Home Page

SURAT MIAH--the man who was beaten to death by airport officials..

London (1 May 2000):

The Foreign Minister, Abdus-Samad Azad, at an Awami-League Reception in the UK, assured the public that the Government of Bangladesh will take positive steps to ensure that the wrongdoers responsible for the death of Surat Mia will be brought to justice. He informed that a court hearing is to take place on the 18th of May. He also informed that a 'Charge-Sheet' had been issued and submitted against 4 customs-officers and that witness statements were obtained from 62, out of which 28 of these statements have already been examined.

Surat Mia, a UK resident, was beaten to death by the Customs Authority at Zia International Airport some years ago. Although it was not at all difficult to identify the killers, unfortunately, it has taken many years for the Authority in bringing the killers to justice. Bengalis in UK have fought a long battle to see that the killers are brought to justice. They have made several formal complaints to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, against intimidation, harassment and demanding money by customs and immigration officials at Zia and Osmani. Also, there has been numerous public meetings and gatherings in the UK (with the High Commissioner) in protest of various other similar incidents.

Review:

Where 'there is a will there is a way'. This was certainly true in relation to hunting down Sheikh Mujib's Killers. Here, where there are so many witnesses, one cannot be less optimistic.
One important issue has been avoided throughout. This is the issue of compensation by the Government in any event - under the principles of vicarious liability. In other words, if those who beat Surat Mia to death were held to be employees of a particular Authority (Ministry) then that Authority ought to take responsibility for the actions of its employees and thereby compensate the relatives of Surat Miah. Such an issue has not yet been considered, or has it?

editor

News Review

ERSHAD'S PASSPORT SEIZED BY GOVERNMENT ONCE AGAIN

Dhaka, 5th June 2000 (news source: BanglaNews.com)

The Government of Bangladesh has, once again, seized the passport of the ex-president of Bangladesh, H. M. Ershad, on his way to the United Kingdom. This is the second time the Government ordered such seizure. On a previous occasion, the Government had prevented Mr Ershad from travelling to the People's Republic of China. The Government's actions on that occasion did not receive approval of the Courts. In fact, during a subsequent court action, such actions by the Authority were declared ultra vires, i.e. the Government's actions were declared unlawful.

This is the second time such actions have been repeated by the Government of Bangladesh, despite the unfavourable outcome of the court-action on the previous occasion.

Comments:

If there is no legal Authority to seize one's passport then could this have the result of a political decision, the motive behind which can only be better explained jointly by those committing the acts of 'seizure' and their 'instructors'.
Where there is no legal Authority for such acts of seizure, what other purpose could this serve other than cause intimidation and harassment to an individual, as well as infringement of one's constitutional rights.

NOTE: Mr. Ershad is reported to have been negotiating with Mrs Zia (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) for representation of approximately 150 constituencies under the 'coalition agreement' - which is aimed to oust the present government through Majority representation in Parliament in the forthcoming election. Therefore, under such circumstances whereby Mr Ershad has prospects of being part of a future government, it would be unreasonable and illogical to suggest that Mr Ershad is about to leave the country for good .

__________________________________________________

MOULANA DELWAR HUSSAIN SAIDI vs Public Sentiment

Manchester (UK, 25th May) see UK MEDIA for update 9/6/00

This week, the Bengali News Papers' main report was concerning Moulana Saidi's (MP) visit to Oldham and the subsequent conflict between his supporters and protesters.

Moulana Saidi who represents a political party in Bangladesh (Jamiat-e-Islami) had made comments during his previous visit to the UK. These comments, many thought, were calculated to seriously offend Bengali Community living in the UK. Although he later denied such allegations, however a tape (recorded by a local who was not his supporter) was produced to challenge his denial, and the contents of the tape were subsequently published by the local media.

As a consequence of his previous comments many people gathered in Oldham (Manchester) to prevent Moulana Saidi from making further public speeches. This incident has dominated the headlines of all of the major Bengali Newspapers operating in the UK.

