|
<%-- Page Title--%> Law Letter <%-- End Page Title--%> |
||||
| <%-- Page Title--%> Issue No 129 <%-- End Page Title--%> |
February 15 2004 |
||||
|
<%-- Page Title--%>
<%-- Navigation Bar--%>
|
Can
democracy protect minority rights? I
would like to share some of my reflections on the article by Sheikh
Hafizur Rahman Karzon, "Ban on Ahmadiyya Publications - Constitutionality
of the Decision" published on 1 February. One of
the subtle issues that resonates in the article is that of secularism
and religion in politics. The author points out that the efficacy of
democracy can be assessed by testing how the ability of the system to
protect the rights of minority. This, in modern times would then indicate
that the rights of minority are not being met in any 'democratic' country.
I speak regarding the French and Germans and the ban they are facing
on turbans and hijabs. I speak about the Muslim minorities in the 'democratic'
countries who are not allowed to have a separate court of law to practice
their own chosen form of law. Thus, one can argue that the minorities'
rights to live as they wish are not met by democratic ideology. Mr Karzon
equates the Madina Pact with secularism, failing to clarify how the
pact indicates that the prophet permitted secularism in running the
state. In fact, Islamic Caliphate always protected the rights of the
minorities by allowing them to have their own courts so they can live
by their own laws. They received benefits from the state and were protected
by the Muslim army against their enemies. This is what the Madina Pact
was about, and far from being a secular principle, it was an important
Islamic principle. It was the Muslim caliphs who showed the world how
to treat the minorities in the proper way, and they did it for the sake
of Allah and not for any political ideology. Such a system is yet to
be demonstrated by the 'democratic' entities that exists today. I very
much agree with the author that the government has sent out mixed and
confusing messages, and I believe this reflects how little thought they
give to the impact of their decisions. However, I find absurd the authors
suggestion that the prophet (SM) despite being under divine guidance
was following secularism - which by definition rejects any form of religion!
On the contrary, he was following divine guidance, and everything he
did was according to the Qur'an. Sharif
Hussain, ***** Fearless
journalist, free press Free
press commands non-interference and freedom i.e. freedom from all sorts
of impediments. Freedom of press ensures the right to information. This
imperative for breathing life into democracy. And so it is vital for
the advancement of democratic society. Our country is a democratic one
where press freedom has been ensured by the Constitution. Despite of
having provisions relating to freedom of speech, thought, conscience
and expression, the provision of freedom of the press has rightly been
inserted in our Constitution simply to underscore the importance of
free press. However it does not mean literal freedom. Rather, added
something more than the freedom itself. It also includes a sound environment
free from violence and intimidation. In other words, it empowers the
journalists to work freely without any pressure. But taking the prevailing
situation into consideration, one can conclude that our journalists
are acting independently but not freely and fearlessly. According to
newspaper reports at least 11 journalists were killed only in southern
region in the last five years. The latest addition is the killing of
Manik Chandra Saha, who sacrificed his life for his uncompromising and
fearless journalism. So, to ensure freedom of the press and to save
our democracy it is necessary to take appropriate security measure for
our journalists. Md.Kamal
Hossain Meahzi Corresponding
Law Desk |
||||
| (C) Copyright The Daily Star. The Daily Star Internet Edition, is joiblished by the Daily Star | ||||