& 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

State policy, the constitution and equal rights for disadvantaged groups

Devasish RoyWangza
Constitution as the Supreme State Policy
National constitutions contain the broad principles of the supreme policy of a state. Other policies, contained in documents other than in constitutions, are policies of governments. The latter policies constantly change, unlike the former. Therefore, disadvantaged sections of citizens, seek to protect their rights by having express safeguard provisions included in their national constitutions. This is no exception in Bangladesh.
Minorities, adibashis and discontent with the 15th Amendment
Religious minorities and indigenous peoples, among other disadvantaged groups in Bangladesh, have been clamouring for acknowledgment of their rights in the constitution. We know that the aforesaid groups are unhappy over the
recent constitutional reform. We know why; because their identity and rights have not been properly addressed therein. Even the few benevolent and benign matters that have been included therein have been compromised by the fact that (i) these are not directly enforceable in courts, being part of the fundamental principles section, rather than the one on fundamental rights, while (ii) negative stipulations on freedom of association, and (hi) a unilingual and uni-religious orientation of our national identity, undermine those matters.
Minorities adibashis and the 1972 and other pre-2011 constitutions
The original constitution of 1972 was secular and neutral with regard to religious identity, but not with regard to the ethnic and linguistic identity of non-Bengalis. The post-1975 constitution, on the other hand, got rid of Bangali nationalism, but imposed a
Muslim orientation of national identity and state practices that made the adibashis and religious minorities feel equally insecure. And where are we now in 2011? The Bangali national identity has been revived, while the provisions on state religion albeit with “equal status” to minority religions have been retained. So much for cultural
pluralism and secularism in a country that produced great multicultural giants like Nazrul and Lalon!
Implementing constitutional
measures
However, what I wish to discuss here is not what went wrong with our constitution, but despite these shortcomings, what can be done to
further the rights of adibashis, minorities and other disadvantaged groups, including Tea Estate workers, Dalits and differently-abled people (disabled; sic!), based upon existing constitutional dispensations. I do not, however, suggest, that the demands of adibashis and secularist Bangalis for further and appropriate constitutional reforms is to be forsaken. I discuss that elsewhere in a forthcoming publication in another Dhaka daily.
Constitutional provisions, organic acts and other enabling measures National constitutions vary in the way they include important state policy measures. Some are voluminous, with detailed provisions, like the Constitution of India. Others, like the Constitution of the Philippines, are relatively brief. In the Philippines, the legal system envisages the framing of 'organic acts', which spell out the details of the constitutional measures and provide "teeth" to constitutional
provisions. The point is that, unless constitutional measures are supplemented by legislative, executive and other measures, they remain in name only. And let us remind ourselves of many worthy principles that were inserted in our constitution in 1972, and which have thankfully survived the various incisions, grafts and other additions that have been made to our constitution, but remain largely unimplemented. Let me cite one here: “It shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to emancipate the toiling masses the peasants and workers and backward sections of the people from all forms and exploitation” (Article 14).
For the full version of this article please read this month's Fonjm, available free with The Dally Star on August 1.
Devasish Roy Wangza is the Chief of the Chakma in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) and an Expert Member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.