(click UK media, above, for pictures)

__________________________________________________

Bangladesh;

HUMAN RIGHTS, MORALITY, PUBLIC POLICY & LAW:

Recently, the Bangladesh High Court ruled that prostitution was legal. The decision of the High Court was based on legal grounds, so said the judge.

In deciding, the judges interpreted the meaning of 'right to life' as bearing the same meaning as 'right to livelihood'. Initially, they accepted that since 'right to life' is a constitutional right, therefore, it requires protection against violation. However, they then went on to uphold a resemblance in the two meanings and declared that 'right to livelihood' ought to be protected under the constitution also (even though constitution does not expressly state such) as it was covered under the former concept.

The decision, no matter how intellectual or meritorious, nonetheless, stunned the nation and the world. There is no doubt that prostitution is the oldest profession in the world, yet no Common Law Country dared to declare it as 'legal' in any form or manner. Gambling and Prostitution are illegal throughout most part of the world. Logically, therefore any contract entered in the course of gambling or prostitution shall not be enforceable before any court. (This also helps avoid litigation in contract law, for example, if an occupation 'business is held to be 'legal', then a contract entered in such course of business cannot be declared illegal -e.g. contracts of/for personal services, gambling contracts, etc.--would have to be given legal effect, logically.)

Two matters have influenced society to uphold such view, 1) Public policy and 2) Morality. These are fundamental principles that are followed by many Western States. Thus, arguments of Human Rights have not been allowed to dictate over Morality. Therefore, in all Common Law States some matters will always be regarded as illegal where they are contrary to Public Policy (UK for example). This will be the case even where a statute/law might be interpreted to allow otherwise.

Comments:

'Right to Life' is a Universal right (as opposed to death). It does not concentrate on the quality/(occupation) of life in any of the Universal/Regional Declarations, and neither does it in our Constitution.
One researcher revealed that 'right to livelihood' is not a clear fundamental right under the Constitution of Bangladesh. Even if it was, any doubts in relation to interpretation ought to have been resolved in favour of issues of Public Policy, Morality and Religion (specially where the State is an Islamic State).
If legislators did not intend to legislate something, judges should not take their (Parliament's) responsibility, otherwise, the principle--separation of powers- is affected. i.e. judges should not 'make the law'--or even fill the gap, it is for Parliament to 'make laws'.

editor

News Review

MORE REVIEWS … COMING SOON……

Pictures from Bangladesh

These are some of the 'Bollywood-style- action' that has taken over the lives of the Bangladeshis--thanks to the so called democracy that has allowed police to guard these 'actors' whilst performing their show (action) in the streets of Dhaka. Like the Bollywood movies, the shooters (above) are all 'heroes', the democratic public are their victims ("villains"?), and the police their 'protectors;.

The picture taken by Reuters (on left) shows a youth (civilian) holding a gun and is surrounded by armed police. This youth is undoubtedly a party activist and has the LEGAL right to kill (licence) - so it appears.

These types of pictures are not new in relation to Bangladeshi Politics whilst the so called democracy has taken effect. It is only that we were not familiar of such sight during 'martial law', nor were we familiar with so many deaths at this level in the name of power.

One may rightly ask the question how it is possible that politicians of a democratic country can allow such; on one hand the governments pass legislation such as "Santhrash domon ayin", "Jono nirapatha ayin" , on the other hand they encourage terrorist activities (such as above) and provide with their party activists with licence (support) and the power (arms) to kill.

However, it needs to be noted that In this respect no political party has proved to be innocent so far. Therefore, it may be time for the real actors to take power. A study of the history of Bangladesh will no doubt reveal that only the army can help ensure the safety of an individual in Bangladesh.

February 2001

_____________________________________________________

Sheikh Hasina's visit to

the United Kingdom

(an overview) : October 2000 (see pictures below)

The Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, stopped in London on her way to the States. On this occasion the UK Awami League arranged a meeting at the Camden Town Hall near King's Cross, London. However, the occasion was marked by criticism by both party activists and members of the public who gathered to see the Prime Minister. This was due to the fact that approximately 200 people were not allowed entry to the meeting. At one stage even the local media were refused entry.

