& 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

Commentary

Grateful thanks to BNP and its allies

They gave us the best joke of the year

MAHFUZANAM
We have always complained about the opposition normally being unhelpful, unreasonable, quarrelsome, combative, quick on their feet to walk out. and generally negative. Seldom have we found anything to thank them for. At last BNP-led opposition has given us something to cheer
and be grateful for. On Sunday, they gave us the bestjokeoftheyear.
For what else can we call their walkout in protest at President lajuddin's speech because
he 'violated the constitution'? Hear, hear! BNP's sudden love for the constitution would have been extremely heartening, if only (and how sincerely we wish) it were genuine.
The joke is not that the president is accused of violating the most sacred document in a democracy, but that it is coming from the very party that was behind all the mis-
chief committed by him. There is a Bangla saying, whose English rendering would go somewhat like this, 'For whom I steal, now (s)he V-F Dhaka Tuesday January 27,2009
calls me a thief.
Yesterday, while enacting the 'joke of the year', BNP explained the precise reason for their walkout. After having taken oath as the chief adviser to protect the constitution, President lajuddin violated it by failing to hold the election within 90 days as prescribed in it.
Before we examine the question of election within the 90 days, we need to ask what prompted the president to become the chief adviser in the first place. Did not that step by itself constitute a gross violation of the constitution? Was not that the most unethical, immoral, and self-serving step imaginable? If anything, this single action significantly eroded public confidence in the highest legal instrument of our country and made it look like a plaything in the hands of rulers of the day
Who made lajuddin take this blundering, in fact suicidal, step? Clearly and unquestionably, it was BNP. If we recall, negotiations were on in Bangabhaban among the president, Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan and Abdul Jalil to find a suitable replacement of KM Hasan when Bhuiyan suddenly suggested that the president becomes the chief adviser, and the willing (or shall we say compliant) lajuddin readily accepted.
The constitution, under article 58C, provides a six-step process to find a suitable chief adviser.They are: 1) the immediate past chief justice; 2) the retired chief justice before him; 3) the last retired judge of the Appellate Division; 4) the retired judge of the Appellate Division before him; 5) any suitable person, qualified to hold the post of chief adviser and acceptable to all major political parties. Failing to find a suitable candidate after exhausting the aforementioned five steps, then and only then, the president may have recourse to the sixth step, and assume the office of the chief adviser (CA), in addition to being the president.
Only the first step was exhausted. The president did not even try to explore the four other possibilities and opted for the sixth option, and assumed the CA's office. By not exploring the four steps clearly spelled out, President lajuddin can stand accused of violating the constitution.
The question is, did he do so of his own volition or was he under the guidance of BNP and its leaders, Tarique Rahman and Khaleda Zia. (liven lajuddin's personality, his docile nature, ever subservient character, and his track record of never taking any ethical position over die past four years, it is impossible to imagine, much less to believe, that he could have taken such a major unconventional, not to mention unconstitutional, step without direct instruction from the then prime minister herself, or from someone who spoke on her behalf.
By all accounts and public actions he was a 'remote controlled' president, under (he diktats of BNP leadership, especially of Khaleda Zia. So, President lajuddin's violation of the constitution was die i rated by BNR and if any one should be accused of it, mor-I ally it should be the latter.
President lajuddin was, at best, a partner in 'crime', so to speak, albei t a willing one.
Even after the above violation of the constitution, Awami League agreed to some conditions, to accept the caretaker government under President and Chief Adviser lajuddin, and participated in the formation of the advisory council.
Till then there were clear possibilities of holding the election on time and within the 90 days. Instead of allowing the advisory council to function as per the constitution, President lajuddin, at the diktats of BNP, created all sorts of obstacles and impediments to moving towards the scheduled polls.
As to the functioning of the caretaker government, there were numerous occasions when the advisory,council's decisions, arrived at during meetings, were later overturned by the president through late evening press releases dictated from outside.
BNP’s hold and monitoring of the president was, perhaps, epitomised by the emergence of a strange diminutive character who, it is rumoured, kept a mobile phone constantly on during the meetings of the advisory council, so it could be heard from outside and appropriate 'instructions’ could be communicated to the president for his prompt compliance. When advisers complained about the character's presence, as he was a junior official, lajuddin gave him the rank of a state minister, so he could formally sit in the council meetings.
Again on the question of the president failing to hold the election within the prescribed 90 days, let us not forget how four of the most respected advisers moved from pillar to post to bring about a consensus between the two major political parties, so the election could be held as scheduled.
No sooner some hint of an understanding would emerge, it would swiftly be scuttled by the president/chief adviser, dashing any hope of a timely election. The remote controlled president’s interfer ence became so intolerable and so obstructionist to the process of holding the election that the said four advisers were compelled to resign. They privately cited total lack of co-operation of die president and doubted his sincerity about holding a free and fair election.
In our eyes. President lajuddin is guilty, not so much for violating the constitution which he did under pressure from his party (which does not lessen his responsibility), but more so for not rising to the stature of his office and realis ing that his was a role to set moral and ethical standards, to behave with the highest dignity and fairness, to act with such judiciousness and far sight that generations following would use it as something to compare others with. There he so tragically and disastrously failed himself and us.
There would not have been any interruption in our democracy, had he onlx allowed his conscience instead of BNP, to guide him.