Crossfire, gunfight- now a normal phenomenon in BD!

Shakhawat Hossain

Nowadays, the indiscriminate killings of the so-called ‘criminals’ in ‘crossfire’ or ‘gunfights’ during different raids and the recovery of their bullet-hit bodies’ have not only become a common phenomenon across the country, but also a matter of great concern. 

The law-enforcing agencies are pursuing a common line of action by branding the crossfire victims as militants or other criminals while the respective family members have been claiming that them as innocent victims of trigger-happy members of the law enforcing agencies including the RAB, DB and Police.

However, Human Rights activists, relatives of the deceased, have long been strongly criticizing the government and law enforcers in massive ways and demanding citizens’ rights protected.

The crime experts and social scientists also condemn the Directorate General of Health Services’ (DGHS) prior instruction to forensic doctors not to provide the media with detailed autopsy reports on persons killed in crossfire, following a written request from the DMP.

In last eleven days of January, , more than 27 people were killed in ‘crossfire’, cops’ firing and criminals’ rival fights in the city and other districts where about 36 bodies, including 11bullets hit bodies have been recovered at the same time, according to media reports.

Even eight persons were killed in ‘gunfights’ in Jessore district since December 17, six in the city, eight in Sundarbans areas, four in Dhaka, four in Jhenaidah, three in Barguna, three in Brahmanbaria, two in Chittagong, two in Mymensingh, two in Narsingdi and, one in Chuadanga and another Rangpur.

Earlier, at least 139 people fell victim to ‘crossfire’ and 86 to enforced disappearance in the country in 2017, said rights organisation Odhikar.

In Barguna, three suspected robbers were killed in separate “gunfights” with Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in Pathorghata of Barguna district on Tuesday night, said our local correspondent quoting Commander for RAB-8 Hasan Al Rajib.

In Chuadanga, Iman Ali, 28, an alleged member of inter-district robber group, was killed in what police claimed a gunfight in Chuadanga Sadar upazila on January 23 night, said Ahsan Habib, Assistant Superintendent of Police of Chuadanga. Meanwhile, a suspected robber was killed in a ‘gunfight’ at a graveyard at Bhalaipur village in Alamdanga upazila in the district on December 28.

In Rangpur, an alleged robber was killed during a gunfight with police in Rangpur city on January 22. The deceased Rajab Ali, 35, was a member of an inter-district robber gang.

In Jessore, at least five persons were killed in crossfire and two bullet-hit bodies also recovered in Jessore within 24 hours since January 21. In Brahmanbaria, at least two persons were killed in gunfire with cops in Brahmanbaria on the same day. In Bagerhat, three suspected jungle bandits were killed in a ‘gunfight’ with members of Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in Sukhpara Char area under Swarankhola range of the Sundarbans on January 18.

Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal claimed in a program in the city last year that ‘crossfire’ killings are untenable. The Inspector General of Police (IGP) AKM Shahidul Haque said that police have the right to protect themselves during crossfire or gunfight.

Professor Sadeka Halim, a social scientist of Dhaka University and former Commissioner of Information Commission, said, “Such death by law enforcers is clear violation of human rights. Stressing that every family member has the right to know howtheir dear ones were killed, or what happened to them, she said.

Professor Zia Rahman, Chairman of Dhaka University’s Criminology Department, said law enforcers’ crossfire had raised confusion among the people about the identity of the criminals.

Advocate Salma Ali, Executive Director of the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA), said, “We cannot support such killings in the name of crossfire. It should be stopped. If these continue, we will lose our trust in the government.”

Nur Khan, former Director of Ain o Salish Kendra, said the government has been tightening freedom of expression and said such attempts would further prompt unruly police officials to be involved in crimes. Police have no rights to kill people in the name of crossfire, he said. 

Nur Khan Liton said, “We hoped that investigators would reveal information about recent killings. But the hope was shattered with such deaths in crossfire incidents.”

Mina Akter, sister of a crossfire victim, said that police killed her brother after picking up from their residence by identifying themselves as detectives of Dhaka Metropolitan Police.

One of victim’s father, on condition of anonymity, said, “Everybody knows how his innocent son was killed during the police crossfire.”

6 cops charged with custodial torture

The Chittagong metropolitan magistrate’s court has ordered the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) to investigate the incident of a Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) leader being tortured in police custody. The victim’s brother has alleged that the officer-in-charge of the Chittagong Medical College Hospital (CMCH) police outpost and five others had tortured the BCL leader in police custody.

Enforced disappearances must end

In an open letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has urged the Bangladesh government to take urgent steps to confirm the whereabouts of and release people who are reportedly the victims of enforced disappearance. 

Enforced disappearances have emerged as a key and pressing concern in Bangladesh, particularly since the period leading up to the January 2014 national elections, the HRW said in the letter that was made public on Saturday.

Over 80 cases of secret detentions and enforced disappearances were reported in 2017, with seven of them killed later in so-called “gunfights,” or “crossfire”: euphemisms for extra judicial killings. At least 17 are still missing, said a statement of the New York -based rights organization published in its website.

“Secret detentions and disappearances have become a terrifying prospect for Bangladeshis, who fear that any criticism or political affiliation can lead to a knock on the door from the ‘administration,’” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. He added, “As she nears the end of her third term in office, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina should intervene personally to help families who are desperately looking for answers, and establish an independent authority to investigate and resolve this widespread problem.”

Some of these disappearances appear to be politically motivated, with several members of opposition parties or their relatives still missing. The government has promised repeatedly to investigate all allegations of human rights violations thoroughly and impartially. The issue was raised at the last United Nations Universal Periodic Review of the country’s human rights situation, in April 2013. But reports of new cases continue, it said.

During Human Rights Watch investigations into disappearances, witnesses confirmed the involvement of law enforcement agencies. In some cases, security personnel who carried out the detentions said that they were from the administration. In other cases, family members and witnesses identified those responsible as members of the detective branch or the elite Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) of the police, or from the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) of the military. Bangladesh should ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, the statement said.

“In addition to the establishment of an independent authority, the Bangladesh government should invite relevant UN special mandate holders to conduct their own investigations,” Adams said, adding, “These teams should all be given free and unfettered access to all detention sites and access to all victims and their families.”