The organisers hired security who maintained a thorough body search of all those entering the meeting area (the Town Hall). Cameras and mobile phones were not allowed in the Hall and were kept by the security. Thus, even the reporters were not allowed to take their cameras inside.

Approximately 900 people were allowed into the main hall, the others waited outside patiently in the hope that they would be allowed entry at some point.

After a long hopeless wait and despite the security guard's promises of entry of another 60 people, many invited guests returned without any luck. They later learned that there was not much they missed. It was the usual bits of political speech:-

The prime Minister appreciated the positive role of British ex-patriots in the Bangladeshi politics; their role in providing finance during the war of independence, etc.
She asked everybody to go to Bangladesh and become voters. She reinstated her position in the passing of the relevant legislation which would give rights to UK Bangladeshi residents' right to vote.
(Although, strangely, she did not say how on earth she can make this happen since any passing of legislation requires 2/3rd majority of Parliament and she does not have control of that sort of majority).
In relation to the death of Surat Miah she did not want to make any comments. Her reason was matters now belong to the court and therefore she cannot interfere (????).
She said that Bangladeshi's should have saved the UK Sonali Bank.
( The downfall of Sonali Bank was the fault of the government and its bad administration; the staff were incompetent, the Bank failed to meet the guidelines and simple banking rules imposed by the Bank of England. In fact due to the Government's inefficient recruitment policy it was not possible to recruit graduates from UK- you had to be approved by the relevant ministry of Bangladesh to get a job at this Bank, so whose fault is it?).

____________________________________________

ARRANGED MARRIAGE vs FORCED MARRIAGE AND THE SURROUNDING CONTROVERSY (UK, August 2000)

Bengali Newspapers in UK have reported recent controversy surrounding the Government's initiative to pass an Act aimed to clamp down what Home office defines as 'Forced Marriages'.

Recently in East London, during a public gathering of Community Leaders (amongst whom Babrul Hussain Babul--the freedom fighter from Sylhet was a spokesperson), British Government's attitude towards the 'arranged marriage' was not only criticised but was also condemned. Some saw this as an attack on the Bengali Culture. Others described this as 'indirect' racism by the Immigration Authorities. One allegation was that recent relevant report prepared by the Government was not prepared in consultation with the Community Leaders. The Community leaders stated that they had not been contacted. The report, however, stated otherwise.

Points to note

'Arranged Marriages' (by parents or relatives) have been seen to be the conventional method of matrimonial relationships in the Sub-Continent; Parents of the bride/groom do the 'primary selection'. Secondary selection is done by bride/groom. Divorce rates of these types of marriages have been proved to be lesser compared to the 'Western style marriages'.
It is indeed a fact that brides have occasionally a lesser say (choice) in the Society 'during the selection process' compared to their male counterparts.
The types of 'forced marriages' that UK Home Office is concerned about are few and far between; those marriages where daughters are flown home by parents and married off--where some work out just fine, others do not work out at all.
The few cases of marriages that do not work out (compared to the large category of those which do work out) and therefore are defined as 'forced marriages' ought not to be taken evidence justifying condemnation of this century old cultural heritage.

Some relevant facts:- Despite there being documentary programmes on this cultural issue by both BBC and Channel 4 whereby arranged marriages were seen as the most appropriate method of wedlock and the crying of a bride as the most normal thing on a wedding day, UK Immigration Officers have been using wedding videos as 'evidence' in suggesting that marriages were indeed forced.

Therefore, there is a danger that, although the Home Office views such steps necessary in protecting the few vulnerable, these steps can in fact be seen as a cultural attack , as has been the case most recently.

The suggested mode of approach would be to find an alternative remedy after discussing the issues with Community Leaders.

____________________________

MORE REVIEWS COMING SOON………….

MAIL YOUR NEWS, ARTICLES, VIEWS, OPINION, IDEAS AND COMMENTS TO

newsreview@banglanews.com