Minister's Anger Against the Fifth Amendment, not Against the FourthDr.M.T. Hussain Law Minister's Anger Sheikh Hasina's Law Minister Shafiq Ahmad in a function of the BBC Bangla Radio I tuned in on the 24th May evening in got stunned to hear from the mouth of the minister that he had deep anger against the Fifth Amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution. His anger fell on the issue that the basic foundation of the Constitution had been ripped apart (SINNO VINNO KORE FELA HOESE- his Bengali verbatim). I had right then the feeling, if I could ask him, he should have had reminded himself that the basic foundations of the Constitution of 1972 had first of all and over four years ahead of the Fifth Amendment been ripped into pieces by the Fourth Amendment adopted on the 25th January 1975. Pluralism of 1972 Constitution Shattered Despite many grumbling on the modus operandi of framing the 1972 Constitution, as many skeptics took it that the document had been dictated from behind by external source, the Bangladeshi actors being the show boys, and further that the Constitution took shape in continuation of the State of Pakistan as the Members of the Parliament who framed the document had been elected earlier in the 1970 December election under the LFO (Legal Framework Order of the President of Pakistan), it had a very good element in the basic principle that Bangladesh would remain attached in perpetuity to pluralism and multi-party parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately, this pluralism was badly attacked by the rulers in independent Bangladesh at each and every point. The misuse of the process by the self- seeking rulers made a mess of everything and so mistakenly went to kill the system and replaced with one party draconian dictatorship styled as the BAKSAL Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League). That is what evil the Fourth Amendment did. BAKSAL's Dictatorship One may further wonder in the fact that the absolute leader who went in a still draconian way to pass the Fourth Amendment did the change from pluralism to one party rule not in due parliamentary process by a sort of dictate in the floor of the House permitting none but the only leader to speak and he made the announcement for the BAKSAL in only 13 minutes wonder session of the House! The leader further declared himself the top boss of the BAKSAL and that of the State, the lifetime President of Bangladesh with no scope kept open in case of the obvious need for change for peaceful transfer of power to the next person. Gagging and Oppression The unfortunate others for the freedom loving people of the country followed in evils like gagging of the press that enjoyed freedom since the long past, oppression of the dissenting views in politics by the special but unconstitutional Para Military force labeled as the Rakhhi Bahini. Quite amazingly this Rakhhi Bahini had been planned, organized, trained, motivated and armed by the Indian intelligence Agency, the R&AW directly under the Indian General Ovan. The Fourth Amendment reinforced these anti-national issues and so put bars on the freedom of the people of the country that they fought for in the past and in 1971. Parliament made the Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment enacted in early April 1979 not only was done by the duly elected Parliament in due process but also restored pluralism and multi-party democracy in Bangladesh that the 1972 Constitution had incorporated. Other Marginal Changes The two other marginal changes of the 1972 Constitution made in the Fifth Amendment were in regard to one, Bengali nationalism to Bangladeshi nationalism was nothing in any basic assumption as not Bengali speakers alone, let alone the ethnic Bengalese, constituted the citizens of Bangladesh. In respect of the principle of 'Socialism' of the 1972 Constitution, things so changed and developed all around the world and changed economic outlooks, incorporation of 'Social Justice' for 'Socialism' rightly fitted the demand of time. 'Secularism' adopted in the 1972 Constitution had little relevance with the aspirations of the devoutly religious people of the country. Should any serious government wish in this question to take any nod or not of the people they may well go for a referendum even in this period of the Awami administration that apparently professes to be 'secular' in politics. None is 100% Secular No society is 100% secular, because, the people have belief in some form of religion and spiritualism that underpins the psyche of nation and country concerned that affects politics, as well. The latest survey in the USA found that 95% of the American people are religious believing in the supreme lone God (Barack Obama, , Audacity of Hope, 2006, p.198). Whosoever would present India as a model he/she must note that the Indian Constitution does not have any written or set article therein about secularism but a casual mention in the preamble that did not provide for anything obligatory to follow in actions by the government.. Indian former President APJ A. Kalam has candidly advised his people and the younger generation, in particular, on the issue 'that the foundation of secularism in India has to be derived from spirituality' (APJ A. Kalam, Ignited Minds, 2002, P.114). Britain, the provider of Parliamentary democracy to Bangladesh is not a secular country but a religious one, the Crown or the Queen/King being the head of both temporal and spiritual matters through the Anglican Church. There is no bar there to form religious based political party. In many European countries, there are religious based political parties. However, such parties are not allowed in Communist countries. Bangladesh is not a Communist country; there is very little or no possibility that Bangladesh would turn into an irreligious communist country even if Communists would take political powers. That was what rightly the Fifth Amendment did by replacing the trend of irreligiousness and gave a firm base for religiosity by both amendments, the Fifth putting 'absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah' and followed logically by the 8th adopting Islam as the State Religion, few years latter. Both steps were highly appreciated in general by the millions of religious people of the country. BAKSAL and Bismillah The Law Minister, however, elsewhere made a casual remark that even if the 5th Amendment would be scrapped neither Bismillah would be abandoned from the top of the Constitution nor the BAKSAL be re-introduced. Was not that funny? How could the secular constitution accept Bismillah at the top being that a nonreligious document? Why would not the other religious people object to that and would not press for their religious icons inserted along with? Legal Complications Scrapping of the 5th Amendment should automatically back the constitutional position of the country to BAKSAL syndrome. Well, reverting back from BAKSAL to the multi-party system would certainly need amendment to be passed in the Parliament. But whether the existing Awami League Jote Members could pass any such amendment would be another question of new legal complicacy. In other words, the romantics like the Law Minister would put the country from one legal complication to another, if not from the fry pan to the fire. Romantics It may thus be concluded that the few romantics and the daydreamers would only cram for scrapping off the Fifth Amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution. |
__._,_.___