• Courtesy: Weekly Holiday/Feb 3, 2018

Digital Security Laws hammer last nail in the coffin

Shahid Islam

The future of democracy looks bleaker than any time before. Amidst lingering fear that the next general election too may be a one - party show — hence a non-inclusive parliament — a slew of new laws is destined to slam total gauge on freedom of expression too. And, that may hammer the last nail in the moribund democracy’s coffin.

As if the existing laws are not draconian enough, the cabinet had on January 29 approved the draft of what is dubbed as the Digital Security Act (DSA) 2018, incorporating within it much of the controversial section 57 of the ICT Act; splitting offenses in four separate sections; making some offenses non-bailable; and, allowing police to search and arrest suspects without any warrant. The draft law is expected to be approved in the next session of the parliament.

Tougher and tougher

That makes practice of democracy, and democratic governance, harder and harder. Before the ICT act’s amendment in 2013, maximum punishment for offences under section 57 was 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Tk 1 crore. Besides, police had to solicit permission from the concerned authorities to file a case, or arrest any person under the law. In subsequent amendments, maximum jail term was raised to 14 years while law enforcers were empowered to make arrests without warrant. 

Section 57 dealt with defamation, hurting religious sentiments, causing deterioration of law and order and, instigating against any person or organisation through publishing or transmitting any material in websites or in electronic form. It stipulated maximum 14 years in prison for the offences.

Despite repeated demand from rights group and journalists to repeal section 57 following the arrest of journalist Probir Sikdar in 2015, following his posting of a status on the Facebook, over 300 cases have been filed under section 57 in the first seven months of 2017 alone, according to Cyber Tribunal sources. And, according to reports, the cases filed under the ICT Act were processed, almost 90 per cent of them, under Section 57, initiated mostly by ruling AL stalwarts.

Draconian DSA 2018

The draft law, DSA 2018, kept the provision of revoking sections 54, 55, 56, 57 and 66 of the ICT act, although the cases already filed under section 57 will continue, according to police and the concerned ministry. As of now, 701 cases, filed under section 57, are pending with the Cyber Tribunal, according to reports. 

A newly constituted Digital Security Agency, led by a director general, will ensure national digital security to combat cybercrimes, as per the newly devised blueprint. The new law also stipulates some crimes under sections 17, 28, 31, 32 and 34 as “non-bailable,” considering the gravity of the crimes committed, and the severity of the punishment imposed, the cabinet secretary said.

As per section 43 of the draft law, a police official can search or arrest anyone without any warrant issued by the court, if he or she believes that an offence under the act has been committed in a certain place, or is being committed, or, there is a possibility of crimes, or, there is a possibility of destroying evidence.

Other gauging provisions

According to section 17 of the new act, if anyone illegally enters any critical information infrastructure, he or she will face maximum seven years of imprisonment, or Tk 25 lakh fine, or both, and, he or she may face up to 14 years in jail or 1 crore in fine or both; for causing any harm to the infrastructure.

Section 21 says: if a person, through digital or electronic devices, spreads or helps spread any propaganda against the spirit of the 1971 Liberation War, or the Father of the Nation, he or she will face life imprisonment, or a fine of Tk 1 crore, or both.

Section 25 says: a person may face up to three years in jail or Tk 3 lakh fine or both, if he or she is found to have deliberately published or broadcast in the website or electronic form something which is attacking or intimidating.

Section 27 says:  if any person or group deliberately publishes or transmits on a website, or in any other electronic form, any material which hurts anyone’s religious sentiment, the activity will be considered a crime, and the offender will face a maximum five years imprisonment, or a fine of Tk 10 lakh, or both. If any person commits the offence twice or more, he or she will face a maximum punishment of seven years’ imprisonment, or a fine of Tk 20 lakh, or both.

Section 28 says: a person may face up to seven years in jail or Tk 10 lakh fine, or both, if he or she is found to have deliberately published or broadcast something in the website or in electronic form to hurt someone’s religious sentiment and values. That person will face up to ten years in jail, or Tk 20 lakh penalty, or both, for committing the offence for the second time.

Section 29 says:  a person may face maximum three years in jail or Tk 5 lakh fine, or both, if he or she commits offence stipulated in section 499 of the Penal Code through website, or in any other electronic form. He or she will face up to five years in jail, or Tk 10 Lakh fine or both, for committing the offence for the second time.

Penal code supplanted

Section 29 suggests that the penal code’s provision of libel, described in BPC section 499, still holds relevant and, the new act is an overkill. Section 499 says: “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.”

Section 30 of the draft act says:  if any person or group deliberately publishes or transmits on a website, or in any other electronic form, any material which creates enmity and hatred among different sections or communities, or hurts communal harmony, or creates instability or anarchy, or the possibility of deterioration in law and order, the activity will be regarded as a crime.

Section 32 says: a person may face up to 14 years in jail or Tk 20 lakh fine or both, on the charge of spying if he or she illegally enters the offices of government, semi-government and autonomous bodies, to gather information and uses electronic device to record something secretly. A person may face up to 14 years in jail or Tk 1 crore or both for hacking, according to section 34 of the new act.

Precedence of abuse

Precedence of such laws being almost invariably abusive is many. For instance, on November 23, 2017, a defamation case was filed by the cousin of a state minister, who is also a member of Madaripur District Council, accusing professor Asif Nazrul of an insulting Facebook posting. The complainant claimed that the accused had “willingly tarnished the image of the minister socially and politically by uploading the post.” The court ordered the concerned professor to appear before the district court on December 14, 2017. 

The defamation case falls under the purview of BPC 499, yet, the nephew of the concerned minister lodged another complaint against the professor under Section 57 of the ICT Act for the same post that had allegedly exposed some irregularities in recruitment process in Chittagong port, at the behest of the concerned minister. As the complaint was forwarded to the police headquarters in Dhaka for clearance, the approval came in an instant, on November 26, without any authentication of the crimes committed. The minister also threatened the professor of consequences in a TV talk show.

The cases got initiated and processed despite the professor’s persistent denial that he ‘was not responsible for the post.’ That claim needed a forensic expert to authenticate, which never happened.  The professor claimed, backed by convincing evidence, that, ‘people running fake pages used his name and were responsible for the misdeed.’ He urged the concerned authorities to verify the authenticity of the ‘culprit Facebook page’ before pressing charges against him.

