& 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

THE INTRACTABLE VIOLENCE
The intrac table violence that the nation is passing through would appear to be 'low intensity' conflict. In such a scenario one would not be able to seethe serious ramifications of the violence for the families, children, and communities. Not only are ordinary citizens and non-combatants killed in the fighting, their lives are marred by being caught between two opposing groups and at times by virulent state security operations.
In our current situation, security has become a matter for everyday engagement for many and while security of the state is important there are apprehensions that it is quite often exceeding the limits of legitimacy and indulging in unacceptable levels of violence. The so-called political opposition stands accused of resorting to unspeakable and despicable levels of brutality. In fact, the petrol bomb throwing and arson exposes a pitiable dimension of the de-humanisation process to which the body politic has been subjected.
Interestingly, on a theoretical level at least, the police function in the field of public proteaion and public safety is marked by its reliance upon the minimum and not the maximum use of force. As an organisation the police are subordinate to the decrees of the courts and are expeaed to strialy adhere to rule of law and the concept of human
rights. On ground, however, the police have been used as sticks to thrash political opponents into submission. In faa, our criminal justice system is yet to adequately respond to the diversity of political, economic, and social systems and to the constantly evolving conditions of society.
One of the primary tasks of any legal government is to preserve the constitutional order which explicitly or implicitly defines who should wield effective power and how that shall be done. The state and civil society could be seen as representing the realms of governance and negotiations of interest cast in a legal and formal network. The political society represents the realm of negotiations and struggles between state and people through political parties, movements and informal networks.
Negotiations and public manifestations on a huge and intense scale along with complex political and social movements are an important feature of our political society. These movements have seated complex networks within and beyond the state's jurisdiction. Such a scenario does not necessarily conform to the dictates of a law-abiding civil society.
The quantity and quality of violence characterising Bangladeshi society at most levels today has an irreducibly political context. Overt and visible violence co-exists with invisible violence that destroys the identity of human beings. At present, we are witnessing the politics of violence which means resorting to physical violence to promote a political objective, as well as the violence of politics, which denotes violence built into the institutional struaure of politics. Liberal ideology, however, denies the existence of violence of politics.
It needs to be noted that though
the violence in society is perceived as a breach of law, often the law itself becomes equally violent and has a debilitating impaa due to systematic ruthlessness backed by official sanction. The rule of law, though a civilising faaor, often leads to the deployment of violence for purposes of governance.
The constitutional order perhaps remains intaa amidst increasingly strident dissenting voices pointing to the lack of moral tenability of the present ruling dispensation, which by one account is the result of a controversial eleaion. It is perhaps time to venture beyond indulging in legalistic sophistry and understand the political compulsions. At the same time, it needs to be appreciated that while some establishment figures are speaking in the language of weapon, the opposition activists are actually applying vicious weapons to cripple, maim, and physically banish innocent people with a view to extraaing political support.
Political violence calls for a political response from the state authorities rather than a strictly law and order response. The latter may be necessary but not sufficient. The blunt reality is that the major political parties and prominent political players have not been respeaers of the rule of law. Consequently, this has resulted in large-scale institutional malfunaioning with politics acquiring an appetite for all spaces, both public and private. Thus, all violence becomes political in a sense. Therefore, the infliction of mindless violence needs to be countered by mindful political stewardship and the rule of law must not involve the use of violence in governance.
The writer is a columnist of The Dally Star.