WHY returning to the constitution of 1972 is bothering some people is not clear to me. They argue that it is not worth heading back now after we have walked a long way ahead. They are unwilling to fall back upon their basic constitution, the constitution of 1972. Not only that, they have recently mounted a challenge to the government to go for that. And the government seems to have taken it up.
Such a quarrel over our constitution is not at all desirable. The opposition should have no justifiable reason for being so allergic to the core constitution. Nor does the party in power need to jump the gun. In fact, this is a serious concern on which depends the future of our parliamentary democracy, and thereby the political fate of the nation. So, it has become absolutely imperative to deal with the constitutional reform bid in right earnest.
The constitution of Bangladesh in 1972 is recognised as one of the world's best constitutions for its strict adherence to global fundamental rights and secular values. Most importantly, it was an expression of the collective feelings and emotions of a people who made a supreme sacrifice on the altar of their long-awaited freedom from the petty-colonial Pakistan regime. So, quite reasonably their constitution must have been light-years away from that of the rulers, whom they have split up with. A godly state turns into a people's republic.
Secularism was one of the most striking fundamentals of the new constitution. If you see the contemporary events, you will realise the relevance of the introduction of secularism into the constitution. As a matter of fact, secularism inevitably emerged from the total collapse of the two-nation theory. Language and cultural passion proved much stronger than religious affinity. Indian Bengali brothers became more friendly and accommodating than Pakistani brethren, and so on and so forth.
Against this background, it became a matter of great urgency to bring secularism to the constitution in lieu of any particular religion. This was in the light of "live and let live" doctrine. The country may have many religious communities but the state must not have any chosen religion of its own.
Let the religions be for the respective communities, but let the country be everybody's. What can be a better slogan than this? And this is the truest spirit of all religions too. Then why determine the state's religion? Why should the constitution of a multi-religious country prefer a particular religion? Predominance of a particular religious community may vitiate the real spirit of democracy.
To go back to the constitution of 1972 will not be a backward move. It would rather be the rebirth of some liberation war ideals, which have been held back since long. It would be a renaissance if we can get back to secularism, which bears a tremendous relevance to the present context when hatred rules the roost and humanity is suffering at the hands of intolerance, sectarianism, dogmatism, fundamentalism, orthodoxy, and fanaticism.
Above all, allegiance to secularism in state life may save our country from being one like Pakistan and Afghanistan where humans are dropping like flies because of religious extremism.
But it does not necessarily mean that we should go whole hog and retain the whole constitution. There could be some changes in some articles in keeping with the necessity of the time. For example, the number of women's seats in the parliament should be increased. The provisions for the selection of judges of the higher courts need to be reconsidered.
Most of the changes brought about in our constitution were more or less done by powerful vested interests, so it's better to start afresh. There is no viable alternative but to go back to the main spirit of our basic constitution if we really mean to strengthen parliamentary democratic, rebuild a secular democratic society, ensure basic human rights and social justice and, above all, uphold the spirit of the Liberation War.
The highest legal authority of the country, the Supreme Court paved the way for the implementation of the '72 constitution by its historic verdict. But this is more a matter of public involvement than the decision of the jury. It is not a thing to be done at the stroke of a pen. The government should go about it in deadly earnest.
First of all, a review commission should be formed to scrutinise the whole constitution along with the changes and amendments, and winnow the good ones out of the bad ones. They should do it directly via parliament. Although they have more than the required majority to do that, they should try to involve the opposition in this major national issue.
The whole issue is sensitive, and it should be faced with confidence, courage and carefulness. It was necessary for the past, is urgent for the present, and will be essential for the future. The nation is looking forward to the resurrection of the constitution of 1972. People must welcome it.
No comments:
Post a Comment