Vicious Attack On Opposition Chief Whip And The Upshot

The whole country watched in horror and indignation the police viciously beating up the chief whip of the opposition party in front of the national assembly complex, on the morning of first day of 48- hour hartal. After the first round of beating, he tried to run, flee and hide across the street inside a NAM building. But there was no letup in police brutality. He was pulled out, dragged back and beaten, punched and kicked some more. He was left unconscious on the street, beaten and bloodied, battered and bruised. This whole sordid episode was shown repeatedly on the TV news. Officers Harun and Biplob, the two allegedly responsible for administering the merciless beating, were matter of fact and blasé about the ruckus incident. Their claim was that the BNP - MPs, led by the chief whip, were attempting to vandalise vehicles and cause mayhem and lawlessness. It was their sacred duty to protect public life and property. So they took counter actions. There was altercation, followed by physical scrap between on duty police and the chief whip, who then fell, and was mildly bruised, they asserted. They denied complicity in the heinous act; downplayed the severity of the action with lack of moderation on their part, despite pictures to the contrary. They ostensibly knew they have the patronage of ruling party bigwigs.   Speaking of safeguarding life of the citizens, how about the wellbeing of the chief whip?  Aren’t the police responsible to ensure that their spiteful and shoddy action does not harm him or endanger his life and limbs? Do they not have an obligation to guard and protect an elected lawmaker, especially the chief whip of a major political party albeit of the opposition party? During the Vietnam War, an infamous quote from a US army officer in 1968 about a provincial capital was, ‘It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.’ Likewise these ruling party- propped, backed and instigated police had to use sadistic, violent and excessive force to beat the chief whip into a pulp as a pretext for their ridiculous and incongruous claim to protect the life and property of the citizens. The ruling party spin doctors were in full intensity and vigour trying to equivocate to explain the inhuman police action against the opposition party chief whip. They spoke in the same unpersuasive, Machiavellian and disingenuous tone in the parliament, news conferences and in TV talk shows. Their prevarication took two parallel tracks. One was the staunch validation of the police action. The utterances of a ruling party MP on evening TV talk shows, and Awami League Joint General Secretary Mahbub-ul- Alam Hanif in the news conference seem to fall in this category. Hanif assigned the fault squarely on the victim. The tone of his statement that the chief whip had incurred minor injury in a scuffle with on- duty police officers performing their professional chores is nothing new. This has become customary for him and most people are not surprised by his insensitive and distasteful comments.     The MP, on the other hand, in the past came across as a level-headed person with strong but semi- sensible description of party point of view and stance. At the TV talk shows on the evening of the fateful attack he seemed to show his true colours either on his own volition or at the instruction of party high command. From a mild mannered party-hack, he seemed to transform into a wild and unsavoury defender of the indefensible and unwarranted strong arm police action. This gave me the impression of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide transformation.  The second path of the government hedging was to express feeble, unconvincing and conceited regret at the nasty event with lots of ifs and buts. These ifs and buts and such measured, prepared and fabricated comments included the assertion that the chief whip was mostly or equally responsible for the severe beating he received. Their calculated and disconcerting contention provided a classic example of blaming the victim. The Prime Minster, Suranjit, Ershad, Ashraful, Nasim and others have expressed such qualified and unfeeling regret.  This reminds a bit about the unfair and callous acts against Limon, starting from RAB shooting that maimed him and the subsequent harassment to hide the butchery. The difference in the abuse and harm is in degrees, but there is a pattern. The similarity of the crude official behaviour does not end there. Like the Limon debacle, the police have also registered a case against the chief whip. At the same time they have refused to accept a case by BNP lawmakers against police atrocities.  