Editorial
Slow-poisoning' claim needs to be investigated
THE claim that the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, made on Thursday, i.e. she 'was slow-poisoned in jail' during the two-year rule of the military-controlled interim government, was stunning, although the deputy leader of the house and senior presidium member of the ruling Awami League, Syeda Sajeda Chowdhury, had already raised the allegation last year. (Sajeda told a news briefing that Hasina and Khaleda Zia, chairperson of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and now leader of the opposition in the parliament, were both slow-poisoned in jail.) When the prime minister makes such a claim — that too, in the parliament — there can hardly be any reason to question its credibility.
Moreover, for a considerable part of its tenure, the interim government did try to eliminate Hasina and Khaleda Zia, through forced exile or convictions in cases related to serious crimes and high-profile corruptions, in its bid to redraw the political landscape with its cronies in leadership positions. Hence, the possibility of someone on the interim government trying to poison Hasina and Khaleda to death cannot be ruled out.
Now that the prime minister has herself come up with the allegation, that too in the parliament, it is only logical to expect a thorough investigation so that the perpetrators and the masterminds of the deadly scheme can be identified and brought to justice. However, such an investigation may not be forthcoming; at least, that is the impression one would get from the statement of the prime minister. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Friday, Hasina said one of her eyes was 'nearly damaged' as a consequence of the slow-poisoning but quickly added that she didn't 'want to elaborate on those private matters.' Needless to say, an attempt to kill her cannot be a 'private matter' because she is a political leader.
Moreover, Hasina and her government have thus far displayed a curious reticence when it comes to calling the official and unofficial leaders of the interim government to account for the many misdeeds that they committed during the emergency rule. It is pertinent to recall that the ruling party did not even move a censure motion in the parliament to condemn the illegal and unconstitutional takeover and tenure of the interim government although some senior AL lawmakers have publicly stressed the need for constitutional safeguards against extra-constitutional interventions in the democratic political process. Worse still, it was reported in the media last year that the prime minister had asked senior party colleagues not to make any public statement with regard to prosecution and punishment of the onstage and backstage players of the interim government.
The apparent unwillingness of the government to even publicly condemn the proponents and exponents of the military-controlled regime, let alone take them to task, for their misadventure, which has had a serious fallout on politics as well as the economy, only lends credence to the allegation that the ruling party struck some clandestine deals with the interim government to facilitate its return to power. Such misgivings need to be dispelled and allegations proved wrong, which can only happen if the government initiate a move to put the official and unofficial leaders of the interim government in the dock for meddling with the political process. A credible and comprehensive investigation into the prime minister's 'slow-poisoning' claim could be a good start in this direction.
__._,_.___