And, fearing trouble and persecution, the professor applied and secured anticipatory bail from the High Court on November 28, 2017; claiming that, he could be arrested anytime and get locked up for an indefinite period of time while the law was being used against him only to cause harassment and suffering to him and his family. In another bizarre twist, on December 4, the government lodged an appeal against the High Court order that granted the ad-interim anticipatory bail. 

We don’t have words to describe such misuse of power. But another famed academician of the Dhaka university did something close to our heart: “This episode is a blatant manifestation of how members of the ruling party abuse draconian laws against those who do not toe the official line and are not in cahoots with the party in power. It also lays bare the ways in which the state agencies have been made subservient to the ruling regime. All these do not bode well for a polity that has paid such a heavy price for independence and the establishment of democracy,” the academician wrote. 

As for us, we’re more concerned now about the future of democracy, and of free expression, than any time since the war of liberation was fought to make democracy the guiding beacon of our nation.

• Courtesy: Weekly Holiday/Feb 2, 2018

EIU DEMOCRACY INDEX 2017 - Ruling party blamed for demotion

Shakhawat Hossain and Moloy Saha

Bangladesh has slipped eight steps down on the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Democracy Index 2017, which politicians, intellectuals and experts say is not surprising given the present political regime’s pathetic stances on freedom of expression, civil liberties and holding fair elections.

According to the index released recently by the research and analysis division of the London-based The Economist Group, Bangladesh could score 5.43 points out of 10 and was relegated to the 92nd place.

In 2016, the country was ranked 84th with an overall score of 5.73 points.

Based on criteria like pluralism, civil liberties, political culture, electoral process, political participation and functioning bureaucracy, the index also showed that the country has slipped to the lowest level in a decade.

In the Democracy Index 2007, Bangladesh held the 75th position among 167 countries.

Politicians, academicians and rights activists blamed the government for the decline in democracy in the country. Dhaka University professor emeritus Serajul Islam Choudhury said that the index reflected the truth. ‘The current government lacks accountability,’ he told New Age on Friday.

‘Parliamentary democracy is not functioning properly in the country in absence of a genuine opposition party,’ he said, ‘parliamentary democracy cannot be effective without genuine opposition.’ 

Socialist Party of Bangladesh general secretary Khalequzaman said that democratic institutions of the country were not functioning properly. ‘Influence of democratic institutions is being squeezed and they are losing their effectiveness,’ he observed. ‘It seems to me that the government is heading toward an autocracy,’ Khalequzaman warned. 

Communist Party of Bangladesh presidium member Haider Akbar Khan Rano said, ‘The government has turned the country’s election process into a farce.’ ‘Democratic rights of the people have been squeezed and opposition parties are not getting their deserved spaces to carry out political activities,’ Rano said citing recent incidents of repression on agitating students of Dhaka University and garments workers.

Ganasanghati Andolan chief coordinator Zonayed Saki said that the country was facing serious democratic crises as the government and the ruling party had merged into one. ‘They have lost their own separate roles and as a result opposition parties are not getting the spaces for running political activities,’ Saki added.

They were also critical of the government’s recent initiative to adopt an act on the ground of ensuring digital security as it would give wrong signal abroad about the country’s democracy.

Local government expert Tofail Ahmed feared that the freedom of expression, one of the five major criteria of the index, would be hampered because of section 32 of the proposed act, which stipulates publishing news based on government documents as an act of espionage.

The experts were highly critical of the government’s role in holding the last general election boycotted by major political parties for adverse polling atmosphere.

Civil society organisation SHUJAN’s secretary Badiul Alam Majumdar said that the ruling party had to trade-off between democracy and development by holding the lop-sided general election in 2014. He noted that such a trade-off was a false one given the fact that sustainable development is complementary to democracy. He maintained that strong political will of the ruling party was needed for improvement of democracy and democratic institutions in the country.

Transparency International Bangladesh executive director Iftekharuzzaman said that political rivals of the ruling party also could not avoid their responsibilities for the waning of democracy. He said that opposition parties had failed to put pressure on the ruling party to protect the interests of the people as well as the democratic commitment. He, however, pointed that the space for opposition parties were narrowed down by the ruling party.

The experts noted that the upcoming general election is crucial for halting the waning of democracy. They hoped that the country’s democracy would start to move in the right direction once an acceptable and fair election participated by all major political parties was held.

Neighbouring India was placed 42nd on the index and Norway once again topped the ranking with an overall score of 9.87, followed by Iceland and Sweden. In 2017, the index’s average global score fell from previous year’s 5.52 points to 5.48, according to the report made public on Wednesday.

The United States was demoted from a ‘full democracy’ to a ‘flawed democracy’ in the same report last year.

• Courtesy: New Age/Feb 3, 2018

Election won't be inclusive without BNP participation: CEC

Staff Correspondent

Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) KM Nurul Huda yesterday (Wednesday) said the national election would not be inclusive without the participation of the BNP.

“The BNP is a big political party. How is it possible to hold an inclusive election without its participation? The election will not be participatory without the BNP. I had said it earlier and I am saying it again,” he said.

He came up with the comment when ruling Awami League collected nomination form for the presidential candidate at Nirbachan Bhaban. The CEC expressed the hope that the BNP and other political parties would contest the national election likely to be held by the end of this year.

“Still I hope that the BNP and all the political parties will contest the polls.”

The BNP boycotted the January 5, 2014 elections demanding polls under a non-partisan interim administration. It has still been demanding the same, but the ruling party says the next general election will be held under the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina-led administration.

The BNP has recently started alleging that the government is trying to keep party chief Khaleda Zia and her party away from the polls as well as politics.

Hasina in parliament has recently outlined the election-time government.

CEC Nurul Huda said the commission always wants participation of all political parties in the election and they would be able to avail themselves of the same facilities.

The EC would conduct the election in a neutral manner, he assured.

The ruling AL has collected the party's nomination paper (on Wednesday) on behalf of President Abdul Hamid to run the presidency for another term. If any other political party that has representation in parliament does not nominate any candidate, Hamid would be elected unopposed in the elections, Asaduzzaman Arju, joint secretary (media and publications) of the EC, told The Daily Star.

