& 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

Physician, heal thyself!

ShahedulAnam Khan
We have our shortcomings, and we must, as a nation, work to overcome them. But to be preached by those that are less than qualified to do so is comical. "Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country." Whatever one wants others to do must do it oneself.
Not often do we find our actions emulated by others. At least not acts that we can be proud of --except perhaps for die Grameen Bank, the concept of which we find being replicated in many parts of the globe.
Gone are the days when the world thought to follow our lead both in example and precept. But things are changing. We can feel "happy" that at least in one instance some of our former MPs, to be exact three of the highest officers of our legislature, by a stroke of fate or coincidence, find themselves in the exalted company of their British counterparts.
Neither the former Speaker of the 8th parliament nor his deputy, nor the former ruling coalition chief whip, should feel let down by what has been revealed about their financial misdemeanours while they were in office. What our politicians do today others do the day after, if not tomorrow.
The only difference is, in the case of the British parliament, the speaker has chosen to step down, charged not with misuse
of public money but blamed for failure to exercise proper oversight. In our case, the misuse is not only being justified, the call for them to account for their deeds is also being seen as witchhunt.
But it is not the purpose of this article to compare the level of morality, or the absence of it, of the politicians of the two countries but to expose the double standards of some of our friends and development partners when they dispense homilies about the need for us to conform to universal standards of morality.
Living by the book should be an indispensable part of anybody's core values and his or her way of life, but it pains us to see those that criticise us for our lack of probity, and make it a factor in determining whether we deserve a particular tranche of aid or not, themselves set poor standards of morality.
But that docs not absolve the former speaker of the Jatiyo Sangsad and the two co-accused from the allegations brought against them. Their acts of willful disregard for financial discipline, if what we hear and read in the media is true, must pain all those that want to see our law-
makers set the highest standard of behaviour.
And the three gentlemen must not fail to avail the chance offered them by the parliamentary committee probing into the matter to present their case. It is not Mr. Sircar as an individual that is being held to account for his acts of commission, it the second highest office of the country that risks being tainted by his actions.
We are also being cautioned, this time by an ambassador, that if the trial of war criminals did not conform to international legal standards it may not get the seal of international approval.
The basic premise of the statement cannot be contested but, coming as it does from the US ambassador, one finds it very interesting. In fact, the US is one of several countries whose ambassadors in the past didn't pass up a chance to offer their advice on matters that did not fall strictly within the specified terms of reference of their ambassadorial duties.
The dangerous aspect of this is that not only have we gotten used to this behaviour, it seems that some envoys have become so used to this manner of conduct that it has become almost their second nature.
But one should have no reservation if the advice comes from a country whose own record of human rights at home and abroad was above board. Even without going into historical instances, US actions since the start of the so-called war on terror hardly qualifies it as a spokesman
for human rights and moral and legal norms.
What legal standard are we being asked to uphold? The one we saw applied to the Abu Ghraib prisoners? Or the standard applied to the inmates of Guantanamo, moM of whom were left to rot without having any charges brought against them all these years. Is the standard that the US would want us to demonstrate the one it displayed by incarcerating children under 16 in Camp Delta?
Amnesty International CAI) described the conditions at Guantanamo Bay as "cruel, inhuman and degrading.' The US action was characterised by Al as ’a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration had become about respecting human rights.' No wonder that President Obama has thought it fit to block the court-ordered release of photographs depicting abuse of detainees by US soldiers. It would have not only inflamed international sentiments, the principles of morality and ethics, so often flaunted by the US administration, would also have appeared hollower.
We have our shortcomings, and we must, as a nation, work to overcome them. But to be preached by those that are less than qualified to do so is comical. Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country." Whatever one wants others to do must do it oneself.
The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs. The Daly
Star