THE prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, is apparently at pains to ‘justify’  what is essentially a unilateral  decision to have the provision for  election-time non-party caretaker  government scrapped from the  constitution. On Tuesday,  according to a report front-paged  in New Age on Wednesday, Hasina  urged the opposition Bangladesh  Nationalist Party chairperson,  Khaleda Zia, not to rally for  retention of the provision, keeping  in mind the political crisis after  January 11  and the activities of the military-controlled interim regime  during its two-year tenure. ‘Your  own people—Iajuddin Ahmed,  Fakhruddin Ahmed and Moeen U  Ahmed—were in power… they did  not spare you, rather sent you to  jail,’ she said. The change in approach was, in a  way, inevitable after her previous  line of argument—that the  decision is in compliance with the  Supreme Court verdict on the 13 th  amendment to the constitution— had apparently failed to generate  positive response even from the  ruling Awami League’s traditional  political allies. Needless to say, the attempt at justifying her decision  to have the caretaker government  provision repealed was a non- starter for at least two reasons.  First, while the Supreme Court did  declare the 13 th amendment void,  it did suggest retention of the  caretaker government provision for two more general elections.  Second, the sudden eagerness of  the prime minister to comply with  the court’s verdict was dubious, to  say the least; after all, her  government has thus far failed to  implement, or even ignored, a  number of rulings by the highest  judiciary. The verdict that declared  the seventh amendment to the  constitution void and  unconstitutional is a case in point.  Although the court was  unequivocal in its assertion that  Ershad was should not be ‘allowed  to go scot-free after committing  the most heinous felony of putting  the constitution at abeyance for a  few years to the grave  predicament of the people,’  neither Hasina nor her government has thus far given any indication  that the deposed dictator will be  tried, ever. On the contrary, the  prime minister is reported to have  had confidential political meetings  with the deposed general on the  caretaker issue. On the other hand, her description  of the military-controlled interim  regime as Khaleda’s ‘own people’  sounds rather odd, especially in  view of the fact that, immediately  after the January 11 , 2007  changeover, Hasina not only  termed the Fakhruddin regime the  outcome of her party’s movement  but also publicly promised  ratification of all its activities if she returned to power. Moreover, her  government has thus far refused to take the onstage and backstage  players of the regime to account  for their unconstitutional  misadventure despite Khaleda’s  repeated demands to do so. True, in the past, anti-political  forces used political uncertainties  and consequent social disorder as  pretexts to carry out extra-legal  and unconstitutional takeovers.  True, the government of the BNP- led alliance was significantly  responsible for creating the  impasse that eventually led to the  January 11 , 2007  takeover.  However, it is also true that the  prime minister may be heading in  the same direction with her  persistence on the caretaker  government issue. If another  setback to the existing political  process were to take place, society  may blame her for the catastrophe  because she herself made the  decision on repeal of the caretaker provision, rejecting the  parliamentary special committee’s  initial recommendation for  retention of the provision in a  modified form. As for fear of incarceration and  harassment under an  unconstitutional regime, the  opposition seems to have very few  reasons to be daunted; after all,  even under an elected  government, it is being prosecuted  and persecuted at random charges. It follows then that the prime  minister may be talking about the  ruling alliance’s fear; after all,  allegations are there that an  influential section of the alliance  has abused people’s mandate in  many ways to further its own  material interest. If so, she needs  to realise that she can dispel such  fear by choosing not to go alone  on the issue of the caretaker  government provision and, most  importantly, push the country to  the brink of yet another political  crisis.