Opinion
Indemnity Ordinance 2003: A rational judgment
PLEASE refer to the commentary, "PM will be wise to withdraw the ordinance". I am very much tempted to quote the first sentence of the commentary, as it says "A place in the Guinness Book of World Records is now virtually assured for us for having a law to protect the killing, torture and jailing of thousands". It urges the Hon'ble Prime Minister to save the nation from living in shame. In this backdrop, we may recall the hue and cry raised by The Daily Star in particular over the spiralling crescendo of devastating law and order situation that engulfed the whole nation.
Despite genuine attempts, ability of government to arrest or reverse the situation had been sadly inadequate. This led to continuous and ruthless criticism over its failure by The Daily Star. We thus all remember the circumstances that necessitated the launching of Operation Clean Heart. I need not mention how this operation was welcomed and received spontaneous acclamation across the board including the leader of the opposition. A plethora of articles, appreciating the initiative, has been published not only in local but international media as well.
As a very recent example, International Herald Tribune has published in its January 15, 2003 issue an article titled "On Dhaka's streets, two radical changes". Regarding Operation Clean Heart, it says that although it raises human rights concerns, it has been used in a legal manner and "there is no doubt that the campaign is popular among all levels of society, the poor perhaps most of all." It also says that "Begum Zia seems sincere in her efforts to break the links between crime and politics that have long besmirched Bangladesh democracy and caused otherwise sympathetic aid donors to tighten their purse strings."
It is, therefore, ironical and truly regrettable that the commentary makes no reference to the background and compulsions under which the drive was launched. In no way is it an exaggeration to say that the Armed Forces have protected the large interest of the people in a situation that had gone beyond control. It lacks balance, impartiality and objectivity in weighing the magnitude and dimension of the compulsions facing the government in comparison to the legal concerns that the commentary has highlighted. The latter can't be ignored but they also can't be viewed in isolation. It can't also be forgotten that dire charges were made accusing the government of having bolstered the expansion of a new military culture and the difficulties involved in having the army return to barracks. Obviously, one incentive would have been to provide indemnity. On balance is the easing of horrendous situation of complete law and order breakdown against preventing excesses that were inevitable given the magnitude of the situation. For many it boiled down to protecting the army instead of protecting the criminals.
The good faith of the government as well as Armed Forces in conducting Operation Clean Heart is beyond question, as we see that a good number of arrested persons belong to the ruling party. The criminal transgression was so deep-rooted that it was almost impossible to offset, given existing facilities and tactics. A more concentrated and focused technique was essential to frighten the crooks. All this was done for the greater interest of the country as a whole. An ordinance of this kind is, therefore, necessary to provide immunity to the army troops since they were deployed in the greater national interest of curbing crime and terrorism in the society.
The question before us is, whether the ordinance is "ultra vires" of the basic structure of the Constitution. This can't be fractured even by Parliament or the Supreme Court. This indemnity was promulgated as per article 46 of our Constitution, which lays down specific circumstances and an environment, under which indemnity can be applied.
During the whole period of the operation, as we saw, the government was fully conscious and vigilant about its neutrality and fairness and the joint force also maintained the best possible restraint over their activities. In case of overindulgence committed by the army personnel, appropriate departmental disciplinary actions had been taken against them. However, ultimately, a sense of security has returned to the people, which was the main objective of the operation.
I would like to end up with a line as mentioned in the article of the International Herald Tribune, "Sacrificing individual rights may be necessary to ensure the safety of the majority". To wrap up "it is rather better to have a position in the Guinness book for restoring the law and order situation in the country than to top the list of the countries catalogued according to worst law and order situations."
In conclusion, I would like to say that we have enough detractors to sully the name and image of our country from within it. It is a shame when responsible citizens seek to do the same from within the country through blind prejudice.
Mila Mohammad is a resident of Dhanmondi, Dhaka.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments