Deaths in police firing

We condemn the deaths of five people killed in police firing on demonstrating BNP activists in Lakshmipur, Chandpur and Rajshahi the day before yesterday and yesterday respectively. 

We understand that under the present circumstances, when political tempers are frayed, it is the police that are under severe pressure. But that is where the training of the law enforcing agencies comes into play.

We wonder whether all the other crowd control measures were taken before opening fire.

Firing is a matter of last resort and not first and that too its purpose is to cause restrain and not death. It is not precipitate action on the part of the police but exercising utmost restraint in these situations that can assuage nerves and help control volatile situations. 

We note that two different enquiry committees have been constituted and we hope that these would not only bring out the circumstances of the killings but also suggest corrective measures for the police so that such tragedies could be avoided in future. But the police have filed cases in which they have accused BNP activists of creating disturbances.

However, the other concern of equal degree is the way politics is playing out now and how it will shape in the near future. Admittedly, we have had a state of confrontational politics ever since the revival of democracy in 1990. But it is the abject violent turn that politics is taking that causes us serious anxiety. Thankfully, though, the programmes of AL and BNP yesterday passed off peacefully.

In this regard one would like to know what prompted the government to thwart the BNP's programme on 29 January. It was most ill-advised for the AL to announce a counter programme. Its decision has been provocative and disruptive. And while the AL is heaping blames on the BNP for destructive politics we feel that it is AL politics which is proving unhelpful. 

The country is caught in the one-upmanship game, and as the ruling party it is for the AL to lead the way by abjuring the path of confrontation and opening up an avenue for dialogue. That is the only way that the country can be spared the distress it is very likely to face otherwise.

Collected :

The search committee does not look like a solution

Presidential dialogue with political parties across the divide over the ways of holding free and fair general elections raised enormous hope among the people who want peaceful transfer of power. The hope, however, was dashed first as the president did not heed the idea of restoration of a non-party, caretaker government for conducting the polls — an idea that most of the political parties, again on both sides of the political divide, put forward. The president eventually came up with the government idea of forming a ‘search committee’ to find out non-partisan people to constitute the next Election Commission to preside over the polls without any bias for or against any contender for state power. This is, indeed, an ideal solution for an ideal democratic political atmosphere, particularly for those, like New Age, who do not believe in the running of the affairs of the state by any unelected body even for a while. But, unfortunately, the political parties and authorities managing the state since independence have not contributed, intentionally or unintentionally, towards the creation of that ideal, democratic political environment. Subsequently, the political parties of the ruling class, let alone those who find the ruling class inherently undemocratic, do not trust each other’s neutrality in conducting the polls. But the president, who is expected to function as a symbol of unity of the state, went ahead with the incumbents, ignoring their political rivals.

After the four-member ‘search committee’ was officially announced, the hope of the peace-loving people, however, was dashed again because of the composition of the search body. The New Age report on Saturday, ‘Who’s who in the search committee,’ reveals that most members of the body either have a partisan background identified with the ruling Awami League or the identity of being a ‘victim’ of being the incumbents’ political rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party. None of the identities promise party-neutrality in choosing the members of the next Election Commission, one of the most vital bodies in conducting general elections with non-partisan attitude.

The head of the committee, Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, had reportedly served the Awami League government during its 1996–2001 tenure as a deputy attorney general. He was appointed a High Court judge in February 2001 when the Awami League was in power. He was elevated to the Appellate Division in February 2011. Justice Md Nuruzzaman, a member of the search committee, had been elected general secretary and president of the Dhaka Bar Association from the Awami League-supported panel. He was appointed a deputy attorney general immediately after the Awami League had assumed office on January 6, 2009. He was appointed a High Court judge in June 2009.

Another member, AT Ahmedul Huq Choudhury, was appointed chairman of the Public Service Commission by the incumbents in November 2011. A former inspector general of police, Ahmedul was forced into retirement by the BNP government in 2001 on charge of his participation in Janatar Mancha, a platform of professionals that the BNP claims to have helped unceremoniously in overthrowing its government in 1996. Ahmed Ataul Hakeem, another member of the committee, was appointed the comptroller and auditor general in February 2008 by a military-driven government.

Those who have the idea of the level of mistrust between the two rival political camps led by the Awami League and the BNP could have no reason to believe that the latter would accept the commission chosen by the search committee in question. So, the problems regarding peaceful transformation of power remain. The president, if really willing, needs to make fresh attempts to save the country from the emerging political conflicts that the country would confront in the near future.

Collected :

Now comes India’s reluctance to exchange enclaves

AFTER the blow to the potential of improving the thorny relations between Bangladesh and India by the latter over the signing of an agreement on Teesta water sharing in September last year, now comes another over the exchange of enclaves. Following a series of negotiations over the years, Dhaka and Delhi had agreed to sign the Teesta agreement during Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Dhaka on September 6, 2011. 

But after his arrival in Dhaka, Bangladesh came to know that Delhi could not sign the agreement because of West Bengal’s objection to the idea. The government of Sheikh Hasina was embarrassed before the people, while those critical of India’s unfriendly attitude towards Bangladesh found their views further confirmed. 

However, the two neighbours signed some other bilateral agreements, one being a protocol on the exchange of enclaves to end the suffering of the peoples concerned. Notably, more than 50,000 people in 111 Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh and 51 enclaves of Bangladesh inside India have been living in immense miseries and uncertainties without any ‘official identity’ since 1947. The protocol was signed in September 2011 after the first-ever headcount of the enclave people jointly by the governments of Bangladesh and India in July that year. Subsequently, the suffering people living in the enclaves have eagerly been waiting for the exchange of the landlocked areas in adverse possessions of the two countries.

