নাগরিকের অধিকার, আন্তর্জাতিক সম্পর্ক ও আইন ব্যবস্থার সংস্কার নিয়ে বঙ্গবন্ধু
৬ ফেব্রুয়ারি ১৯৫৬
করাচী
The constituent assembly of Pakistan:
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (East Bengal: Muslim): On a point of previlege, Sir. At the time of departure on Saturday the Chairman informed us that we have to sit up to 11 p.m. today. Sir, we have no objection to sit up to eleven, two or six o’clock. When we have come to make the Constitution, we are prepared to sit the whole night. But I have heard that the authorities have arranged for our food at concessional rates of Rs. 1.8 per meal. This is very good ……
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, as a member of this House I want to draw your attention and through you the attention of this House towards the staff of this Assembly.
(Honourable Deputy Speaker: Have the staff complained to you?)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: There is no question of any complaint, Sir. They come at ten o’clock in the morning and at present they are working up to eight o’clock ….
(The Honourable Sardar Amir Azam Khan: What is the basis of his information?)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, they are poor people; they will fail in their duty, where will they get food if they do not get at concessional rates here? What about their transport? That is also a point. How will they go home after eleven o’clock? They have no car.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, this is point of previlege because we, as members of this House, are also concerned in it. Our speeches should come to us in time, because we have to return them within a day or two. Therefore, we must look to their convenience so that they correctly take down our speeches and send copies to us. Sir, members should not suffer. If they work upto eleven o’clock, how will they give the speeches to us and then we have to look through the speeches and send them back to office. It is not the question of the inconvenience of the staff, but also concerns us.
(The Honourable Sardar Amir Azam Khan: He is not worried about the staff.)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, this is why, I was saying they should also get food at concessional rates; otherwise when will they go out for food and when they will come back? The result will be that we will suffer.
(Honourable Deputy Speaker: I have understood your point of privilege. I shall also see whether you are put to any inconvenience of suffering and if either of the two comes to my notice, I shall, in consultation with you and others, endeavour to remove both suffering and inconvenience.)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, another point is about the car. Will the members get cars?
(Honourable Deputy Speaker: You can only raise one point of privilege in a day. Which of these two are you giving preference?)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, speeches should come to us in time. This is my point of order, Sir, The second point is how can one go home at 11 o’clock. You can go directly from here in the conveyances which may be made available by Governmet but what about people like us who would not be able to get even taxis; who will arrange for taxis for us? I wish to draw your attention that you should also arrange conveyances for us. Then if we have to sit up till 11 o’clock, what about the Isha prayers: that is another prayer time also ….
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: (East Bengal: Muslim): Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by my honourable friend, Mr. Deldar Ahmed, and would like to say a few words. Sir, in a democratic country sometimes some Parity may be in power at a certain time and another Parity may be in power next time and what they generally do is that they deprive citizens of the right of citizenship gradually to meet their political ends. You know, Sir, that in the name of democracy, most undemocratic actions are done and in the name of Islam, many un-Islamic things are done. If you give power to the legislature or to the executive to deprive any person of the right of citizenship, then it may so happen that the Parity in power may deprive some persons of their citizenship with a vengeance or because they politically differ and do not see eye to eye with them. Sir, this is a fundamental right of every citizen that he is not deprived of the right of citizenship and it should be so guaranted that it cannot be taken away by the Parity in power. Only for this reason, Sir, I appeal to the Honourable Law Minister to accept this amendment which is not harmful to him nor harmful to the Constitution, nor to the Parity in power. I would request him to accept this amendment which is pure and simple. If a person has done something which is anti-State or if he is doing any harm to the stability of Pakistan State, then you can even hang him, or you can put him into jail. You can try such persons and send them to jail, but you should not deprive them from the right of citizenship which is a fundamental right of all. Therefore Sir, I would request the Honourable Law Minister to accept this amendment so that the right of citizenship is guaranted and is not taken away by ordinary law of the country, or by the executive authority. With these words, Sir, I strongly support the amendment of my honourable friend, Mr. Deldar Ahmed.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, I may perhaps finish in three minutes. Sir, supporting the amendment of my friend, Mr. Zahiruddin, an Honourable Member of this House, I draw your attention that why we want the people of Pakistan should get that guarantee in the Constitution, in an Islamic State. You will see, Sir, that there is a guarantee for food, shelter, accommodation, education and everything in every other constitution, but not in our country. For all these seven years of which we have been speaking so much and every time that this is an Islamic country and people should get food and they must get other necessaries of life, nothing has been done. We have seen in our country of Pakistan that people are dying of starvation and hunger. You know, Sir, that in East Pakistan there was a famine and people were dying in the streets and in the villages and nobody cared for it. That is why we want that if that guarantee is there, they will be careful. Now, Sir, what is happening in our country in the name of Islam, in the name of Pakistan. People say that we will die for the sake of Pakistan and we will keep it intact. We will save Pakistan. But for whom? For this privileged class, for the landlords, for the jagirdars, for these big moneyed people, for these big big officers, these big big Ministers. No, Pakistan is for every citizen of Pakistan. They must get this guarantee and they must be provided with food, shelter and other things. Now, Sir, we are not getting education in our country.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Not at all, Sir. You can ask the then Honourable Chief Minister, Honourable Mr. Fazlul Huq whose colleague I was. Sir, I was speaking about shelter. Sir, you see people do not have shelter. We give refugee tax, but where does the money go? Why are people not getting shelter? There are some people who have big houses, four-storeyed houses; the Prime Minister has got a very big building: all the Ministers have got big buildings, but the poor have no shelter and you call it an Islamic state where poor people are dying without shelter. We must guarantee them shelter.
