Of ministerial explanations
BEING disingenuous is often a disturbing part of political behaviour. In this past week, the very enterprising and the very dynamic Tanzim Ahmed Sohel Taj has given us reason to think he could have been a little more frank with us. He has informed us that in the past five months, which means since the Awami League-led grand alliance government assumed office, there have been no extra-judicial killings in the country. That is pretty upsetting, for the minister of state for home affairs knows only too well that what he says is quite a deviation from the truth. Of course, he has gone to great lengths to distinguish between extra-judicial killings and deaths in crossfire. He has the right to explain matters in his own way. We have the right to disagree with him. The truth right now, though, is this: the killing of two students of Dhaka Polytechnic by the Rapid Action Battalion is yet too fresh to be forgotten, unless the minister would like to believe that fast-enveloping amnesia is what we the people suffer from these days.
Let us (and that includes Minister Sohel Taj) face facts. Those two young men were killed in cold blood. At this point, it does not matter whether or not they were criminals. And that they had no record of earlier criminality has been attested to by the police themselves. Even criminals have a right to justice, to be heard. That said, in these post-modern times, it is inconceivable that men and women will be killed vigilante fashion only because someone or some people suspect them of criminality. The term "crossfire," in case anyone has missed the point, involves two sides. The reality for us, over the past many years and especially since the Rapid Action Battalion was forged into shape and put into operation, is that in these "crossfires" only one side has been dispatched or, in a very few instances, received injuries. The other side has remained hale and hearty. Imagination has thus been stretched to the point of incredulity.
The minister of state for home informs us further -- and this touches the Polytechnic students again -- that if a case is filed in connection with the killings, action will be taken against those responsible for the tragedy. That attitude lacks logic and so cannot be acceptable. There are reasons why we do not accept such an argument. In the first place, given the systematically harsh manner in which individuals have died in "crossfires," few will be willing to file any case in this present instance. Fear is part of life. It assumes an even more gruesome shape when it tends to be symbolised by the state or an agency of the state. In the second place (and this follows from the preceding observation), the very fact that two young men have been shot ought to have set the government machinery rolling towards eliciting the truth. The state being the supreme repository of citizens' interests, it follows that the state will on its own inquire into the sudden, swift death of two of its constituents. Must we really believe that if there is no case filed against the death of these two young men, the entire matter will in time be forgotten or swept under the rug?
Now comes that other disingenuous characterisation of facts. In the week gone by, the minister of state sent politics into quite a spin with reports of his resignation from the cabinet. He was nowhere to be spotted; neither he nor anyone else on his behalf was there to respond to media inquiries about his bid, or so it was given out, to leave government. He did not attend office. People from his electoral area converged on his residence, vowing not to go back home unless he went back to work at the home ministry. Two senior ministers tried persuading him to take back the resignation letter he had sent to the prime minister. Then they met him, took him to the prime minister and everything ended on a happy note. The next day Minister Taj told newsmen that he had not resigned and had indeed not submitted his resignation letter. That raises a big question here: if he had not resigned, if indeed reports of his resignation had been grossly exaggerated, why did he not nip those reports in the bud on the very first day that he went missing? He or his office could have come forth with a swift denial of the resignation "rumours." That, of course, did not happen.
Resignations from government are serious affairs. And reports of attempted resignations are a trifle more disconcerting. Individuals holding high office in the service of the republic owe it to the country to make matters clear any time people get down to this business of talking about their unhappiness in government. The point is simple: if your principles clash with those of the administration you are a part of, leave and do not look back. Or, given reassurances that your authority will not be undermined, stay on. Avoid disappearances. Avoid giving a new spin to the resignation tale once you are back.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments