& 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 opposition's role

Md. Ali Akbar
THE print media carried articles evaluating the first 100-dayperfor mancc of the government, but there was none of the sort concerning the doings of the opposition in the new parliament. Although the government runs the show, the opposition too has something to do watch dogging and counseling. Is it doing its part?
In a democratic polity, the opposition is a part and parcel of governance. Public welfare being the common goal, it has a positive role to help the government by pin-pointing the deficiencies of the policies and suggesting alternative ways to make up the same.
In our setting, the opposition continues to play rather a dismissive, feisty role, opposing the government in its every move. It ends up without indicating any alternatives that it might reckon would be better.
Let us recall how bitterly the opposition decried the government when it came to discussing the possibility of giving transit facility to India. The political storm that was raised soon died down, but with that was gone the chance of negotiating our
access to Nepal, Bhutan and China through India.
In resisting the move, the opposition brought the old, perceived security threat into focus without thinking of the scope of securing some of our vital interests in the bargain. As a matter fact, many think the leaders in the opposition themselves are to blame for having endangered national security for sheer political opportunism.
Being political camp followers of, or heirs to, the post-'75 undemocratic regimes, the opposition leaders today cannot absolve themselves of the stigma of having steamrolled the people's democratic aspiration under cover of the 5th amendment to the constitution.
In 1975, the stuttering nation was virtually brought to its knees, and national security in peril, through the brutal killings of great leaders, including the country's founding president and father of the nation, Bangabandhu. Now the government stands by the epoch-making HC verdict that declared all actions under the 5th amendment unconstitutional.
The opposition now stands in the way of the government's upholding of the historical verdict of the HC. They, in addition to filing an appeal with the Supreme
Court, are now trying to have us believe that the government is going to exclude "Bismiliah" from the constitution, while the government asserts it will not.
The 5th amendment lent legal cover to the now defunct infamous "indemnity ordinance" that was promulgated to indemnify die '75 killers of national leaders from trial. Further, it sought to wean us away from the state principle of secularism -- the solemn credo of our independent Bengali nationhood. By appealing against the HC verdict, the opposition clearly seeks to defend the post-'75 unconstitutionai/undemocraticrule.
In fact, religious fundamentalism was patronised at that time, and pitted against secularist politics in the country. Even now the opposition leaders are brazenly siding with the ultra-rightist forces. Begum Zia's recent observation about non-existence of Islamic militants is reminiscent of her crafty assertion in 2005 that there was nobody called Bangla Bhai and that he was but a media creation.
Given the recent arrests and busting of militant hideouts with huge arms and ammo, should not the opposition wake up to the reality of growing security threat from the religious extremists? If not, how could they explain the latest threat to blow up the US, Australian and some other embassies?
After ascending to power in 2001, the BN P- Jamaat regime had allegedly let loose an unprecedented reign of terror and oppression on the then opposition activ-
ists and the minority communities. Now that the HC has directed the government to constitute an enquiry commission within two months to thoroughly probe the post-2001 poll brutalities, it is incumbent upon the government to act accordingly.
If the opposition regrets the macabre episode it turned a blind eye to when it was at the helm, then it should now support the government in bringing the culprits to justice. Interestingly, the opposition supported the treasury in passing the Upazila Parishad Bill, 2009 making the MPs advisers to the Upazila Parishads, albeit, many interpret it as being more for shared convenience than principled stand.
Before voicing support to the bill, the opposition would have done better to project their well position in support of empowering the MPs over the upazila chairmen, so their electorate could have been apprised of the rationale behind the opposition's concord with the government in this particular instance.
Again, the opposition's abrupt call upon the 4-month government to quit is too premature to have any appeal whatsoever. One wonders how the nascent government could be expected to resolve the nagging water and power crises in no time, which the BNP-Jamaat regime could not do in their term. Pragmatism should, therefore, guide the opposition.
Md All Akbar is a Deputy Secretary to the Government