The tenure of Hamid, who took office on April 24, 2013, will expire on April 23 this year. The presidential election is scheduled to be held on February 18.

According to article 123 of the Constitution, presidential election has to be held within 90 to 60 days of expiry of the president's five-year term.

• Courtesy: The Daily Star Feb 3, 2018

Freedom of speech is not just a right!

Eresh Omar Jamal

A large number of people in the world today no longer believe in the sanctity of people's absolute right to unfettered and unrestricted speech; preferring speech, rather, to have some restrictions—as people increasingly find more and more types of speech offensive. In Bangladesh, with the adoption of various laws such as the Digital Security Act, 2018, that is now literally the case.

In fact, even some (so-called) proponents of free speech themselves nowadays believe that the right to free speech should be subjected to “reasonable restrictions”, ignoring the obvious, of course; which is: who defines what these reasonable restrictions should be?

Given that it is obvious that what is “reasonable” can vary substantially from person to person, what is scary is that people who are expressing such views, in regards to who decides, are most likely referring to themselves—that it is they who should get to decide what reasonable restrictions should apply to everyone's speech. And no matter what cover of “humanitarian and moral values” it comes enshrouded in, this, clearly, is an indication of a totalitarian mindset, albeit one which perhaps doesn't yet fully recognise itself.

Their opponents, on the other hand, argue that there should be no restriction on speech because that would violate the whole idea behind this most historically important right. And while I do stand on the side that says speech should not be restricted—apart from when it is intentionally and falsely defaming and except when it incites violence, both of which already have laws through which they can be dealt with—it is not only because of the problem of who gets to define/decide what restrictions on speech there should be, nor because it is simply an invaluable right. But because unlike most other rights, (free) speech is not “just” a right, but is a tool that humans use to shape, understand, articulate, and communicate their perceptions of what the world is like, their reality, who they are, and what they could be. Which means that not only do people explain themselves to others via speech, but they also explain themselves, the world and everything in it, to themselves, through it.

Additionally, it can also be argued that speech is the mechanism through which people of different opinions battle each other's views to find necessary compromises between them, instead of battling each other, literally. And through which differing views can clash with each other to bring greater clarity to our overall understanding of the nature of truth, and what the truth is, instead of enforcing acceptance of the naïve idea that truth is simply readily available to someone in particular, or someone belonging to a particular group or school of thought/belief, in its entirety, which is almost never the case.

But it goes even deeper than that as, according to Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology, Dr Jordan Peterson, “Speech isn't precisely a mechanism,” but is a process “by which all ideas are generated,” as it is largely through speech that we think and/or formulate our thoughts. This is because the world simply presents everyone with an overwhelming amount of information, as “there is a lot of the world and there isn't very much of” us individually. All individuals are, therefore, a very “narrow channel” for an ocean of information to pass through and be processed or be understood by.

Unfortunately, there isn't a lot that we can do about that “except, listen and talk to other people.” Because interacting with other people is one of the ways that we get to check whether what we believe to be true is actually true or not. And it is precisely because of this that “true speech is not possible without free speech,” says Peterson. As without being able to “stumble around” and “sound foolish” which we are bound to when we “first start formulating ideas”, we can never come up with ideas that are essential for human development and progress once they have been refined later either by ourselves or others. This means that without free speech, not only is true speech not possible, but neither is “true thought”.

One of the greatest authors of the 20th Century, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his book The Gulag Archipelago, highlights this as one of the main reasons for the Soviet Union's decades of internal repression. According to Solzhenitsyn, it was the fact that people were constantly not only lying to others, but to themselves primarily regarding the society that they were living in that led to the Gulags of the Soviet Union, where any individual who had dared to speak the truth (and look under the veil of social falsities) were cruelly expelled to years of inhuman treatment—in many cases till death.

Having envisioned where such a society was destined to go, the great British author George Orwell also wrote in his famous dystopian novel 1984 that, “Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death,” tying, once again, the lack of one's ability to speak their truths as they see fit with its unavoidable and ultimate outcome, the death of one's thought and of one's individuality and emotions with it altogether.

This is why, “speech”, according to Dr Peterson, “has to be as untrammelled as possible so that people can be wrong and they can be biased and still express their opinions, including their darker ones, and then allow themselves to be subject partly to improvement by the world” which, “if you say things that are too stupid and act them out, will smack you a good one,” and partly to other people. As without being “exposed to such corrective feedbacks” people tend “to drift and become subject to their own idiosyncratic insanities.” 

And we see glimpses of that already within the sphere of social media where people are always pretending to have the most perfect lives; but, as research shows, are more depressed. This is because although people may truly not recognise such lies for what they are, their subconscious can and does. And, its ultimate result is that the social media culture—or the practice of everyone lying to everyone else, as well as to themselves—is now “ripping apart the social fabric of how society works” by curating people's “lives around this perceived sense of perfection”—open acceptance of falsities over truths—according to one former executive of Facebook, Chamath Palihapitiya.

This is why freedom of speech is not just a right, but is also a tool that humans use to function in the world and a most important means through which they make sense of themselves, the world and their place in it. It is what people use to assign meaning to their lives—something that no individual or government should ever be granted the power to take away from them. And so, for all those who want restrictions on speech because they find certain types of speech offensive, here is a solution: “choose not to be offended.”

Eresh Omar Jamal is a member of the editorial team at The Daily Star.

• Courtesy: The Daily Star/Feb 1, 2018

Shahdeen Malik won’t practice law in SC unless CJ is appointed

Staff Correspondent 

Jurist Shahdeen Malik on Wednesday (Jan 310 announced that he would not practice law in the Supreme Court unless the president appoints the chief justice. He also said that lawyers now needed taking police permission for entering the court premises. 

‘Until the two issues are settled, I personally will not come to the court from tomorrow,’ Shahdeen told reporters at a briefing in the Supreme Court Bar Association building. Shahdeen said that the lawyers had never thought Bangladesh would remain without the chief justice for such a long period.

‘The post of the chief justice has remained vacant without any reasonable explanation,’ he said, adding, the lawyers had never expected a Supreme Court where they would require police permission to enter into their workplace. 

