Dear student leaders in the interim government,
Bangladesh today stands at a new juncture. The wherefore and whence of our arrival here is for historians to decide. What is instructive for us to remember, is captured in the famous lines from Robert Frost:
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I --
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
Can we take the path less trodden to make the difference that we really seek to make?
Let me humbly point out to you and your advisers a few instances where you, knowingly or unknowingly, seem to be deviating from the untrodden path … and onto the oft-trodden path … the path you decried.
We have circulated back to such forks over and over before. So, what really happened? In simple terms, we invariably deviated from the very principles which had ushered us to the fork and got distracted by narrow political constituency-building.
Now, your campaign was essentially against the quota system, which translates to be a campaign for meritocracy in the hiring of government employees, and government officials. The question that posterity will ask you and all those in the interim government: Did you yourselves adhere to this principle?
Many of us expected that you would form yourself into a pan-students’ body to serve as an ombudsman-like entity while returning to pursue your education. It was a surprise to see that some of you were inducted as “advisers” into the interim govt.
How can the “stalwarts of meritocracy” succumb to the temptation of an office when the campaign, with the blood-stained garments of students who had sacrificed their lives was, for “meritocracy” itself? By what measure of education and experience do you justify to yourself your fitness to lead the ministries of a government which is faced with singularly great challenges of our times? How do the principles of meritocracy tally with your accepting a role among the helmsmen of the destiny of the nation? You owe it to the nation and particularly to the students of the country to explain and vindicate your position on this question.
Posterity, distanced by time will gauge you away from the heat of our current times; theirs will be an assessment far more objective than we are willing to embrace at this time. The unmerited personalization of the success of a students’ movement will not be viewed kindly, especially in view of the lives lost. They might see your action of self-benefit without due process or requisite qualification as a selfish pursuit by design.
Carving a personal role unwarranted by qualification or experience inevitably threatens to undermine the sanctity of the movement itself: Would you want that to happen? It is neither good for your legacy nor good for the students’ heritage, and certainly undesirable for the nation.
How can the 'stalwarts of meritocracy' succumb to the temptation of an office when the campaign, with the blood-stained garments of students who had sacrificed their lives was, for 'meritocracy' itself?
Undoubtedly your role has been pivotal indeed, and to continue in that role it might be best for you to form a national council of students for democracy and justice to perform the role of a non-partisan body to safeguard the rule of law, human rights, and preservation of democracy; perhaps the interim government can formalize a role for your voice to be heard.
Your campaign, in its evolution, asked for transparency, accountability and rule of law. Let me then ask you: Did you give proof of strict adherence to these principles?
Bongobandhu’s legacy is for all of us to own and protect, not just the Awami League; giving the Awami League a monopoly of ownership of his political ancestry is the doing of all political parties that resorted to tarnishing the image and memory of Bangabandhu as the best way of counteracting the appeal of Awami League -- a most unpatriotic choice of a campaign strategy. If you were indeed campaigning with a patriotic spirit, and for justice, how did you let August 15 be passed by, denuding it of its status as the “Day of National Mourning,” and by doing so, appearing to acquiesce to the interest of a few political parties: Did you really uphold justice and our patriotic values by letting this happen under your watch?
It is time that we take steps towards taking collective ownership of “all our national heroes” and let all political parties compete based on their real agenda for the national development and growth without capitalizing on their individual claim of ownership of a specific national hero.
You cannot put the blame on the past government and walk away saying it was their doing. Deflecting accountability to the “others” is a common practice in our political discourse and one of the typical shields of political corruption.
Another matter is the reversal of court verdicts and removal of government leaders from their positions.
If your campaign was about due process, then how is the nation still in the dark about reversal of some critical court decisions and removal of appointees at the apex of government bodies. However questionable a court decision, it is always coded as a ruling referencing applicable articles of the constitution; similarly, a reversal of the ruling needs to follow the due process and the ruling in reversal needs to be encoded defensibly by referencing articles of the constitution; to this date, the nation is in the dark about some reported and unreported reversal of court verdicts.
There are rumours or news of convicted felons being released. The nation needs to know these as evidence of your commitment to oversee the preservation of transparency and adjudication of proper justice.
We cannot make light of the process of appointing and dismissing the leaders at the apex of government institutions. Just because we feel the past government was arbitrary in its appointment of these leaders, we cannot allow ourselves to act independently of the due process in dismissing these appointees -- you marched under the banner of justice and transparency.
So, what process was followed in summary or dishonourable dismissal of these top government officials? You need to publish an uncontroversial white paper that can be defended in a court of law. It would appear that this government, under your idealistic watch, is pandering to the narrow political interests of some political parties or individuals, and you appear to be serving as an accessory to this blatant pursuit of political vengeance.
You have a rich legacy of patriotism and idealism to uphold and extend. Please do not succumb to the temptations of forming yourself into a political party while in government; in that you will equate yourself with the questionable legacies of some political parties that emerged in the shadow of coups d’etat while the incumbent was still in the seat of power -- by doing so, you will most likely earn the label of a front for a power base that is still in the shadows, and the change will no longer be seen as a people’s revolution.
Dr Farooq Sheikh is an Associate Professor at SUNY Geneseo, US.