& 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

KALEIDOSCOPE

Hartal that came out of the blue
THE proposed budget for the fiscal year 2011-12 could hardly initiate a long debate among different crosssections of society,
when the unanticipated 36-hour hartal was called by the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its allies. Though the nationwide shutdown programme was enforced immediately after the day that Finance Minister AMA. Muhith placed the budget in the Jatiya Sangsad (JS), it had no connection whatsoever with the budget.
There was no inkling of it even in the BNP's reaction to the budget as its acting secretary general had told the press that they were reviewing it (budget) . So, it is really intriguing why BNP had chosen this particular point of time to call the hartal in protest against what it said the recommendations of the parliamentary special committee on constitutional amendment and demanding continuation of caretaker government system.
If the length of the hartal is any indication of the seriousness the opposition attaches to the issue of caretaker government and other constitutional amendments the ruling Awami League is trying to press home with the brute majority it enjoys in the JS, then one wonders, if the June 5's hartal was not enough? Why has the need for such a long hartal arisen so soon? Do they truly have any cogent reason to justify another hartal?
The leader of the Opposition and BNP Chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia made it clear during her first meeting
with the leaders of the newly formed Dhaka city committee of BNP on Thursday that it was their fight for existence, adding that there was no room for compromise.
But questions still remain. If protecting the caretaker system of government and other issues covered by 51-point recommendations for constitutional amendment put forward by the parliamentary special committee were the issues that the opposition feared the Awami League would cause to pass in the JS by dint of their sheer majority, why did the opposition not join parliament in the first place to make their position clear to the Treasury Bench as
well as to their own constituencies and to the people at large? Had the prime minister and the leader of the JS not been repeatedly making it clear that the matter was not closed and that there was still room for dialogue on the caretaker issue? Why is not BNP willing to exhaust this process?
It is only after using up all the options for a negotiated settlement on the possibility of retaining the form of interim government called nonpartisan caretaker system of government for holding parliamentary elections for at least another two terms as observed by the Supreme Court's Appellate Division, should they think of
other alternatives for movement. And other issues of religious significance made part of the Constitution, the ruling Awami League has already promised to retain.
Had the opposition joined the JS and tried to take hold of the opportunity to speak their mind there, but the Treasury Bench did not allow them to do that, then the opposition would at least be in a position to justify their present action to the people. But even in that case there would be reason for employing a hundred and one other means to build public opinion against the government's intransigence, if any, in relation to their cause. That would also make
people understand why it was necessary for the opposition to opt for a stronger means of agitation.
It is exactly for this reason that many are yet unable to understand what had really prompted the opposition to call a second herbal within such a short span of time after the last one enforced on June 5.
But do our political parties really need any reason to foist their political movement programmes on the people?
However much the enforcers of any hartal may claim that the people observe their agitation programmes spontaneously, in most cases the fact of the matter is that the people are either
mere onlookers as the events go, or have to digest that on sufferance.
In fact, the oft-quoted phrase by our politicians that "people participated in their agitation programme” is more often than not a thing of past. The same is also largely true of hartals.
In the past, even during the antiautocracy struggle in the late 1980s, the hartal was still able to retain some of its edge and significance as a tool of political agitation. But we have long past that era after the return to democracy in the early 1990s. One may recall that the characteristic feature of the political movement of that time was the unified struggle of the parties across the political spectrum, the students, the professional groups and the civil society as well as the mass people holding one another's hand as one against the military autocracy. And there is a world of difference between the political reality of that time and that of now.
Interestingly, while inspiring her party workers to spearhead the present campaign against the Awami League-led grand alliance government, the leader of the opposition did hark back to the movement of the '90s. But given the situation at hand, is she not drawing the analogy too far?
We believe there is still room for a dialogue between the ruling Awami League and the opposition to sort out their differences. And we are convinced that reason has not lost its appeal to either of the determining political forces of the country. In that case, they must sit and talk to resolve the issues they cannot see eye to eye with and leave the rest of the society to its own devices.
The writer is Editor, Science & Life, The Daily Star.