The home minister dutifully went to the hospital to visit police officers supposedly injured in the clash. One or two of them must have been fatigued and exhausted from the strenuous and tiresome beating and kicking they inflicted on the chief whip. They need rest and recreation as well as hospitalisation to recoup the energy so that they are sufficiently rejuvenated to take similar ruthless actions in the next opposition - constitutionally granted - protests and agitation. The sad fact is the police have largely become a party apparatus for opposition bashing rather than a state machinery to control the law and order situation. The two policemen in question, according to press reports, belonged to Chatra (student) League during their university days. They apparently hold the same allegiance, if not the formal attachment. As such they, especially one, has remained unscathed, despite credible allegations of corruption, bribery and various misdeeds. The indication is that for unruly and overzealous people, once a Chatra League cadre is always a Chatra League cadre. The prevalent Chatra League chaos and lawlessness apparently began way back and is still continuing in full swing.     The Home Minister went to visit the hospitalised police officers to express solidarity and compassion and perhaps convey words of encouragement. She did not have the decency to visit the seriously injured opposition chief whip. Neither did anybody from the government or the ruling party. The lack of civility, care and concern is not only astonishing; it belies the norms of a civilised and democratic society. The Home Minister, who like Hanif talks mostly in arbitrary, tenuous and curious manner, and often makes preposterous and unsubstantiated claims of success, seemingly laid the groundwork for the brutal police assault. First by not arranging adequate training for crowd control nor providing proper guidelines to act sensibly, moderately and proficiently; second, by announcing that her government and law enforcers would not permit picketing, procession or gathering during the hartal. Interestingly, anti-hartal gathering and demonstrations by Chatra League and ruling party allied organisations were allowed to proceed unabated without hindrance or interference. This sort of duplicitous mindset has sadly become a common practice. Now the chief whip is in pain and distress in a hospital. The police officers involved have faced no disciplinary actions so far and the official machinery is hard at work defending and protecting the perpetrators of the dreadful act. The state minister for home affairs has sanctimoniously declared that government cannot take punitive actions against members of an organised force without proper investigation. So the government has formed a three-member police inquiry commission to probe the matter. It is likely that this committee will come up with a report that satisfies the government bigwigs. Police probing the police is full of loopholes and conflict of interests. The committee task has already been prejudiced by the biased and one-sided statements by the home minister and other official and party big shots. We cannot expect much, let alone a neutral and objective report, from this committee. The multiple committees formed by RAB and other law enforcers cooked up reports that maliciously blamed Limon for his injury and loss of leg. One other committee came out with an inconclusive and vague report. Something similar, at best some excessive force coupled with chief whip’s complicity, is to be expected from the police committee. The need is the formation of a neutral and credible judicial inquiry committee with no conflict of interests. That may be too much to ask from this aggressive and harsh regime. The government party would want all to believe that the chief whip has brought it upon himself by attempting to vandalise vehicles, obstructing police work, cursing profanely and throwing a punch and a brick at the police. Ministers, their party law makers, hacks and functionaries have been repeating this unsubstantiated and unnoticed description like parrots. It would seem that this fabricated and fictitious narrative and fudging has been prepared and passed on from the top echelon. This party-line propaganda would like you to believe what they say, rather than what we saw. We saw and heard one police officer berating the chief whip by threatening to slap him and break his teeth, followed by furious and ferocious attacks. There is a lesson to be learnt from this horrendous act and apparent government obfuscation and cover up. The lesson for us commoners is that it is a despicable act that has been repeated by successive regimes, each time with greater rage and malice. The lesson the opposition parties is learning is both perverse and significant. And that is to repeat it when they will be in power on the future opposition group. The vicious cycle will be repeated ad-nauseam. And where is the Speaker in all this brouhaha and vicious police assault on a prominent opposition party parliament member? After all, the speaker is the guardian of all parliamentarians, government and opposition or in between. He has largely remained inactive and silent. He said something about seeking a clarification and then all quiet on the speaker front. This is the same gentleman who angrily denounced criticism and threatened to quit recently. Now that he had the chance, in fact the solemn duty to act to uphold the sanctity of the parliament and ensure safety of a member, he seems to be missing in action. This is sad but not entirely unexpected.