Sir, in the United States or in U.K. and other countries if any man does not get food, does not get shelter, that Government will fall. The people will not tolerate it. But here if you say that people should get food, shelter, they will put you in jail under preventive detention. They will say you are a Communist; you are not a Mussalman. Sir, that is what they are doing. Sir, while our people are not getting education there are these big people who are sending their boys to London, spending foreign exchange. Sir, in Karachi there are people who want to open schools, but cannot get land for starting school, because they are poor refugees. Government is thinking whether to give them land or not. They are sending their children to London. This is Islamic country!
(Honourable Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member has got a very nice suit on.)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, I want that everybody should get it. I do not want to have monopoly. We do not mind if they put on beautiful clothes, but people should also get it. Sir, what is the position? People are not getting Kafan. In East Bengal they do not get that piece of cloth to be buried and they are either thrown in the river or put in the grave without any cloth. This is the position. The people should get food, cloth, shelter, education, medical relief and employment. Sir, these guarantees should be given in the Constitution. In every civilized country they give this guarantee. People are going from place to place, they are not getting employment. They must get jobs. You curtail your pay, curtail your allowances; give them employment somehow.
Sir, every day my friends say that we are speaking on every amendment. We speak on these amendments so that Allah may give you sense to accept these very good amendments. We know you are not going to accept any of our suggestions, but one day people will get up and will say ‘You rulers, give us all these things’ otherwise they will force you to go out. That day you will have to accept these amendments. Sir, with, these words, I support Mr. Zahiruddin’s amendment.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, I support the amendment and draw your attention to the fact that sometimes in international matters a country can make friendship with any other country of the world. Sir, if we categorically say that we are a Muslim State, then definitely we must make relations with other Muslim countries more cordial. Sir, might be if there is a war between Afghanistan and Pakistan other non-Muslim countries might help us. I do not think that anywhere in any constitution of the world, it is written that the State shall endeavour to promote friendly relations with particular countries; no doubt we will do it, but why write in the constitution, for example, in the U.N.O. in connection with Kashmir issue, there are so many non-Muslim countries that are friendly to us, we have to play politics. There is the Muslim country of Indonesia which is friendly to India. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom; it is not a democratic country; no doubt we should be friendly with Saudi Arabia. Then there is Egypt and Iran. Naturally we should be on friendly terms with them; we should promote friendly relations with them all, but why write in the Constitution. The Honourable Law Minister is not here but Sardar Amir Azam Khan is here, I wonder if he can show me that in any other Constitution of any other country, it is written that they will have friendly relations with particular countries of the world. Today we may not be on good terms with India, but tomorrow we can be friendly with her. We can get more help from India than from any other country. Great Britain is a country with whom we are friendly; we are still member of the Commonwealth. Then why should we say that only with Muslim countries we will promote friendly relations. This is politics, you have to play it. Afghanistan is a Muslim country; but how can you be friendly simply because it is a Muslim country, when that country is claiming our land? How can we say that simply because it is a Muslim country, it must be our friend?
A time may come when you have to invade Afghanistan. Then if this provision is there, you cannot do it. Therefore, we should not have a provision like this. We should say that we will have friendly relations with all the countries of the world unless they themselves make us enemies. How can we be friendly with a country like Afghanistan? With these few words, Sir, I support the amendment.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman: Sir, while supporting the amendment that Judiciary be separated from the Executive, I submit that as you are already aware, people are not getting justice, because the executive is controlling the Judiciary. We see that even in petty cases the Judiciary is sometimes influenced by the Executive to pass their verdict in their favour. I cannot understand why the Government side should refuse to accept the amendment of Mr. Abul Mansur Ahmad. The Government side’s argument, I can anticipate, will be that it is up to the Provincial Government to decide when they can be able to separate judiciary from the Executive. It can also be argued by the other side that separation requires time. We accept it and they have also accepted that Judiciary must be separated from the Executive. Now, they say that we shall do that in future, and we have been told as soon as possible. Sir, this statement is absolutely vague. It may be that the new Government will come and say the same thing that they will endeavour to separate the Judiciary from the Executive in five to ten year’s time. Why do they not give a definite time, say, two years? If any Provincial Government cannot separate Judiciary from Executive within two years, such a government must immediately resign. People will not have confidence in that government, because it is not an efficient government. I say it should be easy and possible for them to separate Judiciary from the Executive in two years time. In seven years time if you can achieve Pakistan. You can very well effect the separation in two years. Two years time is not a matter of joke, but this will depend if they are sincerely trying to achieve it. If we can make a country prosper in seven years time, if we can throw off the yoke of British Imperialism, it is not difficult for us to separate Judiciary form the Executive in a very short span of time. People can respect the Constitution when they can get justice. If the people do not get justice, they will revolt against the Government. Therefore, in order to do justice to the people, Judiciary must be separated from the Executive. With these words I shall request that phrases like ‘we shall endeavour’, ‘we will do everything that is possible’, ‘as soon as possible in the future’, ‘it will be done by the next government’, ‘steps will be taken’, ‘endeavours will be made’ and so on, will not do. A definite time must be given, make it one year or more, but give a definite date within which period you have got to do it. It will be all right if they say after five years, but a vague statement will be of no avail. The next government may say we will do it after five years and this will continue indefinitely for ever. You are making this Constitution for the people of Pakistan and the people should get justice.
I, therefore, request the Law Minister to think over the matter and see whether he can limit a time, within which the Government will have to separate the Judiciary from the Executive.
Reference:
Iqbal, S. (1997) Sheikh Mujib in Parliament (1955-58), p. 155-165, Dhaka, Agami Prakashani