& 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

It's all for consensus!

Syed Fattahul Alim
COMPARED to Watergate, Friday morning's breaking into BNP's central office at Nayapaltan by plain-clothesmen was too violent to be called the AL-run election-time government's 'Nayapaltangate.' The 'Watergate Scandal' in the USA that was instrumental in the resignation of President Nixon did not involve any forcible entry by US police into the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) in Washington D.C. some 41 years ago. Five men were arrested in the act of bugging DNC office and the incident shook the world at that time. 43 top Nixon administration officials landed in jail.
But in our present political culture, such an incident would not have even created a ripple in political circles, far less cause any nationwide hue and cry. So, however much the opposition BNP leaders may decry it as piracy, burglary or robbery, no heads will roll, nor would any investigation be carried out into it.
In the Watergate, it was the US police who caught those trying to break into Democratic Party HQs. But in the present case, members of police themselves were involved in what an opposition leader termed 'piracy.' So who would catch the catcher, or conduct a probe into what and against whom? If such an audacious incident would ever take place in the US or in any other civilised country, that would have caused nothing short of a 'social and political tsunami,' perhaps resulting in the impeachment of the entire administration. But our governments are too 'strong' to collapse at such a 'small' perturbation! And who cares about any entity - a political party, an institution, a leading personality or whoever - if they don't have the luck to have a hold on the lever of state power?
In Bangladeshi style of'constitutional, democratic and parliamentary system' of politics, opposition political leaders can be treated like 'outlaws.' You can treat them like terrorists and criminals, can place them under remand to undergo a cruel process of exacting confession; the police can beat them up mercilessly and hurl abuse at them, as they reportedly did while arresting Ruhul Kabir Rizvi, BNP's joint secretary general, from his party office in that early morning raid.
And in this kind political culture, leaders in their seventies and eighties can be charged with breaking or setting fire to vehicles, or even attempting to murder. And the most astounding aspect of it all is that an administration with a limited mandate to perform only routine work as part of overseeing the general election can treat a political rival in this manner! Monarchs of old might, perhaps, envy such power in the hands of an administrative authority in transition.
If political scientists and constitutional experts are already scratching their heads over this vexing governance phenomenon, they are in for further shocks. Listen to the reassuring words of communications minister Obaidul Quader suggesting that once a consensus is reached it would result in the freedom of the arrested opposition leaders. So all the chase, the arrests, denying senior political leaders the respect they deserve, are all fun, part of the game of'consensus reaching'!
We have so far been hearing the talk about talks to reach an agreement or consensus on what will be the form of the administration that would hold the election to the 10th Jatiya Sangsad. There was the drama of failed telephone talks between two party chiefs, visits by UN and US envoys, shuttling of foreign diplomats between the two leaders, the business community's plea, civil society's requests and cautionary notes. Nothing has so far worked to create pressure on them to sit and talk to devise a formula about the form of polls-time government. Now we hear about this strong-arm tactics of'consensus making.' Whoever has heard of such a weird manner of thrusting consensus down the throat of the political opponent?
This is but one side of the story.
The opposition are also not far behind in their own style of makingconsensus.
They have enforced a deadly political programme of
amran hossain hartals and blockades triggering blasting of crude bombs, cocktails and even petrol bombs, breaking and torching of vehicles and railway coaches, uprooting of rails and fishplates from railway tracks. Dozens have been burnt, hacked and shot to death, while scores of other got badly injured. Many of these victims died in police actions during encounters with the opposition activists.
But why these violent street programmes?
To force the government to agree to their demand for the kind of polls-time government they want, the opposition BNP-led alliance would say. So it's their approach towards 'consensus making.' But why should innocent passers-by, travelers in trains, drivers of buses, auto rickshaws and covered vans pay in blood to make the politicians' consensus to take place? No, it's not them, but the agent provocateurs of the government who are behind these dastardly incidents, the opposition would waste no time to complain.
It's all for a political consensus on who will conduct the election, politicians of both the political camps would say in chorus. But to the man in the street it's barbaric, bizarre and killing!