Replying to a question, Shahdeen said that the absence of the chief justice meant that the government was controlling the judiciary. ‘People are gradually losing their confidence in judiciary because of such government interference in the Supreme Court,’ he warned. 

The vacancy in the office of chief justice occurred on November 11 last after Chief Justice SK Sinha tendered his resignation. Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, the senior-most Appellate Division judge, has since been performing the duties of the chief justice. 

• Courtesy: New Age/Feb 1, 2018

ZIA CHARITABLE TRUST CASE - Defence complains harassment outside court

Staff Correspondent

A defence lawyer in the case of Shaheed Ziaur Rahman Charitable Trust case on Wednesday (Jen 31) informed a special court in Dhaka that the defence lawyers were subjected to harassment outside the court.

Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia, her former political secretary Harris Chowdhury, his former personal assistant Ziaul Islam Munna and former Dhaka mayor Sadeque Hossain Khoka’s assistant personal secretary Monirul Islam Khan are the accused in the case.

Anti-Corruption Commission lodged the case on August 8, 2011 with the Tejgaon police for raising funds for the trust abusing their power during Khaleda’s tenure as the prime minister between 2001 and 2006.

Advocate Md Aminul Islam, who represented Ziaul in the case before the Dhaka special judge’s court-5, while wrapping up his second day’s arguments defending his client, told the court that the lawyers defending the accused were being harassed now.

He informed judge Md Akhteruzzaman that senior jurist and former speaker Jamiruddin Sircar was scheduled to come to the court, but law enforcers raided his house twice after 2:00am on Wednesday. He said Sircar had informed him over telephone that the law enforcers ‘had directed him to stay at home at 8:00am.’

‘They (law enforcers) harass [us] on our way to the court,’ he said.

Khaleda, Ziaul and Monirul were present in the courtroom. Harris is still absconding.

At the outset of the day’s proceedings, Ziaul’s lawyer Aminul Islam Khan resumed his arguments and submitted that the ACC had alleged that there was no work in the name of the trust and there was no transaction after 2006. But, he submitted, 42 kathas of land was bought on January 19, 2005 in the name of the trust and there was structure there.

He submitted that after 2005, a violent movement led by Awami League against the BNP government began and the then caretaker government took over the power. ‘There was no chance of transaction after the movement,’ he added.

Referring to Tuesday’s submission by the prosecution in which the ACC public prosecutor claimed that Khaleda, while forming the trust, had concealed her post of prime minister, Aminul argued that every person had her official and personal designations and ranks, and that Khaleda would not write her prime minister’s post in opening bank account as it was her private work.

ACC public prosecutor Mosharraf Hossain Kajal, at this point, opposed the issue and argued that the defence had brought the PM’s issue irrelevantly. He asked the defence lawyer to keep his arguments within the facts and documents.

Meanwhile, lawyers from both the sides locked in a heated exchange of words. The judge at this point at around 11:55am asked the defence lawyer to continue his arguments with relevant facts. As both the sides continued exchange of heated words, the judge left the courtroom.

He returned to the courtroom within minutes and asked both the sides to uphold respect of all and reminded them that Khaleda, three times’ prime minister, was in the court and her respect should be ensured by all.

Advocate Aminul Islam then continued his arguments defending his client.

His arguments remained incomplete when the court adjourned the hearing until Thursday.

• Courtesy: New Age/Feb 1, 2018 

ইকোনমিস্টের গণতন্ত্র সূচকে ৮ ধাপ পিছিয়ে পড়েছে বাংলাদেশ

বিশ্বখ্যাত ইকোনমিস্ট ইন্টেলিজেন্স ইউনিটের (ইআইইউ) গণতন্ত্র সূচকে অনেক পিছিয়ে পড়েছে বাংলাদেশ। আগের বছর এ সূচকে বাংলাদেশের অবস্থান ছিল ৮৪তম। কিন্তু এবার বাংলাদেশের অবস্থান ৮ ধাপ নেমে দাঁড়িয়েছে ৯২তম তে। 

লন্ডন ভিত্তিক দ্য ইকোনমিস্ট ম্যাগাজিন তাদের ওয়েবসাইটে বুধবার, ৩১ জানুয়ারী ২০১৮ , এই সূচক প্রকাশ করেছে। এতে বলা হয়েছে, ‘হাইব্রিড শাসন’ ক্যাটেগরির দিকে ক্রমশঃ ধাবমান বাংলাদেশ। এই সূচকে আবারো শীর্ষে রয়েছে নরওয়ে।

অন্যদিকে উত্তর কোরিয়া রয়েছে সূচকের একেবারে শেষে। মোট ১০ পয়েন্টের ওপর ভিত্তি করে সূচক নির্ধারণ করা হয়। এই ১০ পয়েন্টের মধ্যে ২০১৬ সালে বাংলাদেশের অর্জন ছিল ৫.৭৩। এবার তা এসে দাঁড়িয়েছে ৫.৪৩। এবার ইকোনমিস্টের এই সূচকে সাতটি মহাদেশের মধ্যে এশিয়া সার্বিক সূচকে নিচের দিকে রয়েছে। ১০ পয়েন্টের মধ্যে এশিয়ার গড় অর্জন ৫.৬৩। রিপোর্টে বলা হয়েছে, ২০১৬ সালে ১০ পয়েন্টের মধ্যে সারাবিশ্বের গড় অর্জন ছিল ৫.৫২। কিন্তু এবার সার্বিক সূচকে এই গড়েও পতন এসেছে। এবার সার্বিক গড় নম্বর হলো ৫.৪৮। উল্লেখ্য, ইআইইউ হলো দ্য ইকোনমিস্ট গ্রুপের একটি গবেষণা ও বিশ্লেষণধর্মী বিভাগ। এটি দ্য ইকোনমিস্ট ম্যাগাজিনের একটি অংঙ্গ সংগঠন।

