& 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

Untenable security law

The second part of the privilege, getting 'well secured residences' for the members of the extended family of Bangabandhu, is redundant on one hand and in violation of the principle of equal privilege for every citizen of the Republic on the other.

MozammelH. Khan
F I 1HE government is allocating Sheikh Rehana a house on one
J. and a half bighas of land in Dhaka's upscale Culshan. The formalities to allot House no. 10 on Road no. 84 at a token price of Tk. 1,001 have been completed. "The process is being finalised to allocate a house in Culshan to Bangabandhu's daughter Sheikh Rehana under the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's Family Members Security Act, 2009," Housing and Public Works minister disclosed to newsmen on Wednesday.
Bangladesh Parliament, on October 13, 2009, passed a bill under the title "Father of the Nation's Family Members Security Act, 2009" providing lifelong special security arrangement and secured residences to Sheikh Hasina, Sheikh Rehana and their children. According to the act, Bangabandhu's immediate family members will enjoy state security provided by Special Security Forces (SSF), and will get well secured residences. The previous Awami League government had enacted an almost similar bill in June, 2001, allocating Ganabhaban, official residence of the prime minister, to Sheikh Hasina and a Dhanmondi house to her sister. The BNP-Jamaat-led alliance government repealed the act in 2001 after assuming power in October 2001.
It was generally assumed that before enacting any such law once again, the government would go over the pros and cons of the tenability of the law when the AL would not be at the helm of the state. However, as it appears, the current act contains more untenable elements vis-a-vis the one that was enacted in 2001.
In every society, leaders who are responsible for creating watershed in history invariably become targets of violence. One person is enough to perpetrate any heinous act with the intention of creating a roadblock in the course of history. Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi are examples of how revered leaders whose main philosophy was nonviolence became victims of violence themselves.
In Bangladesh, Bangabandhu never ever contemplated that he could be a victim of such ruthless assassination by his 'own' people. If he had an iota of mistrust on any one or group, he would be staying within the secured walls of
the Bangabhaban, rather than the modest personal residence that was accessible anytime to ordinary constituents whom he called 'my people.' After what happened to Bangabandhu and most of his family members, the numerous threats to the lives of the two surviving daughters of Bangabandhu, especially Sheikh Hasina, are real and can no t be ta ken 1 igh 11 y.
Unlike the earlier law that stipulated providing some privileges for Sheikh Hasina and Sheikh Rehana, the law enacted in 2009 extended the same to their children as well. Privilege could be of two types: protection and benefit. Protection is given to help the powerless. The protection, as mentioned in the bill, is in the form of providing SSF security.
Of the extended family members of
Bangabandhu, as envisaged in the bill, only Sheikh Hasina lives in Bangladesh and is in public life. As the current PM, she is already getting the highest degree of protection the state could possibly provide. However, when she is out of office, the government of the day would decide, irrespective of the provisions of security act, how much security she should be given. The other members, all of whom are currently residing outside the country and are private citizens, do not fall within the purview of the law. When they visit Bangladesh, they reside in the secured zone of the PM's residence.
However, when they venture out, it is not clear how the SSF security will be provided to them as private citizens even when the AL is in the government, let alone when the party is out of it. Therefore, the only tenable part, as far as the 'protection' part of the act is concerned, could be applicable only to Sheikh Hasina when she ceases to hold the office of the prime minister and still remains in public life.
The second part of the privilege, getting 'well secured residences' for the members of the extended family of Bangabandhu, is redundant on one hand and in violation of the principle of equal privilege for every citizen of the Republic on the other. All the members of the Bangabandhu family, except Sheikh Hasina, are either citizens or residents of other countries. Sheikh Rehana has been residing in UK with her children for many years. Both of her children are well-educated and one of them is already in British politics. Taking into cognisance their bright careers, there is no reason to believe that they would need any financial gratuity from the state to secure a residence in Bangladesh if they wish to do so. Likewise, Sheikh Rehana does not need the state to gift her a house in Dhaka just for her casual visits to Bangladesh. Not very many people in Bangladesh are fortunate enough to own a house in the capital city of
Bangladesh.
It is this government which evicted the BNP chief from her Cantonment house, although the allotment was given on a logically acceptable humanitarian ground. The government invoked the constitutional provision for equal right for each citizen in favour of her eviction. Against this backdrop, it would appear to be difficult for the government to make the current decision acceptable to the people in general, let alone to its detractors. In the broader perspective, people will view it as an abuse of authority.
Allocation of Ganabhaban to Sheikh Hasina in 2001 played a detrimental role in her party's electoral debacle in 2001. Likewise, the decision of allotting a house for Sheikh Rehana will inflict a severe blow to the already dwindling public support for the government, in addition to irreversibly diminishing the love the family members of Bangabandhu enjoy in the heart of the millions. Will the supreme leadership of AL come out of the narrow assembly of sycophants to the broader arena to listen to the voices of the common masses?
The writer is Convenor, Canadian Committee for