Fifteenth Amendment Introduces Fusion Of Ideologies

A NOTION about Bangladesh has been created over the years that the nation is condemned to watch a monotonous one-act drama—the power struggle between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. This colours the current debate on the fifteenth amendment to the constitution and the focus is hence on the dispute regarding the nature of an election-time caretaker government. What impact may the fifteenth amendment have in moulding the polity? Let us begin at the beginning. In the post-colonial period, Bangladesh is the first in the world to emerge as a nation-state defying the arrangements and boundaries of the former colonies as determined by the former colonial masters. Secondly, the British relinquished their colony in India through negotiated deals with their subjects and created the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. Bangladesh, on the other hand, fought and won a war of independence against Pakistan to gain freedom. Thirdly, while the subcontinent’s freedom struggle against the British colonial rule turned communal, the Bangladesh struggle for freedom built on the ideal of secularism. The long freedom struggle and the 1971 war of independence created a national consensus on the polity. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, adopted in 1972 , enunciated four fundamental principles of state policy, namely, nationalism, democracy, socialism and secularism. Bangladesh was a revolution, unfurling the twin banners of secularism and socialism. (India followed the example of Bangladesh and made secularism and socialism parts of its constitution in 1976.) The Bangladesh revolution was short-lived. A counter-revolution overthrew the legal government on August 15 , 1975. The then president, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whom the constitution now calls father of the nation, was murdered along with most of his family members to teach the people a lesson who followed his leadership in establishing secular-socialist Bangladesh. The principles of secularism and socialism were dropped. The ghost of the ‘two- nation theory’ of the pre-Partition days was resurrected and the so- called Bangladeshi nationalism, which is a euphemism for communal Bengali Muslim nationalism, replaced secular Bengali nationalism. The genie of unbridled capitalism was given a freehand to loot and plunder the country. Though reduced to a mere martial law-doctored document, the constitution was nevertheless allowed to survive. It was a ruse to give constitutional respectability to the Islam-pasand polity that General Ziaur Rahman improvised with martial law proclamations. The Islam-pasand polity got a sort of constitutional sanctity through the fifth amendment to the constitution. Islamisation of the polity was ensured by beginning the preamble of the Constitution with ‘Bismillah-ar-Rhaman-ar- Rahim’ and making ‘absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah’ a fundamental principle of state policy. The process was further reinforced by General HM Ershad who made Islam ‘state religion’ through the eighth amendment to the constitution. The retrogressive forces of the counter-revolution destroyed the national consensus centred on the pristine four fundamental principles of state policy. Thus began a battle of polities between the pre-1975 secular-socialist polity and the post-1975 Islam- pasand polity. The core issue is: will Bangladesh re-embrace secularism? Alternatively, will Islamisation of the polity continue? The compromise THE fifteenth amendment should be viewed in the context of the battle of polities. Three developments prepared the ground for the fifteenth amendment. First, the court sent the killers of Mujib to the gallows. This dealt a body blow to the counter-revolution. Secondly, the court declared the fifth amendment unconstitutional. The legal and constitutional basis of the counter-revolution was demolished. Last but not least, the movement of the Sector Commanders’ Forum in 2007-08 in demand of the trial of war criminals galvanised the people, particularly the young generation, with a call for the revival and re- establishment of ‘Muktijuddher Chetana’—the restoration of the 1972 version of the constitution. This contributed to the massive victory of the Awami League-led ‘ grand’ alliance in the 2008 parliamentary elections. The Islam- pasand four-party Alliance, led by the BNP, lay prostrate. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina-led government of the ‘grand’ alliance, which commands more than three- fourths majority in parliament, was presented with a unique opportunity to exorcise the constitution of the ghosts of the counter-revolution as well as to cleanse it of the Islam-pasand provisions. But that was not to happen. In the neo-rich-dominated Bangladesh of today where the left movement has lost vitality, the fifteenth amendment has restored socialism as a fundamental principle of state policy—albeit as an innocuous ideal to pay respect to the past of the nation without having any practical implication for the present. The principle of secularism has, however, been seriously compromised. While secularism has been restored as a fundamental principle of state policy, ‘Bismillah- ar-Rahman-ar-Rahim’ and Islam as the state religion have been retained. Also has been kept the scope to conduct religion-based politics which was originally forbidden in the 1972 version of the constitution. The fifteenth amendment has obviously rolled back the counter- revolution to some extent with the restoration of secularism and socialism as fundamental principles of state policy. The votaries of secularism and socialism may arguably find a bigger constitutional space. This may, however, prove to be a small consolation as Islam-pasand politics has been given a new lease of constitutional life. Though ‘ absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah’ has been dropped as a fundamental principle of state policy, renewed Islamisation of the polity may now be pursued as Islam continues to be the state religion. Hybrid polity THE fifteenth amendment apparently attempts at making a fusion of Islam and secularism. It is a desperate move to turn Bangladesh into a so-called moderate Muslim country. This hybrid polity seems to be designed as a halfway house between secularism, the soul of original Bangladesh polity as visualised in the constitution in the euphoric early days of independence, and Islamic sharia law as demanded by the Islamist parties, a demand which was dramatised by synchronised bombings in 500 places by the now-banned Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh in 2005. This ideological hotchpotch may suit the ruling classes who are overwhelmingly Muslim and have gone conspicuously religious in the post-1975 period. The two leading parties, the Awami League and the BNP which together polled 82.2 per cent of votes in the 2008 parliamentary elections, are known to be under pressure from their western mentors and patrons to make Bangladesh a so-called moderate Muslim country, eschewing both Islamic fundamentalism and radical secular ideologies. With the Awami League, which has been publicly championing secularism since it embraced the principle in 1956 and at the initiative of which secularism was made a fundamental principle of state policy in the newly- independent Bangladesh, now deciding to experiment secularism- with-Islam, the cause of secularism has suffered a setback. The fight for secularism will now enter a new phase.

