right to research properly and express their opinions freely on the historical aspects of the father of the nation. Why should we be denied of our right of freedom of thought, conscience and expression? Why should we throttle the legitimate expectation of our future generation to have their view expressed properly, be it adverse to some, but factual? ***

FREEDOM of expression and of speech is a fundamental right accepted and allowed by all the democratic nations of the world. The rationale behind the recognition of this right may best be described this way that not only for good governance but also to respect human dignity.

Men and women are born to express themselves freely. It is, however, not unknown when individuals, groups, society and state unreasonably interferes with our fundamental rights. In the volatile history of our nation, we had been subjected on many occasions to unreasonable taking of our precious and respected rights. We had even been told in the sixties to change our medium of expression. We got rid of those nonsensical acts with brevity. We took our mission further to achieve 'independence'. We became victorious over oppressive, autocratic and shameless regimes. Our notion of independence has been to free ourselves from the shackles of deceit and establish a society where we would be able to achieve 'independence' from treachery in every respect of life.

The whole nation observed that the previous government passed ‘The Father of the Nation Portrait Preservation and Exhibition Act 2001’ so that we cannot for the rest of our life express our genuine and honest feelings about a particular matter. The effect of the law could be seen to deny our next generations the right to research properly and express their opinions freely on the historical aspects of the father of the nation. Why should we be denied of our right of freedom of thought, conscience and expression? Why should we throttle the legitimate expectation of our future generation to have their view expressed properly, be it adverse to some, but factual? The way the Act is drafted, it plainly violates the constitution and the spirit of our notion of independence.

We have to recognise that it is shameful for a nation not to respect its great leaders. A nation should take pride in the people who contributed the most towards its struggle for independence and justice. We have to remember also that we did not have to legislate to keep our respect for the martyrs of the language movement, the saheed intellectuals and the great sons of the soil who achieved our independence through their sacrifice. No government had to pass any legislation to that effect. I ask myself, why not? The answer is simple- there was no need for it. We duly respect our national heroes and undoubtedly the Father of the Nation is one of our great national. It is understandable that political divergence after the independence resulted in bitter criticisms of the post-71 government. Even independent observers from around the globe spoke of mal-administration and poorgovernance. Every citizen and a reasonable bystander have a legitimate right to participate in genuine criticisms of any authority. This should not, however, be viewed only as disrespect.

We are all well acquainted with the abuse of law and the legal process by all the previous governments. The way this law was passed with far reaching effect to prevent any adverse criticisms of the Father of the Nation, it is a hindrance to the legitimate right of every citizen of the country to their freedom of expression. It should also be viewed as a design to prevent the post-71 rule under legitimate and careful scrutiny, as any minute criticism would necessarily involve discussions about the role of Bangabandhu. The previous government or its spin-doctors may have thought that a political battle could be won by way of oppressive laws. This law is liable to be abused to bring undue and unreasonable sufferings to any conscious citizen of the country.

A few days earlier, the media worldwide reported that the Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe took an ill-calculated step to pass a law making it an offence to criticise or disrespect him. Well, it is needless to say that such an action only speaks of the autocratic nature of Mr. Mugabe. If he were a decent man, it would have been unnecessary for him to force his citizens to show him respect. It may be that in his country he is popular to a section of people because of his active step for what he describes as 'to secure land rights for his own black people against the whites'. But such support does not make him less vulnerable to harsh criticism for his overall undemocratic actions including of course the unreasonable taking of land rights of the white nationals. This is the reality, which might haunt Mr. Mugabe for the rest of the future; it does not matter whether he passes more laws to protect him. It is obvious; force under the veil of law will result in more disrespect.

I am sure the effort of the former Awami League government naturally backfired and it created a bad but rectifiable example of violation of our fundamental rights. There is always time for such a loss of right to be reinstated and for the sake of democracy, ensuring good governance and enhancing our practice of human rights, we have to come forward to abhor further autocratic practices of any governments and re-examine the fate of this legislation.

Naser Alam, a Barrister-at-law, is an advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh