I do not assume to be more informed or clever than Barrister Rafique. But in a lifetime of practising law at every level he certainly knows that people tend not to change their mindset - especially when 50+ in age, surrounded by sycophants and lackeys.
Politicians do not need a change in mindset.
Bangladesh needs a change in its leaders.
And Barrister Rafique knows it.
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> *Leaders need a change in mindset*
>
>
>
> Barrister Rafique-ul Huq speaks to PROBE about constitutional reforms, the
> prevailing political scenario and more...
>
>
>
> Interviewed by ANWAR PARVEZ HALIM
>
>
>
> *With the abolition of some parts of the Fifth Amendment, according to
> Article 38 of the 1972 Constitution, religion-based politics is banned in
> the country. This isn't quite clear to the general public. Could you
> explain?*
>
> What you are talking about is theory. The High Court and Appellate Division
> have a lot of bindings. They have called for the Constitution to be made
> afresh and a committee has been formed for the purpose. They will draw up
> the 2010 Constitution. Some ask how the committee will ignore the verdict of
> the court. Actually, the parliament is the highest authority or body. The
> committee will review the entire Constitution. But yes, theoretically, the
> abolition of the Fifth Amendment has revived the issue of religion-based
> politics. In that manner, it has revived the Fourth Amendment too. But has
> this been implemented in that sense? No, it hasn't.
>
>
>
> *Can this matter be politicized? The government says the Election Commission
> is to take the decision regarding religion-based politics. If neither the
> Election Commission nor the government takes any decision in this regard,
> will it fall once again on the shoulders of the court?*
>
> If anyone challenges the matter, it can go to court. Doesn't Jamaat know
> about the issue of religion–based politics? Under pressure of the Election
> Commission they made amendments. They have brought about amendments to the
> party constitution.
>
>
>
> *How realistic is the demand to revert to the 1972 Constitution?*
>
> This is not possible. How can you go back to 1972? The First Amendment dealt
> with the issue of war crimes. Is it possible to return to that point now?
>
>
>
> *Again, there are demands to remove the phrase "Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim"
> from the Constitution. Can that be done?*
>
> No, the judgement of Justice Khairul Haque has saved that. Even Hasina has
> said Bismillah and the state religion Islam will remain.
>
>
>
> *Then again, they are retaining secularism. Isn't that contradictory?*
>
> I don't think so because Islam was made state religion through the
> Constitution so it is not really contradictory. When they were doing this I
> had rushed to Moudud Ahmed and told him that they were going to create
> chaos. I advised him and he added to Islam being a state religion, the
> phrase that `other religions may also be practiced in peace and harmony in
> the republic.'
>
>
>
> *So you have a contribution here too?*
>
> No, no, I wasn't a parliament member. I just told Moudud, add these words to
> it, Ershad will never know. I took these words from the Malaysian
> Constitution. Islam is the state religion in Malaysia, but Muslims,
> Christian and Hindus all celebrate Eid, Christmas and Puja together there.
>
>
>
> *Don't followers of other religions feel insecure because of this?*
>
> If Muslims are not insecure in India, why should Hindus feel insecure here?
> In India before any programme they light their mangal pradip (little oil
> lamps), chant nomo nomo and recite from the Geeta. I have seen that in the
> SAARC programmes too. I think we, and Malaysia, are the most secular in the
> region. Do you see any conflict between Hindus and Muslims in Bangladesh?
>
>
>
> *It is being said that the annulment of the Seventh Amendment now allows for
> Ershad to be tried on grounds of unlawful takeover of state power.*
>
> No, why should Ershad be tried? The parliament ratified the Seventh
> Amendment so how can Ershad be blamed? The judges may talk big now, but they
> took oath under martial law at the time. If they talk so much now, they are
> the ones then that should be tried. Actually there is no connection between
> the abolition of the Seventh Amendment and Ershad being tried or sentenced.
> However, if anyone was harmed during the time of martial law, they can file
> a case and be compensated. After all, the martial law was unlawful.
>
>
>
> *You had mentioned that the government may do away with the caretaker
> government system. How justified would that be?*
>
> In 2008 I myself had maintained that the caretaker government system should
> go. If a government can run a country for five years, why can't it conduct
> an election? But first one has to ensure a conducive environment to bring
> that about. What did we observe in the Bhola-3 by-elections? Before this,
> had the instance of "Magura" not taken place, we wouldn't have needed the
> caretaker system. This system doesn't exist anywhere else. We had introduced
> that for two terms at the time, but it is continuing till today. Anyway, in
> the caretaker system if cancelled right now, there is likely to be a crisis.
> BNP will refuse to participate in the election.
>
> I am personally against the caretaker system, but it would create a serious
> crisis if it were abolished under the prevailing circumstances. There is no
> doubt about that. Had there been an efficient, neutral and capable Election
> Commission in place, there would be no need for a caretaker government. But
> where will we get such an Election Commission? Another personal opinion of
> mine is that the national elections should not be held in a single day.
>
>
>
> *You were the lawyer in the Amar Desh and Mahmudur Rahman case. What is your
> opinion about the verdict?*
>
> If I were to tell the truth, I might be sent to jail too. The truth is that
> the verdict is absolutely unlawful. This verdict has set an extremely
> harmful precedence for the media in Bangladesh. The sentence has been one
> lakh taka fine and a one year jail sentence. Nowhere in Bangladesh or in
> this region has anyone been sentenced to one year's imprisonment for such a
> reason. The highest fine could have been 200 taka, maximum. I don't know
> under which law they have imposed this fine.
