Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

[ALOCHONA] Alarming rise of divorce cases



Alarming rise of divorce cases
 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Big party blessings fuel Ershad’s audacity





Cross-section of people on Tuesday condemned former military ruler and Jatiya Party chairman Hussein Muhammad Ershad's claims that there was no way to put him on trial.
   Many of them said continued blessing of bourgeois political parties and their dependence on him had encouraged him to make such 'audacious' statement.
   
Ershad told newsmen in Rangpur on Monday that those who were relishing the idea that he could be put on trial, were mentally ill. 'There is no way to put me on trial. Those who are relishing the idea have not read the High Court verdict properly. They are mentally ill,' he said.
   
He said the High Court verdict had legalised all the good things done by his regime and forgiven the rest. 'There is no chance to put me on trial.'
   'Those who want me to be hanged are having daydreams,' he said.
   The High Court on August 26 declared illegal the Seventh Amendment to the constitution that had legitimised the takeover and the regime of Ershad.
   After the ruling, Ershad met with Sheikh Hasina, the prime minister and chief of his Jatiya Party's main ally Awami League, on Sunday.
   
About Ershad's comments, cross-section of people said after the High Court ruling declaring the Seventh Amendment to the constitution illegal, the state should take initiatives to put him on trial for sedition, violating military laws, killing people and unleashing oppression on democratic activists during his 'illegal regime' in 1982-1990.
   
Economist and political thinker Anu Muhammad said, 'Ershad was supposed to stay behind bars for his misdeeds but it was the bourgeois political parties which had rehabilitated him and they should be held responsible for his audacity.'
   'Besides the parties, there are international actors of global capital who benefited from Ershad's policies such as strategic action plan and Ershad might think they are still behind him,' he said.
   'After the High Court ruling, the people had expected that the government would take some action on its own in line with the ruling. But the reality is the prime minister had an hour-long exclusive meeting with him and after the meeting Ershad seemed doubly assured,' he said. 'Opinion polls in past two days indicate that the people do not think Ershad would face trial.'
   
'Successive governments after 1990 had followed all the policies, strategies and practices of Ershad and it might also have made Ershad confident,' he added.
   Rights watchdog Odhikar secretary Adilur Rahman Khan said Ershad was still liable to face trial for sedition, violating military rule, unleashing oppression on pro-democracy activists and killing a number of people, including Zafar, Zainal Dipali Saha and Dr Shamsul Alam Khan Milon, during his rule.
   
'People had expected some initiatives from the state after the High Court ruling. But the prime minister held a meeting with him…They might have discussed about their political strategies…Ershad's statements after that meeting indicates they want to protect each other,' Adil said.
   Rights activist Shahriyar Kabir said that before giving the ruling on the Seventh Amendment, the High Court had issued a ruling cancelling the Fifth Amendment to the constitution and asked the parliament to make sure that the usurpers of state power violating constitution were put on trials.
  
 'Both Zia and Ershad should face trial for sedition as they illegally seized the state power as the court suggested their trial. If the government with two thirds majority in the house fails to stop the way to illegal power takeover, it would create a black chapter in our history,' he said.
   Shahriyar said that Ershad was encouraged to make such audacious comments as he was a major ally of the Awami League.
   Bangladesh Nationalist Party standing committee member Tariqul Islam said Ershad's remarks had surprised him. 'I heard him saying so on television. Ershad had kept me in cantonment for six months and tortured me in all possible ways.'
   
'Ershad must face trial and I would let you know after consulting lawyers if I would take legal action,' he told New Age.
   The president of the Communist Party of Bangladesh, Monzurul Ahsan Khan, said the High Court ruling had said usurpers of power and violators of the constitution must be tried. 'Such illegal takeover will continue if they are not put on trial.'
   'The present prime minister Sheikh Hasina and other political leaders, including me, were taken to the cantonment blindfolded and some were physically tortured after Ershad seized power illegally' he said.
   