উল্লেখ্য, ২০০৬ সালে প্রথম ডেমোক্রেসি সূচক বা গণতন্ত্র সূচক প্রণয়ন শুরু করে দ্য ইকোনমিক্স। তার পর সারা বিশ্বে মিডিয়ার স্বাধীনতা সর্বনিন্ম পর্যায়ে এসেছে। উন্নয়নশীল গণতান্ত্রিক দেশগুলোতে একটি অভিন্ন জায়গা ছিল মত প্রকাশের স্বাধীনতা। কিন্তু তাতেও বিধিনিষেধ দেয়া হয়েছে। বিশ্বের মাত্র ৩০টি দেশ ২০১৭ সালে পূর্ণাঙ্গ মিডিয়ার স্বাধীনতা ভোগ করে। এমন সুবিধা পাওয়া মানুষের সংখ্যা বিশ্বে শতকরা মাত্র ১১ ভাগ। অন্যদিকে বিশ্বের ৪৭টি দেশে তা অবাধ নয়। 

• Courtesy: Daily Manabzamin/Jan 31, 2018

ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইনে বাকস্বাধীনতা রুদ্ধ হবে

বিশেষজ্ঞদের অভিমত

তথ্যপ্রযুক্তি আইনের বিতর্কিত ৫৭ ধারার বিলুপ্তি ঘটিয়ে নতুন করে ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইন প্রণয়নে ক্ষুব্ধ প্রতিক্রিয়া দেখিয়েছেন বিশেষজ্ঞরা। তারা বলছেন, এ আইন মানুষের বাকস্বাধীনতা হরণ করবে। মানুষ ভীত হয়ে পড়বে। তারা কথা বলতে ভয় পাবে। ৫৭ ধারার যে অপপ্রয়োগ হচ্ছিল নতুন আইন অন্যভাবে প্রকাশ পাবে। আইনের ৩২ ধারা সরকারি-আধাসরকারি স্বায়ত্তশাসিত প্রতিষ্ঠানে কেউ যদি বেআইনিভাবে প্রবেশ করেন এবং কোনো ধরনের তথ্যউপাত্ত যেকোনো ইলেকট্রনিক যন্ত্রপাতি দিয়ে গোপনে রেকর্ড করেন তা গুপ্তচরবৃত্তি হিসেবে গণ্য হবে। এ জন্য ১৪ বছরের জেল এবং ২০ লাখ টাকা জরিমানার বিধান রাখা হয়েছে। এ ধারার অপরাধকে জামিন অযোগ্য হিসেবে উল্লেখ করা হয়েছে। আইনের ২৯ ধারায় বলা হয়েছে, কেউ মানহানিকর তথ্য দিলে তার বিরুদ্ধে তিন বছরের জেল ও পাঁচ লাখ টাকা জরিমানার বিধান রাখা হয়েছে। ৩১ ধারায় ডিজিটাল মাধ্যম ব্যবহার করে অরাজকতা সৃষ্টির জন্য সাত বছরের জেল ও পাঁচ লাখ টাকা জরিমানার বিধান রাখা হয়েছে। 

বিশেষজ্ঞরা বলছেন, ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইনের এসব ধারা সমাজে আতঙ্ক তৈরি করবে। ভয়ে কেউ মুখ খুলতে সাহসী হবেন না। বিশেষ করে গণমাধ্যমের সাথে জড়িতরা হয়রানির শিকার হবেন। গতকাল নয়া দিগন্তকে সিনিয়র সাংবাদিক, বিশ্লেষক ও শিক্ষাবিদেরা এ কথা জানান।

এ প্রসঙ্গে প্রবীণ সাংবাদিক ও বিশ্লেষক মাহফুজ উল্লাহ নয়া দিগন্তকে বলেন, নতুন এ আইনের উদ্দেশ্য হচ্ছে স্বাধীন চিন্তা নিয়ন্ত্রণ করা। ক্ষমতাসীনদের অপরাধের ঢাকনা বন্ধ করা। এ আইন লঙ্ঘন করলে ১৪ বছরের কারাদণ্ড বা এক কোটি টাকা পর্যন্ত জরিমানার যে বিধান রাখা হয়েছে তা আমাদের এই দেশে অকল্পনীয়। তিনি বলেন, এ আইনে নতুন যে অপরাধের কথা বলা হয়েছে এটা ফৌজদারি অপরাধের ক্ষেত্রে প্রযোজ্য। কোনো আলোচনা করা যাবে না, মুক্তভাবে কোনো কথা বলা যাবে না, এর ফলে হয়তো মানুষ সতর্ক হবে। তবে দেশে যে মুক্তবুদ্ধি চর্চা হতো তার পথ রুদ্ধ হবে। মুক্ত চিন্তার জগতটা একটি বদ্ধ জলাশয়ে পরিণত হবে। মাহফুজ উল্লাহ বলেন, এই আইনের মাধ্যমে সরকার প্রতিপক্ষকে আঘাত করবে। তবে বিরোধী দল দমন হবে এটা মনে করার কোনো কারণ নেই। এ আইন পাস হলে আওয়ামী লীগই প্রথম এর শিকার হবে, এটা বলার অপেক্ষা রাখে না।

বিশিষ্ট রাজনীতি বিশ্লেষক ও সুশাসনের জন্য নাগরিক-সুজন সম্পাদক ড. বদিউল আলম মজুমদার নয়া দিগন্তকে বলেন, এমনিতেই নাগরিকদের অধিকার ক্ষুণœ হচ্ছে। নতুন এ আইন পাস হলে নাগরিকদের অধিকার সঙ্কুচিত হবে। বাকস্বাধীনতা রুদ্ধ হবে। তিনি বলেন, বাংলাদেশ স্বাধীন হয়েছিল একটি গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র প্রতিষ্ঠা করার জন্য। কিন্তু মুক্তিযুদ্ধের সেই চেতনার ওপর ভিত্তি করে গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্র আজও প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয়নি। নাগরিকদের অধিকার নিশ্চিত হয়নি। নাগরিক অধিকার হরণ করা হচ্ছে। রাষ্ট্রের একজন নাগিরক হিসেবে আমি শঙ্কিত না হয়ে পারি না।

ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় আইন বিভাগের অধ্যাপক ড. আসিফ নজরুল নয়া দিগন্তকে বলেন, নতুন যে আইনটি করা হয়েছে তা আইসিটি অ্যাক্টের ৫৭ ধারার চেয়েও খারাপ একটা আইন। কারণ এখানে আরো নতুন ধরনের অপরাধ অন্তর্ভুক্ত করা হয়েছে। এখন ৫৭ ধারার অপরাধগুলোর সংজ্ঞায় যে অস্পষ্টতা ছিল সেটাও অব্যাহত রাখা হয়েছে এবং এ আইনের বিষয়ে বিশদ যে অপরাধের বর্ণনা দেয়া হয়েছে তাতে এ আইনের দ্বারা বাংলাদেশে ভিন্নমত চর্চা করা, বিরোধী রাজনীতি করা, সরকারের কোনো এমপি-মন্ত্রী বা সমাজের যেকোনো পাওয়ারফুল লোকের বিরুদ্ধে সৎ সাংবাদিকতা করা, তার বিরুদ্ধে কোনো শব্দ উচ্চারণ করা, তার বিরুদ্ধে প্রতিবাদ করা দুঃসাধ্য হয়ে পড়বে। এ আইন করার মধ্য দিয়ে সরকারের পাওয়ারফুল সেকশন তাদের অন্যায় অবিচার, জুলুম যেটার বিরুদ্ধে সৎ সাংবাদিকতা করা, এটার বিরুদ্ধে কথা বলার সুযোগ বন্ধ করতে চাচ্ছে। তিনি বলেন, আমি মনে করি বিরোধী রাজনীতিক নয়, সমাজের যেকোনো শুভবুদ্ধিসম্পন্ন মানুষ, বিশেষ করে দেশের নাগরিক সমাজ ও সাংবাদিক সমাজের অবশ্যই এ আইনের বিরুদ্ধে রুখে দাঁড়ানো উচিত। এ আইন যদি বাস্তবায়ন হয় তাহলে বাংলাদেশে সৎ সাংবাদিকতা করা, স্বাধীন কণ্ঠে কোনো বিষয়ে সমালোচনা করা, বিরোধী রাজনীতি করা দুঃসাধ্য হয়ে পড়বে। আগামী জাতীয় সংসদ নির্বাচনের আগে আগে এ ধরনের আইন করার বিশেষ উদ্দেশ্য আছে বলে আমি মনে করি। 

এ প্রসঙ্গে সিনিয়র সাংবাদিক ও বাংলাদেশ ফেডারেল সাংবাদিক ইউনিয়ন-বিএফইউজের সভাপতি শওকত মাহমুদ বলেন, নতুন যে ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইন হচ্ছে এ আইনে সম্পূর্ণভাবে মুক্তমত প্রকাশের স্বাধীনতা খর্ব করা হয়েছে। বাকস্বাধীনতা রুদ্ধ ও মানুষের মৌলিক অধিকার ক্ষুন্ন করা হয়েছে। সামগ্রিকভাবে বলা যায়, এ আইন বাস্তবায়ন হলে মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘন হবে। এক প্রশ্নের জবাবে তিনি বলেন, শুধু বস্তুনিষ্ঠ সাংবাদিকতা নয়, কোনো সাংবাদিকতাই করা যাবে না। সরকারের কোনো অফিসের বিরুদ্ধে দুর্নীতির সংবাদ প্রকাশ করলে তারা বলবে আমাদের অনুমতি নেয়া হয়নি। এটাতো হতে পারে না। এ আইনের ফলে গণতন্ত্রের কফিনে শেষ পেরেক ঠোকা হলো।

ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিং অ্যান্ড টেকনোলজি অনুষদের ডিন অধ্যাপক ড. মো: হাসানুজ্জামান এ প্রসঙ্গে বলেন, আমাদের তো বাকস্বাধীনতা আছে। আমি যা ইচ্ছা তাই বললাম এতে অন্যকে হার্ট করে না, মানহানি করে না। সত্য কথা বললে বা প্রকাশ করলে মানহানি করে না। মিথ্যা কথা বললে বা প্রকাশ করে মানহানি করে তাহলে মামলা হওয়া উচিত। সত্য প্রকাশ করলে তাতে মানহানি হলো বা না হলো এতে মামলা হওয়া উচিত নয়। সত্য প্রকাশ করলে কেউ যদি বলে তার মানহানি হয়েছে, আর মামলা করতে যায় তাহলে ওই মামলা নেয়া ঠিক হবে না। তিনি বলেন, এটা সরকারের জন্য একটা হাতিয়ার। সরকারের বিরুদ্ধে কেউ যেন কোনো কথা বলতে না পারে, লেখালেখি করতে না পারে সে জন্য এ ধরনের আইন তৈরি করা হয়েছে।

এ প্রসঙ্গে সিনিয়র সাংবাদিক ও বিএফইউজের (একাংশ) সভাপতি মঞ্জুরুল আহসান বুলবুল নয়া দিগন্তকে বলেন, দেখেন, বাংলাদেশে অপরাধের ধরন পরিবর্তন হচ্ছে। অপরাধী, জঙ্গি-সন্ত্রাসীরা এখন আধুনিক প্রযুক্তি ব্যবহার করে অপরাধ করছে। কাজেই সেই অপরাধ দমনের জন্য আধুনিক আইনের প্রয়োজন আছে। এ ধরনের কোনো আইন হলে আমরা সাধুবাদ জানাই। তবে আমাদের উদ্বেগ হচ্ছে, সেই অপরাধী বা জঙ্গি-সন্ত্রাসী ধরার জন্য যে আইন হচ্ছে সেই আইন সাংবাদিকতার ক্ষেত্রে অপপ্রয়োগ হয় কি না। ৫৭ ধারা যখন হয়েছিল তখন বলা হয়েছিল এটা সাংবাদিকদের ক্ষেত্রে অপপ্রয়োগ করা হবে না। কিন্তু দুঃজনক হচ্ছে পরে সাংবাদিকদের বিরুদ্ধে এটার অপপ্রয়োগ হয়েছিল। তিনি বলেন, ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইনে যে ধারাগুলো আছে তার মধ্যে কিছু আছে যার অপপ্রয়োগ হবে, এ রকম আশঙ্কা করছি। সেই আশঙ্কা থেকেই বলছি, এটা এখনো চূড়ান্ত হয়নি। খসড়া হয়েছে। এটা চূড়ান্তভাবে অনুমোদন নিতে হলে অনেক ধাপ অতিক্রম করতে হবে। এ আইন সাংবাদিকদের বিরুদ্ধে যাতে অপপ্রয়োগ না হয় সে জন্য গণমাধ্যমের সম্পাদক, সিনিয়র সাংবাদিক, সাংবাদিকতার শিক্ষক, মতপ্রকাশের স্বাধীনতা নিয়ে যারা কাজ করেন তাদের সাথে আলোচনা করে এ উৎকণ্ঠা দূর করা উচিত।

• Courtesy:Daily Naya Diganta/Jan 31, 2018

ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইন - নাকের বদলে নরুন?

