In truth
May I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate The Daily Star and Mr. Zafar Sobhan for the excellent post-ed titled "We can handle it" published on October 15. To me, it is the most constructive and positive discussion on the truth commission I have come across since the idea was floated by the information and law advisor of the present caretaker government.
I personally do not see much (in fact anything) to disagree with Mr. Sobhan in his argument in support of a truth commission for Bangladesh.
Who can deny the fact, as pointed out by Mr. Sobhan that corruption was so institutionalised in the country, that it would require turning the country upside down to fix things, or that, as he says, "decades of shameless and self-serving rule by colonisers, dictators and putative democracies alike had left the legal and judicial apparatus required to affect the necessary changes utterly dysfunctional."
How far the anti-corruption drive, in its present form and approach, has succeeded or will succeed in achieving its desired goal has, however, been a matter of debate, and will continue to be so. The reasons are simple.
Firstly, the drive had to be targeted mainly against the politicians and some business magnets having political connections, although everyone knows that the abysmal situation we are in is the outcome of a prolonged and vicious nexus between the politicians, businessmen and the bureaucracy, conveniently patronised and fanned by a section of our professionals and so-called civil society.
Secondly, corruption, criminal offences, and abuse of power are so deep and widespread in the society that, given the resources available and the various constitutional and other limitations of a caretaker government, it is probably too much to ask of the present government to clean up the debris of decades of misrule and misdeeds in just a year or two.
The predators in the garb of politicians, businessmen, professionals, media tycoons and bureaucrats having access to the corridors of power have plundered and siphoned national wealth worth billions of takas and bled the nation white. The corruption and misuse of power that the nation had witnessed in recent time, and exposed by the courtesy of the armed forces and other agencies, are considered only tip of the iceberg.
It is under these circumstances that the idea of setting up of a truth commission is not only pragmatic but also may be the most appropriate step in the context of the prevailing socio-economic and political situation in the country.
Though one may have reservations about the performance of the law adviser as an adviser to the caretaker government, one cannot but admire his appreciation of the simple reality of the situation and his idea of a truth commission to deal with the situation.
The idea of having such a commission only for the corrupt businessmen to help them get off the hook with less or no punishment in order to gain momentum in the trade and business of the country is, however, not only anti-constitutional, but is also fraught with the risk of negating the purpose of the ongoing anti-corruption drive.
The law adviser may be, to some extent, right in his thinking that the country's business cannot run without the businessmen. Whether he wants to admit it or not, the same argument holds good for the politicians as well as for the bureaucrats and persons of other professions also. The way business cannot run without businessmen, politics cannot also run without the politicians, nor the administration without the bureaucrats.
The problem is that corruption is so widespread and deep-rooted in our society, any attempt to uproot it overnight or bring it down to an acceptable level is bound to land us in a tough situation.
The caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed will do a great job if it can set up a proper truth commission having a large canvas, where major incidences of war crimes, genocide, rape, murder, political killings, corruption, abuse of power, violation of human rights, violation of constitutional obligations, distortion of history and similar other offences of most serious nature committed between March 26, 1971 and January 11, 2007 (1/11) would be painted in their true colours and perspective.
And the key players of those events, irrespective of whether they are businessmen, politicians, bureaucrats or members of any other profession, would then be categorised by the commission and brought to trial either before the court of law or before the truth commission, depending on the nature of crimes committed.
It is very important, as suggested by Mr. Sobhan, that the commission be structured in such a way that no community or class of people in particular are targeted, and that the commission would operate as a parallel judicial option where participation would be totally voluntary.
Under no circumstances should the commission favour or disfavour a person just because he or she is a politician, bureaucrat, businessmen or a professional.
The last, but not the least, important task would be to address the issues raised by Mr. Sobhan regarding formation of a truth commission, and how such a program will be administered? Who would qualify for inclusion? How will the truth commission complement the existing legal system?
I would like to add one more question, which may ultimately prove to be the most difficult one: who would qualify to be the members of this commission? Needless to mention that they ought to be competent and respectful senior citizens having a good track record of high moral integrity and completely non-partisan outlook.
Unfortunately, people of such calibre are hard to find in this country nowadays. I dare say so because our experience with people of even the noblest of professions, like university professors or supreme court judges, hasn't been that encouraging, to put it mildly.
Capt. Husain Imam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.
Comments