& 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

Punishing the guardians

Muhammad Nurul Huda
We will be only fooling ourselves if we think that someone else will fix our troubles and make things orderly. The status quo has to be broken because that guarantees the pelf and power of the vested quarters having no interest in democratisation.***
HIGHLY charged discussions about the propriety or lack of it relating to the actions of persons who occupied high public offices in the not-too-distant past have been drawing the attention of many. One may wonder if it is necessary and in public interest to only focus our attention to the indiscretions of the period following 1 /11 or shall one also venture into die apparently untenable actions warranting the prolongation of the Caretaker dispensation? Has the nation forgotten and forgiven the persons at the high pedestal whose timidity and ill-judged actions nearly brought us to a precipice?
Coming to specifics, could Dr. lajuddin, die former President of die republic convince the nation that his controversial assumption of the office of the Chief Adviser was necessitated by the compulsion of circumstances as claimed? Or was it by deliberate design? It did not take a discerning observer to entertain serious reser-
vations about the neutrality and nonpartisan character of Dr. lajuddin.
Former President Dr. lajuddin was clearly a political appointed person and his actions were suspect. He did assume the charges of the office of the Chief Adviser without adequately exhausting the avail able constitutional options. His subsequent actions, still fresh in public memory, had actually Vididated his detractor’s accusations of partiality; and that of carrying out the wishes and directions of his patrons and mentor.
The question is, shall he be gradually forgotten as the sick man' of Bangladeshi politics? Or shall he be asked to account for by appropriate arrangements?
If we care to retrace out steps we will remember that the last minute stalling of the issuance of rule in writ petitions that challenged the legality of President's untenable assumption of the office of Chief Adviser was given sanction by the highest judiciary.
In view of such actions, one would not be
wrong to say that in the last quarter of 2006, the chief executive and the higher judiciary did not live up to the confidence reposed in their exalted offices.
The nation, in Its desperate hours, expected the President of the republic to be legally and constitutionally upright and hoped that the head of the state would deliberate on matters of national interest with due diligence and solemnity. Unfortunately, he failed to protect the integrity of die constitutional arrangement of neutral and non-partisan caretaker government and ensured its irreparable denigration in public estimation. His actions led us to an ungovernable state.
The malfeasance and misfeasance of public servants, politicians and businessmen of all times and regimes need to be looked into in public interest, should these be possible and adequately supportable by our admittedly depleted institutional capacity. Persons at the helm of public affairs must be the best judge. However, if we are not to lose faith in the future of the country then we have to, at least, publicly take an adverse note of the indiscretions and illegalities at high places.
One may have to admit that the most unfortunate fact of our political life in Bangladesh is the absence of public response to the denigration of law and collapse of order in the society. The near
supine acceptance of the many indignities and excesses inflicted upon citizens by insensitive rulers is a blight for which all of us bear responsibility. The compounding tragedy is that with the lapse of time most of us tend to forget the offence and the offender.
We will be only fooling ourselves if we think that someone else will fix our trou bles and make things orderly. The status quo has to be broken because that guarantees the pelf and power of the vested quarters having no interest in democratisation.
History tells us that people have risen to great heights when they have basked in the glow of noble kings or leaders. It was, therefore, not unusual for the people of Bangladesh to hope that their supreme leaders will be endowed with the courage never to submit or yield; and our folks could not be faulted for their desire to see their leaders as rocks in the wilderness of shifting sands.
Incompetence and timidity have undoubtedly disgraced our highest public offices and we all need to take a serious note of that. Persons who were oathbound to protect the constitution but made a mockery of the solemn document have to be made accountable