ConocoPhillips Deal

THE lack of debate in the Bangladesh intelligentsia about the recent deal with ConocoPhillips makes a case that we may be becoming a slave of the imperialist donor nations. WikiLeaks documents exposed some of Bangladesh’s clandestine collaboration with these countries, but the recent signing of the production sharing contract, i.e. the official document signed by the Bangladesh government with ConocoPhillips to award the US oil giant with two offshore blocks and the manner in which it was done tend to indicate that the government may be ready to carry out subservient policies in the open without any remorse; it was further evident in the silly way the politicians were defending it. Criticism was levelled at the recent awarding of two offshore blocks for oil-gas exploration to ConocoPhillips. The critics believe the signing of the contract is tantamount to allowing eighty per cent of the oil-gas resources to be exported out of the country by ConocoPhillips; in other words, Bangladesh would have to buy the resultant oil-gas production back from ConocoPhillips, which is absurd, since the oil-gas already belongs to the state of Bangladesh. These criticisms were refuted by an anonymous Petrobangla high-up who is also known to be a PSC expert according to a Daily Star report, published on the June 21 , titled ‘Govt share up to 80pc: Clarifies Petrobangla to refute critics’ claim: LNG export only if govt, private sector refuse to buy gas’. The anonymous Petrobangla official claims, as quoted in the report, ‘Petrobangla’s share will be a minimum of 55 per cent if ConocoPhillips produces gas of 75 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd), a very small quantity. Its share will go up close to 80 per cent if gas production hits 600 mmcfd ( equivalent to more than one fourth of the present gas supply).’ The Petrobangla official also goes on to claim that the deal is no secret and the PSC can be found on the Petrobangla website to see the proportion of shares that each party would receive; the web link to the PSC is also mentioned in the Daily Star report. It must be stated here that the PSC document on the website does not mention ConocoPhillips directly but it uses the word contractor, which, according to the PSC preamble, is referred to the company that signs the deal, which in this case is ConocoPhillips. Anybody who reads the PSC will say with a great deal of seriousness that the claims of the official are highly contradictory. The PSC in Article 15. 5.4 clearly states that Bangladesh can only get 20 per cent of the total marketable gas in the first ten years, which is also mentioned in a New Age article on June 12 , which in totality contradicts the claim of the Petrobangla official. The only mention of an 80 per cent share is in article 24.1 where it states that Petrobangla can buy up to 80 per cent of ConocoPhillips’ share with a fifteen per cent discount with respect to a negotiated price. The mention of 75 mmfcd and 600 mmfcd are stated under table 14.6 of the PSC, which has two distinct columns for Petrobangla share (in percentage) and ConocoPhillips’ share. But for those two cases the rows remain empty, since the shared amount for each party is subject to bidding (which also contravenes the claim by the official that all the proportion of shares by each party are laid out). But this table becomes irrelevant in the presence of the Article 15.5.4 mentioned earlier. To go even further, the PSC in Article 14.6 states that Petrobangla may receive its share of gas in the form of cash if mutually agreed between parties, and considering the level of complicity of present and past governments, selling of even the meagre share that we are supposed get from this deal is not an impossibility. This apprehension is further strengthened as the leaked diplomatic cables revealed how the US ambassador and the energy adviser were colluding to get the deal approved. The deal itself is a farce, but the intensity of public debate on this issue is limited to certain quarters; the critics that I have mentioned are mostly limited to intellectual groups such as the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Ports and a few other concerned citizens. If we were to look at our parliament, it never had a constructive debate and still does not. The politicians in the opposition are too busy fighting and calling strikes about issues that have little to do with the betterment of the general people, which is not strange because they promote the same policies as well and it was not too long ago when they opened coal mines for Asia Energy and consequent strikes led to their temporary closure. Even though most dailies portray that the two parties are fighting each other, in essence, if we were to look at their foreign and economic policies, they