Monzur castigated some left political parties for joining the Awami League-led alliance with Jatiya Party. 'After the High Court ruling, Hasina should oust Jatiya Party from the alliance and put him on trial, he said.
   The general secretary of Bangladesher Samajtantrik Dal, Khalequzzaman, said Ershad had shown such audacity taking the advantage of being a partner of the AL-led alliance which was now in power.
   The president of the Workers Party of Bangladesh, Rashed Khan Menon said they were always against illegal military rule. 'We would speak about our strategy on the court's ruling and statements by Ershad after consulting our lawyers,' he said.
   
Playwright Mamunur Rashid said Ershad should face trial for his every misdeed. 'It was a shame for us that a martial law administrator had seized state power and made a Supreme Court judge the president ruining the image of judiciary. We have to do away with it for good.'
 


__._,_.___


[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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] About a Duke !



About a Duke !
 
 


__._,_.___


[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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Miscreants invented ! Problems will be no more



PM warns BCL-Shun creating violence, giving sanctuary to JCD and Shibir

If more are identified as offenders, they too will surely be arrested-Hasina

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Tuesday renewed her warning against hooliganism and violent activities on campus in the name of Chhatra League or other fronts of Awami League. She also warned Chhatra League leaders for giving sanctuaries to Chhatra Dal and Chhatra Shibir activists in Chhatra League to serve their own personal interests.(UNB, Dhaka)

The Prime Minister made the remarks at a discussion at Bangabandhu international Conference Center around noon.

Bangladesh Chhatra League arranged the meeting in memory of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his wife Bangamata Fazilatunnesa Mujib who both along with most of their family members were assassinated on August 15, 1975.

Sheikh Hasina, who had withdrawn her name as organizational chief of the BCL on April 4, 2009 following unprecedented internal clashes of the student body, said Chhatra Dal and Shibir activists have intruded the BCL and they are staging various violent activities on the campuses using the name of BCL.

"Besides, there is a group which I should call Permanent Government Party. They always change their color and get mixed with the ruling party's people to take various opportunities from the government," the Prime Minister said.

Sheikh Hasina warned the intruders and opportunists that she herself is making a list of such intruders at every educational institution. "All troublemakers including the intruders are being identified. Many have already been arrested. If more are identified as offenders, they too will surely be arrested," the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister welcomed expulsion of some 50 BCL workers from the party on charges of violent and anti-organization activities. "I thank the Chhatra League for the expulsion of the offenders. If necessary such expulsion has to be continued in the future also," the Prime Minister said.

http://www.thebangladeshtoday.com/leading%20news.htm


__._,_.___


[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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Martial Law and dilemma of the Judges



Martial Law and dilemma of the Judges

Two judgements of our Supreme Court have declared the Fifth and Seventh Amendments unconstitutional. The First judgement was delivered by their Lordships of the Appellate Division sitting in full court presided over by the Chief Justice Mr. Justice Mohammad· Fazlul Karim declared the Fifth Amendment being violative of the Constitution so the takeover of the government was also illegal. The declaration against the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution came within weeks of the said judgement. A Division Bench of the High Court Division comprising their Lordships Mr. Justice A.H.M. Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Mr. Justice Sheikh Mohammad Zakir Hossain pronounced the judgement. Their Lordships in both judgements supported appropriate punishment for those responsible for constitutional violations.

Implications of these two judgments are undoubtedly far reaching. The judgements are widely debated expressing concerns and explaining the complications. Some politician found such judgements as deterant against military take over. Martial Law is unconstitutional is not unknown. But to declaring such changes by judicial pronouncements illegal and suggesting perpetrators to be punished despite subsequent ratification by the elected parliament has raised tough questions within and outside the government. If after a constitutional deviation ratification by the parliament is no protection then what?

Marital law is a negation of law, but successful martial law is a new order. No helpful purpose is served by making return to constitutionalism and the rule of law more difficult.

An outstanding former Chief Justice of our country made an insightful analysis of the dilemma judges face in an extra-constitutional take-over. We reproduce below excerpts from the Kamini Dutta Memorial Law Lectures delivered by Mr. Justice Mustafa Kamal at Dhaka University in 1994. It should be clear that the analysis of Mr. Justice Mustafa Kamal has no direct bearing on the recent judgements of the Supreme Court.