সম্পাদকীয়

তথ্যপ্রযুক্তি আইনের বহুল সমালোচিত ৫৭ ধারাসহ কয়েকটি ধারা বিলুপ্ত করে একই ধরনের 'অপরাধ' ও শাস্তি পুনর্বিন্যস্ত করে মন্ত্রিসভায় সোমবার অনুমোদিত 'ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা আইন ২০১৮'র খসড়া নতুন করে পুরনো প্রশ্নগুলো সামনে এনেছে। নতুন আইনে যদিও সর্বনিম্ন ৭ বছরের শাস্তির বিধান তুলে দেওয়া হয়েছে, এর ৩২ নম্বর ধারাটি আমাদের উদ্বিগ্ন না করে পারে না। এতে বলা হয়েছে, কোনো সরকারি, আধা সরকারি বা স্বায়ত্তশাসিত প্রতিষ্ঠানে 'বেআইনিভাবে' প্রবেশ করে তথ্য-উপাত্ত ধারণ, সংরক্ষণ ও প্রেরণ করেন, তাহলে তা 'গুপ্তচরবৃত্তির অপরাধ' হিসেবে গণ্য হবে। এর শাস্তি হিসেবে ১৪ বছর জেল ও ২০ লাখ টাকা পর্যন্ত জরিমানা হতে পারে। আমরা মনে করি, এই বিধানটি কেবল বিভ্রান্তিকর নয়, বিপজ্জনকও। মঙ্গলবার সমকালে প্রকাশিত এ সংক্রান্ত শীর্ষ প্রতিবেদনে ৩২ নম্বর ধারাটিকে যথার্থই 'ভয়ঙ্কর' আখ্যা দেওয়া হয়েছে। কারণ আমাদের আশঙ্কা, এই ধারা সবচেয়ে বেশি বাধাগ্রস্ত, এমনকি বিপন্ন করবে সাংবাদিকদের। বিভিন্ন সরকারি-আধা সরকারি বা স্বায়ত্তশাসিত প্রতিষ্ঠানের সংঘটিত দুর্নীতি ও অনিয়ম উন্মোচন করতে হলে সেখানে উপস্থিত হয়ে তথ্য-উপাত্ত সংগ্রহ জরুরি। ক্ষেত্রবিশেষে গোপনীয়তাও জরুরি। বস্তুত বাংলাদেশ শুধু নয়, গোটা বিশ্বেই সাংবাদিকতার এ এক বহুল চর্চিত নিয়ম। নতুন আইনের ৩২ ধারা অনুসরণ করতে গেলে আর যাই হোক, সাংবাদিকতা চলবে না। আর সাংবাদিকদের এই তৎপরতা যে পরোক্ষভাবে প্রশাসন, সরকার তথা জাতির জন্যই কল্যাণকর, বিভিন্ন চাঞ্চল্যকর দুর্নীতির তথ্য-উপাত্ত গোপনে ধারণ ও প্রচারের মধ্য দিয়েই তা নানা সময়ে প্রমাণিত হয়েছে। একই সঙ্গে 'বেআইনি প্রবেশ' বিধানটি হাস্যকর ছাড়া কিছু নয়। প্রবেশের অনুমতি নিতে যাওয়ার অর্থই তো প্রথমে বিনা অনুমতিতে প্রবেশ করা! আমরা জানি, রাষ্ট্রীয় গোপনীয়তা বিষয়ক আলাদা আইন রয়েছে; রয়েছে গুপ্তচরবৃত্তি সংক্রান্ত আলাদা আইনও। তারপরও ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তা সংক্রান্ত আইনে এই ধারার সংযোজন অর্থহীন ছাড়া কী? আইনমন্ত্রী যদিও বলেছেন যে, সাংবাদিকরা সত্য প্রকাশ করলে তা গুপ্তচরবৃত্তির অপরাধ হবে না এবং আইনে অযথা হয়রানি বন্ধের ব্যবস্থা রয়েছে, আমরা ভরসা করতে পারছি না। আমাদের মনে আছে, ৫৭ ধারার অপপ্রয়োগের আশঙ্কা নিয়ে তখনও বলা হয়েছিল যে, সাংবাদিকদের হয়রানি করা হবে না। বাস্তবে ওই ধারার এতটা অপপ্রয়োগ দেখা গিয়েছিল যে, শেষ পর্যন্ত পুলিশ সদর দপ্তরের নির্দেশ ছাড়া মামলা নেওয়ায় নিষেধাজ্ঞা জারি করতে হয়েছিল। সংবিধান বিশেষজ্ঞ ড. শাহদীন মালিকের সঙ্গে আমরা একমত যে, নতুন আইনের ৩২ ধারার সংযোজন অনুসন্ধানী ও বস্তুনিষ্ঠ সাংবাদিকতাও গুরুতর অপরাধ হিসেবে চিহ্নিত হবে। আমরা চাই, অবিলম্বে ধারাটি বাতিল করা হোক। ডিজিটাল নিরাপত্তার প্রয়োজনীয়তা নিয়ে আমাদের কোনো দ্বিমত নেই। ডিজিটাল ডিভাইসের অপব্যবহারও আমরা প্রায়শই দেখছি। কিন্তু তার নামে স্বাধীন সাংবাদিকতা ও মতপ্রকাশের স্বাধীনতা খর্ব করার অপপ্রয়াস কোনোভাবেই মেনে নেওয়া যায় না। ৫৭ ধারার বদলে ৩২ ধারা বাংলা প্রবাদের নাকের বদলে নরুন প্রাপ্তিকেই রূপায়িত করবে।

• Courtesy: The Daily Samakal Jan 31, 2018