are nothing but two sides of the same coin. The lack of inquisitiveness is also illustrated in the Daily Star report that I have mentioned earlier, as the gist of the report suggests that a Petrobangla official clarifies the issue and refutes fears, but the reporter fails to ask where in the document those claimed provisions exist. Universities and research institutes barely made any noise about it which questions the level of intellectualism that is practiced. At the end of the day, looking at all this, we have to ask ourselves whether the institutions, may it be the parliament, the media or the education and research institutions, are actually representing the masses or just a few people. The prime minister goes on to ridicule the activists of the national committee, which seems to expose her intellectual bankruptcy in defending the deal. If the institutions that are supposed to represent the general public fail to do so, then we are promoting injustice and thus are sowing the seeds of a failed state.

Govt Needs To Make Sincere Efforts To Avart Confrontation

THE 15 th amendment to the constitution, which the ninth Jatiya Sangsad passed on Thursday, is bound to have long-term ramifications for politics in Bangladesh, insofar as ideologies, issues and policies are concerned. However, at the functional level, the controversy, and even conflict, is likely to centre the abolition of the provision of election-time non- party caretaker government. The repeal of the provision, pushed unilaterally by the Awami League, although it itself forced the provision upon the constitution in 1996 and despite significant support within the ruling alliance in particular and society in general for its retention for at least two more general elections, in line with the Supreme Court’s observation, has visibly put the government and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party- led opposition camp on a confrontational course. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Thursday, the leader of the opposition and BNP chairperson, Khaleda Zia, accused the AL-led government of pushing the country towards ‘indispensable confrontation’ and vowed ‘to launch a strong movement to protect the country and safeguard its interest.’ In other words, the battle line has been drawn between the two major political camps for an intense power struggle, with one seeking to perpetuate control over state power after its tenure ends in 2014 and the other seeking to return to it. With the caretaker issue highly likely to result in broader polarisation in society, the smaller left-leaning secular-democratic parties in the ruling alliance seem to find themselves on sticky patch. Certain provisions in the 15 th amendment, e.g. retention of Bismillah in the preamble and Islam as state religion, allowance of religion-based politics, imposition of Bengali identity on non-Bengali ethnic groups, run counter with the ideology and politics of these parties. Indeed, lawmakers of these parties recorded their objections to the amendment; however, in the end, they voted in its favour, apparently to save their membership of parliament. Article 70 (1) prohibits a member to vote in parliament against the political party that nominated him or her as a candidate in an election. Although having separate political identity, these leaders did, after all, contest in the December 2008 general elections with the election symbol of the ruling Awami League. While Awami League and Jatiya Party lawmakers upheld what they stand for when voting in favour of the amendment, the same cannot be said about the leaders of the left-leaning secular-democratic parties. The experience should make these leaders realise that sacrifice of principles is the ultimate price of political opportunism. It remains to be seen where these parties would stand when the push comes to the shove—whether they will give up their identity to remain partners in the undemocratic ruling coalition or stand up for their ideology and politics. Meanwhile, if the ruling and opposition camps remain rigid on their respective stance, confrontation will become inevitable and its fallout will be extensive, creating political uncertainties, causing social disorder, paralysing the economy, so on and so forth. Worryingly still, it could very well encourage ambitious apolitical forces to fish in troubled water. Needless to say, history will assign the blame for the dire consequences squarely on the Awami League; after all, its go- alone policy on such a matter of crucial national importance has complicated the situation in the first place. There is still time for the Awami League to redeem itself and such redemption can only come in the shape of sincere efforts to bring the opposition to the negotiation table for a peaceful resolution of the standoff.

