& 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

STRATEGICALLY SPEAKING

The importance of sobriety

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam KHAN ndc, psc (Retd)
***Some of our politicians, particularly those at the leadership position, are so apt to talk out of turn that their utterances endorse Lincoln's well-known comment that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.***
WE have a woeful
shortage of sobriety, particularly in those whose words should count but cannot because of their
abject shoddiness. It is a great thing to recognise the season for speech and the season for silence.
Unfortunately, what a Roman dramatist had said more than two thousand years ago, that surpasses the span of time and universality, has, unfortunately, no bearing on our politicians, advisors, and parliamentarians. And it seems that the foible has rubbed off on at least one of our judges.
Alarmingly, people in high places in our country have lost the sense of time, season and of propriety. It seems that in Bangladesh it is season of denial, of acrimony and castigation and of calling everyone else seditious.
Some of our politicians, particularly those at the leadership position, are so apt to talk out of turn that their utterances endorse Lincoln's well-known comment that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
The random use of the term "seditious" against others has taken disconcerting proportions. It seems, going by the way people are being termed seditious, there would be very few people left with any loyalty at all, at least insofar as the term loyalty seems to be understood by
those that are accusing others of sedition.
In one very unprecedented incident the Speaker of the House, of all people, was termed as seditious by one of the High Court Judges of the country, nearly bringing the two organs of the government on a collision course. While it is for people with knowledge of law to comment on the specifics of behaviour and
demeanour of a judge, from a very ordinary man's point of view I understand that there is a code of conduct for sitting judges in all other countries and I suppose there is one too for ours. And I presume the judges are also accountable to an appropriate authority for their judicial conduct.
Of the many things that the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct 2001 (adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, November 25-26,2002) it affirms that public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of the utmost importance in a modern democratic society. And that
it is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honour judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system. It further says that the primary responsibility for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of judicial conduct lies with the judiciary in each country.
Given that, one could ask whether
one who is sitting on judgment can demean by words or action the dignity of any other person, whether present in the court or not. The judge in question has been known for his supercilious attitude and while not questioning any of his judgments, one wonders whether it is out of the purview of the Chief Justice to address any breach of ethics and conduct by his subordinate judges in the highest court of law. It is for the Chief Justice to ensure that neither is the integrity of the judiciary nor the public confidence in it is ever lost.
By the same token no one, whatever position he or she may be holding, can slight the judiciary or its officers, that being the last resort of the people seeking the protection of law. One would not be wrong in suggesting that the remarks of the
Honourable Speaker, referring to a particular judgement dealing with a piece of land that belonged to the Supreme Court, were uncalled for, and nobody would take issue with the judge for taking exceptions to those remarks. Whether the judge's remarks were in good order is not for me to comment.
What followed, by way of the statement by some of the MPs in the parliament, some of them well known for throwing invectives at others, nearly excoriating the judge and virtually calling for his head, and in the process not forgetting to remind him of their party's benevolence towards him, was simply awful. In the process both the judiciary and the House were brought down
It was deeply painful for us to see the two very important organs of the state locking horns and one would hope that the good offices of the Speaker as well as the Chief Justice would see an end of this unsavoury episode.
No one single organ of the state is "independent" in that sense and one exercises checks and balance over the other. And as for sovereignty, nobody but the people can claim absolute sovereignty because the people as a collective entity are answerable to none, and by extension of the argument it is the elected parliament that can claim sovereignty, being people's representatives. But it is for the respective organs of the state not only to know the limit of their remit but also recognise the implications of words uttered.
The writer is Editor, Oped & Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.