>
>
>
> *Is there scope for a reconsideration of the verdict?*
>
> Of course there is. If they want to reconsider it, they easily can.
>
>
>
> *In recent times there has been controversy over judges and the image of the
> court is suffering. Why is this happening?*
>
> All judges are being politically appointed now. On September 30 the new Chef
> Justice will be appointed. The norm is that the next man in seniority will
> be made Chief Justice. Now I hear there are all sorts of deliberations going
> on about this too.
>
> I hear Justice Khairul Haque may be made Chief Justice. Perhaps that is why
> he passed some extreme verdicts during the term of this government. If he is
> made Chief Justice, he will be superseding Justice Naimuddin. Justice
> Naimuddin is the brother of BNP leader Brigadier Hannan Shah and so probably
> he won't be made Chief Justice. Yet this Justice Naim was the junior of
> Awami League's Fakir Shahabuddin and would live in his house. He was never
> involved in politics. But because his brother is in BNP, he won't be given
> the post.
>
> After 1/11 I had repeatedly, time and again, stated that having a chamber
> judge inevitably means a stay decision. In the cases of both Hasina and
> Khaleda, there was a chamber judge who passed a stay order. If I speak up
> about this now, I will be sent to the jail in Nazimuddin Road too.
>
>
>
> *You have seen a lot in your lifetime. From experience can you say where
> this country's politics is heading?*
>
> I was a citizen of British India. I was a citizen of the Indian Republic, I
> was a citizen of Pakistan and now I am a citizen of Bangladesh. I have seen
> four countries and I believe nothing can be above the country. However,
> unfortunately, the two leaders of the two parties think their respective
> parties are all-in-all. One thinks her father has made Bangladesh, the other
> thinks her husband has. In other words, they own the country. But the
> country belongs to all of us; nothing can be greater than the country. When
> they had a meeting on the Kashmir issue in India, all the parties joined in.
> No one boycotted the meeting. But today if Hasina calls for a meeting,
> Khaleda won't attend.
>
>
>
> *How will you evaluate the "minus two" formula?*
>
> Many people supported the "minus two" formula at the time. The situation had
> reached a point when everyone was thinking that it would be a relief to get
> these two out of the way. But then the initiators of the initiative
> themselves got embroiled in corruption. That is why I say the caretaker
> concept is wrong. But we have reached a point where you can't have an
> election without it. That is even worse.
>
> With the cancellation of the Seventh Amendment people ask if that means that
> there will no longer be martial law. My reply is, does a tsunami or an
> earthquake inform us before they come? Martial law isn't going to take
> anyone's permission to come.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the two leaders need a change in mindset.
> This is imperative. Things can't carry on like this. Our democracy has
> reached such a low level that we have no alternative but to go up. We really
> need to generator to start things up.
>
>
>
> *Many lawyers have joined politics, why haven't you? Haven't you received
> any offers, or have you deliberately stayed away?*
>
> I am not in politics and everyone knows I have no political involvement
> whatsoever. That is why they don't come to me with such offers. There was a
> time when I was a leader of the Youth Congress in West Bengal. My boss at
> the time was Indira Gandhi. She was the President of the Youth Congress. You
> might wonder that I was in politics with Indira Gandhi, but am not involved
> in politics in Bangladesh!
>
>
>
> *In the future if you get any offer, not in politics, but for an important
> state position?*
>
> I will not accept any political offer ever. I am not involved in politics. I
> would rather remain involved in social activities.
>
>
>
> *You have conducted the cases of Ershad, Khaleda and Hasina. What is that
> all about? People talk a lot about this.*
>
> Once Ershad asked me, "Why have you taken up the case of these two ladies?
> They are thieves!" I replied, "What can I do, sir, I have honed my skills by
> conducting the case of the biggest thief of them all! Now I can't avoid
> them."
>
> I have never taken any money from them; I have conducted their cases from an
> ethical standpoint. Only while conducting Hasina's case did Tapash present
> me with a gown.
>
>
>
> *Profile of Barrister Rafique-ul Huq*
>
>
>
> On February 28 Barrister Rafique-ul Huq celebrated the Golden Jubilee of his
> legal practice. He has emerged as one of the most prominent and respected
> lawyers of the country.
>
> Born in Calcutta in 1935, Barrister Rafique-ul Huq obtained his Law Degree
> in 1960 and joined the Calcutta High Court in February that year. He
> subsequently went to the UK where he became a Barrister and later joined the
> Dhaka High Court in 1962.
>
> An expert in corporate law, Barrister Rafique-ul Huq has not remained
> restricted to this area of the law alone, but has proved his mettle in all
> areas of the legal domain. He has set high standards by his
> multi-dimensional legal practice over the last 50 years. He was quick to
> question the legality of the army-backed caretaker government between
> January 2007 and 2008 and fought successfully for the return to democracy.
>
> Beneath the rather daunting exterior as a hard-nosed lawyer, is an affable,
> witty and kind hearted man. He has a charming and warm personality.
>
> Barrister Huq has significant contribution to BIRDEM, Ahsania Mission Cancer
> Hospital, Shishu Hospital and other causes. He is the Chairperson of Ad-din
> Basundhara Women's Medical College, Ad-din Foundation, Basundhara Ad-din
> Hospital, Ad-din Rafiqul Huq Hospital and Suborna-Ibrahim Hospital.
>
> Barrister Rafique-ul Huq's wife Farida Huq is a physician and his son
> Fahim-ul Huq is a Barrister.
> parvez1966@...
> http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=6384
>
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/