& 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

The Invisible Man
SOME quite peculiar tilings are happening in Bangladesh of late. Of those, perhaps the most interesting is that of a political figure, with an arrest warrant in his name, managing to remain invisible selectively.
Whether it is to the credit of the accused that he had managed to remain unseen by the law enforcing agencies while being in full view of the public, or to the discredit of the police and other agen cies of the state that failed to notice his presenceeven while he was in some lofty places of the government, is for people to make out.
The question that naturally follows is whether those that are paid by the state to serve the course of justice had turned a blind eye under orders of the administration, because one would have to be of very poor intellect to believe that the law enforcing agencies had failed to notice him, given the way he was going about attending public meetings inside and outside the capital, and at some of which had even held out threats to the government of dire consequences if it did not meet his party's demands.
When a person with an arrest order hanging on his head is welcomed at a government-political party dialogue, the only conclusion that one can draw is that it was not on their own volition that the agencies looked the other way. And all that we can say is that it has put a blot on the character of the of the caretaker government, that of its
being non-partisan. That raises a whole lot of other questions.
The CTG's action has caused many to ask whether the government has been soft on certain individuals and political parties and whether the law has been applied selectively in certain cases. This particular instance as well as the government's handling of tire radicals during the past year and half, and now wilting under pressure from some obscurantist when it came to the issue of I.alon's sculpture, cannot but reveal its kid-glove treatment of the religious extremists.
Whether it is out of fear of disturbing the status quo or out of sympathy towards their philosophy is something that we cannot comment definitively at this point, but which we would like to know.
While the CTG of President lajuddin was criticised, justly so, for being an extension of the 4-Party Alliance government, some have drawn a similar parallel in respect of the current governmentfor giving the impression that it is beholden to a particular political group with certain ideological leanings.
Not only in the case of the "invisible accused" but also its handling of, and reaction to, the activities of some fanatic groups have led many to ask whether the CTG is under the influence, if not under the control, of these elements. And whether,
therefore, it can really claim to be "neutral," and call itself an honest broker in the dialogue that it is engaging in with the political parties, and whether the level playing field that one expects it to provide to the political parties will not be distorted for some?
Admittedly, no person can claim to be apolitical. Everyone is motivated by, and adheres to, some fundamental beliefs. After all, we all cast our votes for one party or the other. However, many see the personal predilections and preferences perhaps being reflected in the approach of the CTG regarding certain issues. And when that happens, as a result of coalescence of drought stemming from shared interest in the final outcome of events, self-motivated or otherwise, no public office holder, or group, can remain immune to public criticism.
Much has been done by the CTG, either through utterances of individual members or through actions of the cabinet, to invite upon itself the criticism of it being not entirely neutral.
Some examples of the government action, and all actions one would presume stem from policy positions at the government level at least, are in order.
The very prompt action that the government took in rounding up the agitators following the Dhaka University students' unrest last
year was In stark contrast to the handling of the agitation and violation of the emergency regulations by an Islamist party not very soon after that as a protest against a newspaper for alleged anti-Islamic remarks.
Wliile the benefits of all the available latest electronic gadgets were made use of to round up hundreds of students (and some non-students too), who were later charged, not only was no action taken against the offending party, they even were allowed to move in procession up to the Shahbag crossing from Baitul Mukarram area, under police escort.
In another instance, various Islamic groups organised demonstrations and processions, on several occasions, following the introduction of the women's empowerment bill this year, without any interference from the law enforcing agencies. And the recent action of the authorities of pulling down Lalon's sculpture under pressure from a handful of religious hardliners has reinforced public perception that the current government is reluctant to stand up to a particular ideological group, either because it is not in a position to do so or that it carries a conviction that its course of action, as it relates to this particular group, is morally and legally justified.
Without going into the wisdom of replacing a perfectly beautiful
fountain that had been put up at the same spot only recently, with a sculptor whose artistic excellence can only be assessed by a professional critic, but to some dilettantes it was a grotesque depiction of whatever was intended to be depicted (no offence to the sculptor intended), the administration should have stood by its decision and the government should have backed it up to the hilt. Unfortunately, the government gavein.
I suggest the government act quickly to dispel the perception that its own actions or inactions have created. It must act quickly against the utterances of some bigots that go against the very essence of the country's birth. Statements are being made that directly denigrate the sacrifices of the martyrs of the Liberation War.
Of late, these elements have gone so far as to depict "Shikha Anirban" as fire worship. We are
being engulfed by obscurantist interpretation of the Quran, and innocuous expressions of artistic forms arc being equated with idol worship. What will stop them from reviling our other symbols of national resistance? Most disquieting is the fact that we are being asked to choose between being a Bengali and being a Muslim.
There are some harsh questions staring at us. Only a sagacious leadership that will neither acquiesce nor capitulate in the face of the dogmatists can reconcile the differences. But reconciliation does not mean giving in to their irrational demands but convincing the hardliners that their position is unreasonable, that freedom of expression is the very essence of Islam and that we can exist happily with the dual identitythat of a good Muslim as well as a good Bengali.
The autnor is Eartcx, Defense and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.