But, again, as reported by New Age on Friday quoting Indian media, the Indian government has adopted a ‘go slow’ policy about implementing the ‘ratification of the exchange of enclaves’ on the ground that there has not yet been a ‘national consensus’, particularly with the government’s coalition partner Trinamul Congress  and the rightwing opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. The two parties have reportedly been opposing the idea and, therefore, as reports say, the government of India is not enthusiastic about implementation of the accord that it had signed with the ‘friendly’ government of Bangladesh last year, let alone ending the suffering of the poor people living in the enclaves.

No one can blame a foreign government if it refuses to implement an agreement signed with a neighbour in the face of its opposition parties at home. Rather, it is democratically important for any elected government to forge national consensus on issues of national interest. The incumbents in Bangladesh need to learn from their Indian counterparts and consult with the opposition political camps before entering into any important agreement with the foreign countries in general and India in particular.

Collected :

BSF atrocities continue

It is indeed a matter of serious concern that India-Bangladesh borders remain as dangerous as ever, courtesy of the persistent violence being perpetrated by the Indian border guards, Border Security Forces, despite a number of top level initiatives from both countries and assurances from the highest level of government in India. If reports in the last few days are anything to go by, the situation along the border appears to have worsened. On Saturday, the BSF shot dead a Bangladeshi and injured three others along the Benapole border. On Friday, Indian smugglers abducted a Bangladesh Border Guards havilder and a flag meeting between BGB and BSF failed to secure his return. He was however returned early Saturday after intervention of the highest level of officials. On Thursday, the Bangladesh government formally protested the inhuman torture of Bangladeshi national Habibur Rahman who was brutally tortured by Indian border guards at Mairashi camp in Murshidabad for failing to pay Tk 2,000 in bribe. Worryingly, according to a report published in New Age on Saturday, an Indian human rights group alleged that the Indian government was putting pressure on the Bangladeshi authorities to make Habibur Rahman change his statement. Bear in mind, last year, in March, the BGB and BSF chief signed an agreement on the use of non-lethal weapons along the Indo-Bangladesh border, while the Indian prime minister, through the joint communiqué published after the visit of the Bangladeshi prime minister to Delhi in February 2010, had provided assurances on stopping extra-judicial killings of unarmed Bangladeshis along the border. In May last year, the Indian home minister further reiterated India’s assurance on the issue. Given the prevailing situation, time has come to seriously question the commitment of the Indian government and its authorities to address the issue of the killing and torture of Bangladeshis along the border, something which is not just a cause of serious grievance and injury, but also an ‘insult’ to the notion of friendly relations, for the people of Bangladesh.

While the government of Bangladesh and India over the last two years worked towards forging stronger ties, it is indeed noteworthy that during every single major diplomatic and political event between the two countries – be it Hasina’s visit to Delhi, Sonia Gandhi’s and Manmohan Singh’s visit to Dhaka – the BSF resorted to killing Bangladeshi nationals along the borders. One would not be mistaken in interpreting a ‘message’ in the timings of the killings. Moreover, the use of non-lethal weapons along the borders seems to have turned into a curse for Bangladeshis, as BSF has now resorted to medieval forms of killing such as stoning, beating, hacking, torture and running speed boats over victims. Now, if it is indeed true that the Indian government is trying to make the Bangladeshi authorities to make the victim change his statement, then the ‘message’ from India becomes all the more clearer.     

At a juncture when the many parts of the world, including the Indian media and human rights groups, are waking up to the atrocities of BSF on Bangladeshis, the Bangladeshi government would well-advised to revisit their relations with the big neighbour, to revisit the pledges to India they are too eager to deliver on so far, to refrain from trying to protect India’s interest ahead of Bangladesh’s, for example, by trying to change the victim’s statement, and make India diplomatically accountable for failing to respect the rights of Bangladeshi citizens. 

Collected :

Brutality at the borders

Need a change in BSF attitude. 

 

The Tv footage of a Bangladeshi being tortured by BSF personnel was, to say the least, appalling and contemptible. It shows a depraved mentality. The Indian TV channels deserve compliments for exposing the brutal side of the BSF behaviour at the borders. The pictures were a shocking and outrageous narrative of how one cattle smuggler was tied hand and feet after being deprived of his clothes and mercilessly beaten up by the BSF jawans, apparently for not paying up the BSF for plying his trade, smuggling cows. 

We have in the past repeatedly highlighted the issue of BSF highhandedness and their rather trigger free attitude on the borders, and called for reining in the Indian border guards. If anything, the TV footage has vindicated our position.

Killings of Bangladeshi nationals at the borders by BSF have been taking place with impunity. Nothing has been done to bring down these killings despite assurances from the highest quarters in India. Regrettably, according to human rights bodies, in the last three years more than 200 Bangladeshi nationals have fallen victims to BSF firing, among them many women and children, and many tortured to death by the BSF. 

It is a matter of regret that these should continue to occur given the state of bilateral relationship between the two countries. Descriptions of the Indo-Bangladesh border as the “world's deadliest frontier” or “one of the world's most dangerous border” are some of the testimonials to the insensitive way that the border is being managed. 

Although such incidents have been termed as human rights violation by the Human Rights Watch in 2010, the perpetrators have apparently gone scot-free so far. We are glad that the Indian authorities have acted quickly by suspending the jawans. We would hope that these errant BSF men would be made examples of.

Collected :