& 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

Was not 1/11 a historical necessity?

Internal compulsions had turned unavoidable, and forced such a step in those critical days. That is why the emergency rule was welcomed by all at home and abroad.

Md. Ali Akbar
HISTORY has to reserve a place for ex-president, Dr. lajuddin Ahmed for all he did at the end of the BNP-Jamaat regime. Would it be one of a hero, or a villain? Strangely, it should be of both. His caricature, until 1/11, of a president-turned chief adviser of the caretaker government was understandably prompted by BNP's string-pulling from behind the scene. If that was not villainy, then what was?
The mass agitation and battles on the streets between police supported BNP-Jamaat activists and the combined opposition forces caused events to flow out of the CTG's hands. Even the armed forces called out in aid of law enforcing agencies could not be any more than mute by-standers. Some people were killed and many sustained injuries in the do-or-die battle for power.
Instead of allowing the turmoil to continue, the president installed the armed forces-backed new CTG under Dr.
Fakhruddin Ahmed, a gutsy step that was the only plausible option in the trying times. If we do not give credit to the expresident for his "heroic 180-degree turnaround" to save the nation in the face of the political meltdown, who else can we ascribe it to?
The ex-president could have held the January 22, 2007 election -- but with the prospect of a civil war lurking around the corner. Would it then be safeguarding our solemn constitution? No.
The constitution is a covenant between the government and the people whereby the former can claim obedience of the latter in return of their security of life and property. Before 1/11, the CTG failed to deliver as per the covenant. Thus, the constitution, in effect, had already become inoperative when the ex-president decided to let in the new CTG. One may say his was a bold decision to uphold the constitution, if only for public security.
The ex-president's worst option was suspending the constitution by proclaiming martial law. Could he do it ignoring the
international community's objection to any such unconstitutional venture? Word spread that the UN had threatened to close its Dhaka mission, and to suspend the Bangladesh contingents of the UN peacekeepers across the world. Whether it was true or false, we do not know yet.
Can anyone imagine that our patriotic armed forces would take recourse to such a risky venture even if the ex-president ordered it, and that too to enable the same BNP-Jamaat jote to come back to power through stage-managed poUs? The answer may be found in the army chief s recent insightful book. It is obviously in the negative. Then, what else was left of the expresident's authority as the guardian of the constitution? Nothing other than what he chose.
Against this backdrop, some quarters' allegation that UN interference was instrumental for installation of the armed forces-backed new CTG under emergency rules is apparendy misinformed.
Internal compulsions had turned unavoidable, and forced such a step in those critical days. That is why the emergency rule was welcomed by all at home and abroad. Thus, it is clearly not the "external pressures in which the then authority wilted," but the extremely overbearing, volatile situation that dictated the advent
ofhistoricl/11.
One cannot view 1 /11 as being solely an outcome of UN pressure. In this globalised world, no government can just steamroll its people on the strength of its state sovereignty.
International bonds of fraternity are now been more cemented than before. The governments are working in aid of each other under the UN umbrella. It is only natural that the UN, as the guardian entity of all member states, should come forward, as it had in our case, with all its might to uphold the cause of peace and democracy' wherever it is at stake.
The much-discussed UN role in putting in place our second CTG, preventing the most controversial one-sided election billed for January 22,2007, did not undermine our sovereignty in any way. It did not really "set a bad precedent," nor did it add "a new dimension to international relations."
There are instances galore where the UN multi-national forces are fighting antidemocratic forces in sovereign states. Fortunately, in Bangladesh, no such UN interference in physical terms was called for. What we have achieved in terms of transition to democracy is through our own making of the 1/11 government, a historical necessity so, why blame the poor UN?
MdAll Akbar is a Deputy Secretary