There are occasions when either the established constitutional machinery breaks down or an extra-constitutional force takes over the reins of administration, posing a dilemma for the Judges. Nearly all Constitutions require the Judges to take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the laws" (see Article 148 and the Third Schedule of our Constitution). But when the Constitution is either abrogated or suspended and made subservient to the will of an extra-constitutional force, the Judges have to make a choice. An Argentinian Judge ( Oyhanarte, J..) has aptly described the dilemma of Judges:-

'The Supreme Court cannot modify the course of history. It lacks the power necessary to do this. When it is faced with the overthrow of constitutional authorities and the installation of a Government of force by what have come to be called 'revolutionary' means, the judges of the court can do three things:-

(I) resign, thus transferring the responsibility of the decision to others;

(2) simply accept the fact:

(3) try to save those institutional values which can still be saved"

(Quoted from Snow, Judges and Generals: The Role of the Argentine Supreme Court during Periods of Military Government (1975), p. 617).

In R Vs. Ndhlovu, [1968] 4 S.A.L.R. 515. Sir Hugh Beadle, C.J. expressed the dilemma this way :-

"The problem of whether a judge should stay or go is a matter personal choice……..The first duty of judges then, as I see it, is. 'whatever the political battle', to 'keep out of the main' area of dispute' and to 'carry on their peaceful task of protecting the fabric of society and maintaining law and order.' provided, of course, their judicial independence is not tampered with .. The judge is simply forced into a position of accepting the facts and the laws as they are, whether he likes them or not. He has, as I have said before, been overtaken by events."

Resignation of Judges in revolutionary situations has not been uncommon, but except for the ripple that it causes in the body politic neither the Judges by resignation en masse or in ones or twos have been able to deflect the revolutionary regime from following the course of action it chose to pursue nor have the people at large carried the mantle from the Judges to overthrow the extra-constitutional force. On the other hand when Judges resigned in protest against an unconstitutional takeover or when Judges were removed because of their obstruction to the wishes of the new authority, their successors on the Bench merely conformed to the wishes of the new regime and often they were also of so low a calibre that justice was no longer administered properly. On the other side it may perhaps be rightly argued that the continuance in office of the Judges gives the new regime a semblance of legitimacy.

In the recent Constitution 8th Amendment case, (1989) BLD (Spl) I, M.H. Rahman, J. offers his own choice in the following words :-

"The Court's attention has repeatedly been drawn to the oath the Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court takes under Article 148 of the Constitution on his appointment, Mr. Asrarul Hossain has pointed out the difference between the 1anguage of the oath the' Judges of the Indian Supreme Court take "to uphold the Constitution", and that of the oath the Judges of our Supreme Court take "to preserve, protect and defend of the constitution. The import of the single word 'uphold' is no less significant or onerous than that of the three words 'preserve, protect and defend'. In either case the burden is the same, And the Court carries the burden without holding the swords of the community held by the executive or the purse of the nation commanded hy the legislature. The Court could do so because all the authorities of the Republic act, as enjoined by the Constitution under art. 112 in aid of the Court for securing obedience to its judgement and orders. When the constitution is suspended or made subject to a non-law the the Court is deprived of the aid of the relevant authorities of the Republic. When such an abnormal situation occurs a Judge has got two alternatives: either he would resign or he would hold on to his post. One who has not lost faith in the rallying power of law may prefer a temporary deprivation of freedom to desertion. It is hardly necessary to point out that the Court will have no worthwhile power without the Constitution. The future of the Constitution lies in the commitment of the citizens who are obliged under art. 21 of the Constitution to observe the Constitution."(para 488)'

Expectation from the Judges and the real position of Judges are highlighted in the monograph on Revolution in the Legal Systems of Third World States by F. Reyntjens (University of Antwerp) and L. Wolf-Phillips (London School of Economics) in the following words :-

"When the judiciary is asked to 'stand up' against usurper it is too often forgotten that Judges may not have the means to do so. Often, but not always, the judicial branch is the only one left in tact in its composition (not generally in its powers) after a revolutionary take-over. Why should the Courts be able to resist the unconstitutional action if the deposed Executive. the dissolved Parliament, (a part of) the Army and the Policc, the Trade Unions . . . . . . cannot'? Thc Courts can never really be the "last bastion" against illegality because in terms of power to enforce obedience (physical if need be) they constitute the weakest link. To a large extent, therefore, De Smith is right, when arguing that, in general, legal analyses of unconstitutional action are fundamenta1ly pollitical Judgements dressed in a legalistic garb."