Polls Must Be Held Under Caretaker Govt

The movement for the Caretaker Government system began in 1994. It was alleged by the opposition Awami League after the parliamentary by-polls at Mirpur and Magura that the then ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) was involved in vote rigging which proved that fair election under any party government was not possible. Mention may be made here that the people experienced the first vote rigging in the first general election of Bangladesh on March 7 , 1973 when the ruling Awami League (AL) rigged election. Worker's Party of Bangladesh President Rashed Khan Menon, MP, now partner of AL-led grand alliance government, Major (retd.) Abdul Jalil, Dr. Alim-Al Rajee, Engineer Abdur Rashid, Shahjahan Siraj and Mostaque Ahmed Chowdhury were defeated in that election, as reported in a Bengali daily dated June 12 , 2007.         Jamaat's brainchild    Jamaat-e-Islam was the first to advance the concept of non-party Caretaker Government (CG) which was the brainchild of Prof. Golam Azam for holding free and fair election. AL under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina enthusiastically took it up as their political issue. Former state minister for Foreign Affairs in AL cabinet Abul Hasan Chowdhury while addressing the plenary session of the ministerial conference on "Towards a Community of Democracy" in Warsaw held in 2000 , claimed that Sheikh Hasina's doctrine of Caretaker Government is being practised in Bangladesh, as reported in the media.    AL in league with Jamaat-e-Islam (JI) and Jatiya Party (JP) started a vigorous nationwide movement to establish the CG. Sheikh Hasina held series of meetings with Jamaat leaders Abbas Ali Khan, Moulana Motiur Rahman Nizami, Ali Ahsan Mujahid at her Dhanmondi residence at Road number 32. At that time Jamaat leaders were not war criminals. They enforced seventy days' hartal and 26 days' of blockade and non- cooperation movement during 1994-1996. Of them one 96 hours continuous hartal, two 72 hours and five 48 hours besides dawn to dusk hartal were enforced, as published in a Bengali daily on June 11 , 2011. News report said hartal damaged properties worth Tk. 250 crore per day in those days. People were harassed in many ways. Even a government official was stripped off on the road near the Curzon Hall of the Dhaka University.    Sir Ninian Stephens, former Governor General of Australia, was invited to resolve political issue in 1995. He held a series of meetings with political leaders both of ruling and opposition parties to democratise the country but with no effect.         15 killed, 600 injured    The AL boycotted the parliament and forced the BNP through reign of violence like blockade, hartal, gherao, destruction of properties both public and private, killing, burning of vehicles, agitation etc. to amend the Constitution for incorporating CG system. The Fifth parliament was dissolved and the BNP arranged for general election. The opposition parties boycotted election. The 6 th parliament was elected on February 15 , 1996 with only BNP which was said to be the farcical one-party polls. On the day countrywide hartal left 15 persons killed and 600 persons injured, as reported in a Bengali newspaper on June 11 , 2011. Then a parliament was formed where the 13 th amendment to the Constitution was passed for incorporating the provision of the CG system on the very line demanded by AL. So, the 'farcical' one-party polls had to be held to pass the CG bill.    The opposition continued their reign of violence. Some bureaucrats joined the 'Janatar Mancha' organised by AL. By doing this these bureaucrats turned the government officials and employees into servants of a political party.    AL won the first election held on June 12 , 1996 under the CG system but was defeated in polls of 2001. After the defeat AL had put strong and undue pressure on President Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed to cancel the election results and to hold fresh election. But Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed did not bow to their undue demand and pressure.    Kamal Hossain, T H Khan, Rafique-ul Haque, M Zahir, Mahmudul Islam, Amir-Ul Islam, Roklanuddin Mahmud and Ajmalul Hossain as amici curiae opined in favour of the CG system, but only M I Faruki spoke against it. The Supreme Court repealed the 13 th Amendment to the constitution that introduced the caretaker government but said the next two general elections could be held under unelected rulers.     Considering the present political hostility and mistrust among political parties polls under the CG system should continue as per observation of the Supreme Court that two more general elections be held under the CG system. Otherwise polls under the party government will cause a reign of violence for which the common people will have to suffer. Polls must be held under the CG system to avoid political turmoil.