Generally the Judges have approached the powers of the usurper in revolutionary siituations in two broad ways, first, by applying the Kelsen doctrine of "revolutionary legality" and, secondly, by applying the "doctrine of State necessity".

As early as in 1925 Hans Kelsen in his "General Theory of Law and State (1949)" presented the legal effects of a revolution in a rational and systematic manner. To him a revolution means a successful revolution. To be successful the old order ceases and the new order begins to be efficacious, "because the individuals whose behaviour the new order regulates actually behave, by and large, in conformity with the new order, then this order is considered as a valid order. It is now according to this new order that the actual behaviour of individuals is interpreted as legal or illegal. (p.118)

The first application of Kelsen's doctrine was made in the Pakistan case of the 'State vs. Dosso (PLD 1958 (SC) 533). Munir, C.J. held that the new legal order after a revolution should be judged by "reference to its own success" and the overthrown legal order by "the efficacy of the change". He said :-

"Where a Constitution and the national legal order under it is disrupted by an abrupt political change not within the contemplation of' the Constitution, then such a change is a revolution and its legal effect is not only the destruction of the Constitution but also the validity of the national legal order irrespective of' how or by whom such a change is brought about."

This interpretation of Kelsen's pure theory of law was followed in Uganda vs. Commissioner of Prisons, ex-parte Matovu (Uganda 1966-7) and was referred to approvingly in the Appeal Court and Privy Council stages of Madzimbamuto vs. Lardner-Burke (Rhodesia, 1966-8). It was not followed in E.K. Sallah vs. the Attorney General (Ghana, 1970) and roundly over-turned in Asma Jilani vs. The Government of the Punjab (PLD 1972 SC 139), the last one saying, "The principle laid down in Dosso's case is wholly unsustainable and cannot be treated as good law either on the principle of stare decisis or even otherwise."

The other approach made by the Judges to meet revolutionary situations is by application of the "doctrine of state necessity". When an unconstitutional action is taken by the incumbent authority and the legal order is only partly disregarded, the legal ruler himself has taken something like a revolutionary step not covered by the express words of the Constitution or even in conflict with it. This unconstitutional behaviour is taken to be necessary for the survival of the State. It is called a departure from the Constitution and it is sought to be justified 'in the interest of averting an impending disaster and preventing the State and society from dissolution. The "doctrine of state necessity" was followed in Special Reference No.1 of 1955 by the Governor General (PLD 1955 FC 435), Republic vs. Mustafa Ibrahim (Cyprus 1964) and Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs. The Chief of Army Staff and the Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1977 SC 657). The upshot of this doctrine is that "in order to bridge the gap between the law and the facts of political life", and to avoid the possibility "that a State and the people should be allowed to perish for the sake of its Constitution" and to accommodate an action which was "undoubtedly an extra-constitutional step, but obviously dictated by the highest consideration of State's necessity and the welfare of the people", the doctrine of state necessity is to be read into a written Constitution and the constitutional deviations are to be upheld to preserve the State itself.
 
http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/09/01/news0269.htm


__._,_.___


[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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] All Pakistan needs is Enemies, befalls a Catastrophe

Pakistan Flood Aid Charity FACTS:

* $ 7.4 million from Fort of Islam, 'Pakistan's fastest and only Friend in the world', 2nd largest Economy with the largest Foreign Exchange Reserves in the world, the Godless Enemy of Allah, ... Communist China.
* $ 25 million from Satanic 'Birth Enemy of Pakistan' (always called so by Pakistan), as poor as Pakistan, ... Kaafir Hindu India.
* $ 400 million from Satanic Enemy of Islam and Moslims (called so by our Mollaas & ISI) the world's most indebted country, USA. 
* $ 500 million from Other Satanic Enemies of Moslims (called so by our Mollaas & ISI), the Allies of USA , that are also indebted countries.
* $ 100 million from the Rich 'brotherly' Moslim Countries.
.
CONCLUSION: Fort of Islam, Pakistan needs more Satanic Enemies of Islam, Enemies of Moslims and herself than Friends, when befalls real Catastrophe. ... Soob haan Allah ...!
S U Turkman
---------------
NEWS: India on Tuesday announced an additional USD 20 million assistance to Pakistan
.
.
 NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday announced an additional USD 20 million assistance to Pakistan which is grappling with the worst floods in recent history of the region.

The announcement by external affairs minister S M Krishna in the Lok Sabha comes in the wake of Pakistan's readiness to accept India's initial aid offer of USD 5 million which is to be routed through the United Nations.

"As a more concrete assessment of the damage inflicted by this natural disaster and the urgent needs of the people of Pakistan emerges, government has decided to increase its assistance to Pakistan from USD 5 million, announced earlier, to USD 25 million," he said in a suo motu statement.

Of the total aid, USD 20 million would be contributed to the 'Pakistan Initial Floods Emergency Response Plan' launched by the UN office for the coordination of humanitarian efforts, he said.

The balance USD 5 million would be contributed to the World Food Programme for its relief efforts in Pakistan, Krishna said.

He noted that India had offered USD 5 million aid to Pakistan during his telephonic talks with Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on August 13.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in a conversation with Pakistan PM Yusuf Raza Gilani on August 19, had conveyed that India was ready to do more to assist the neighbouring country which is facing the worst floods in the past 80 years.

Pakistan was reluctant to accept the aid and agreed only after a nudge from the US. However, last week Pakistan conveyed to India to route the aid through the UN.

"We cannot remain unconcerned with this grave humanitarian crisis of enormous magnitude in our immediate neighbourhood," Krishna said.

He noted that the recent floods have been described as the worst in that part of the region in the last 80 years.

According to the latest UN figures, 17.2 million people have been affected by the floods which have left 1,600 people dead.

More than 1.2 million houses have been damaged or destroyed besides widespread damage to infrastructure, Krishna said.

"All the four provinces of Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir have suffered the consequences," he said.

[ALOCHONA] Online-Talk with Captain Tajul Islam Taj, State Minister for Liberation War Affairs




Al-Amin (Tritiomatra.Org), Minister Capt Tajul Islam, Filmmaker Kabir Anwar
Four hours Online-Talk with Captain Tajul Islam Taj, State Minister for Liberation War Affairs
-By Mir Monaz Haque
Bangladesh Tritiomatra Org is a Virtual Organization for Bangladeshi around the world. In a PalTalk virtual room "Bangladesh Tritiomatra Org Mukto Moncho" meet recently hundreds of users to discuss with the Minister Captai Tajul Islam. Topic was "The present situation of Bangladesh". Minister Tajul Islam talked with virtual Bangladeshi community.

This is a successful joint initiative of Tritiomatra.Org and Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee that has organized a digital-talk-show on 24th of August 2010. State Minister, Bangladesh Liberation War Affairs Ministry, Captain Tajul Islam talks with hundreds of online users, logged-in to "Bangladesh Tritiomatra.Org Mukto Moncho" from all over the world. It was a long four hours chat session with Captain Tajul Islam, in which he spoke about his experience during the liberation war, about the 15 August incident and the election promise of the government of Bangladesh on prosecuting the war criminals through a special tribunal.

Bangladesh government has set up a special war crime tribunal according to the International Crimes Tribunals Act 1973. It is a long-standing national demand, the government had pledged in its election manifesto to take all necessary legal steps to conduct the trial.

Click here to listen the virtual-talk with Liberation War Minister Capt. Tajul Islam

 


__._,_.___


[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.com



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)