[🇧🇩] Everything about our constitution

[Saif]

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Political, civic groups least concerned about language

Among the 28 political parties and alliances that submitted their respective proposals to the constitution reform commission, only two proposed that Bangla should remain as the state language and other mother tongues should be given constitutional recognition...

www.newagebd.net

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: Political, civic groups least concerned about language
Sadiqur Rahman 19 February, 2025, 23:48

Among the 28 political parties and alliances that submitted their respective proposals to the constitution reform commission, only two proposed that Bangla should remain as the state language and other mother tongues should be given constitutional recognition.

Civic and professional groups also showed minimal concern over language, as only eight out of 55 recommended that the mother tongues of all ethnic communities be recognised alongside Bangla as the state language.

However, most of the responding parties and groups recommended to the constitution reform commission that ‘Bangalee and ‘Bangalee nationalism’ should be replaced with ‘Bangladeshi’ and “Bangladeshi nationalism” in Articles 6 and 9 of the existing constitution respectively.

The constitution reform commission, along with three other reform commissions on police, electoral matters and the Anti-Corruption Commission, submitted their reports to interim government chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on 15 January.

The full reports of the commissions were made public on February 8.

The constitution reform commission recommends that the state language be Bangla and that the constitution recognises as mother tongues all the native languages spoken by its citizens as mother tongues.

‘There is a bad sore in the constitution regarding the recognition of mother tongues and national identity. We have considered this matter with great importance,’ said Firoz Ahmed, a member of the constitution reform commission.

The Article 3 of the existing constitution states that Bangla is the state language and the Article 23 states that the state shall adopt measures to conserve the cultural traditions and heritage of the people and foster and improve the national language, literature and arts.

According to the third part of the constitution reform commission’s full report, at least 28 political parties and alliances submitted their respective suggestions with only Jamaat-e-Islami and the United Peoples Democratic Front providing specific suggestions on language.

Jamaat-e-Islami recommended Bangla as the state language and advocated for the protection of other languages within the state’s boundaries.

Meanwhile, the UPDF recommended that Bangla be the language of the republic. It also proposed that the state, alongside Bangla, equally supports the preservation and development of the languages of the ethnic communities.

Among the 55 civic and professional groups providing suggestions on constitutional reforms, only eight organisations, including the Bangladesh Adivasi Forum, the CHT Working Group for National Reform, the Uttarbanga Adivasi Forum, the Bangladesh Indigenous Peoples’ Network, Naripokkho, and the Bangladesh Law Alliance, submitted suggestions on language issues.

These organisations advocated for the recognition of the mother tongues of all ethnic communities.

Most political parties and civil society organisations, however, recommended abolishing Articles 6 and 9 of the existing constitution which broadly recognise the Bangla language as a key factor in determining the national identity.

Article 6(2) of the existing constitution states that the people of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangalees as a nation and that the citizens of Bangladesh shall be known as Bangladeshis.

Moreover, the Article 9 states that Bangalee nationalism shall be based on the unity and solidarity of the Bangalee nation which, deriving its identity from its language and culture, attained sovereign and independent Bangladesh through a united and determined struggle in the War of Independence.​

 

[Saif]

Amendments must not serve any group

Eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain yesterday said that steps must be taken to ensure that the constitution cannot be manipulated to benefit any particular person or group.

www.thedailystar.net

Amendments must not serve any group
Says Dr Kamal about constitution

Eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain yesterday said that steps must be taken to ensure that the constitution cannot be manipulated to benefit any particular person or group.

"We must ensure that any change or amendment to the constitution properly reflects the aspirations of the people of the country. It must also be ensured that the constitution is not manipulated for the benefit of any individual or group."

"No initiative to amend the constitution should be driven by narrow interests. Any amendment should be pursued through extensive consultation and national consensus. Otherwise, these changes will fail to bring about national welfare," he said.

Kamal Hossain, one of the framers of Bangladesh's constitution, was speaking as the chief guest at a discussion titled The 1972 Constitution and Proposed Reforms, organised by the Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) auditorium yesterday afternoon.

Bangladesh's constitution reflects the nation's struggle, he said.

"It is not merely a legal document but a reflection of our dreams, aspirations, and struggles. Discussions on reviewing and reforming the constitution as per the needs of the time are not new, but the question remains -- how much these changes will reflect the will of the people?"

He said if the amendments truly reflect the people's aspirations, this would be the appropriate way to move forward.

"We have witnessed the events of 2024. In particular, the experience of August 5 reminded us that people's aspirations can never be ignored. The student movement is part of our historical continuity, where a generation has taken to the streets for its just demands -- just as we saw in 1952, 1969, and 1971. This movement is not limited to a specific time frame; it is an integral part of our national consciousness."

He added, "The Liberation War of 1971 gave us the dream of an exploitation-free, just, and democratic state. The 1972 constitution was promulgated to realise that dream."

The event, presided over by Senior Advocate Subrata Chowdhury, president of Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity, was also addressed by former state minister for Information Prof Abu Sayeed, Bangla Academy President Prof Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque, Bangladesh Mahila Parishad President Fouzia Moslem, senior journalist Sohrab Hasan, and Bangladesh Gonotantrik Ainjibi Samity General Secretary Senior Advocate Zahidul Bari, among others.​

 

[Saif]

Major parties oppose MPs’ freedom to vote against their own party in parliament

All three parties insist that MPs should not have freedom in confidence votes, just as with the finance bill. In such cases, MPs must strictly follow their party’s position. According to Article 70 of the existing constitution, MPs cannot vote against their own party. The article states that if...

en.prothomalo.com

Major parties oppose MPs’ freedom to vote against their own party in parliament

BNP has proposed this position after carefully reviewing the region’s long-standing political culture and history. The party believes that ensuring the government’s stability is crucial.

Riadul Karim
Dhaka
Updated: 02 Apr 2025, 15: 20

The major political parties do not want to give members of parliament (MPs) the freedom to vote against their own party in a no-confidence motion.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and the National Citizen Party (NCP) do not fully agree with the recommendation of the Constitutional Reform Commission, which proposes that members of the lower house of parliament should have full authority to vote against their party on any issue except the finance bill.

All three parties insist that MPs should not have freedom in confidence votes, just as with the finance bill. In such cases, MPs must strictly follow their party’s position.

According to Article 70 of the existing constitution, MPs cannot vote against their own party. The article states that if an MP elected as a party candidate resigns from that party or votes against it in parliament, their seat will be vacated.

Due to this provision, no law or proposal can pass in parliament without the government’s approval. It also prevents the possibility of a no-confidence motion being brought against the Prime Minister or any other official.

The debate over Article 70 has been ongoing for decades. It began when the constitution was first drafted in 1972. Opponents of the article argue that it limits the freedom of MPs and concentrates excessive power in the hands of the Prime Minister.

On the other hand, those in favour of keeping it claim that removing this provision would destabilise the government, potentially causing parliament to collapse within days.

They also argue that its removal could lead to illegal financial transactions aimed at buying votes and influencing MPs to overthrow governments.

The Constitutional Reform Commission, led by Professor Ali Riaz, has proposed changes to this article. It has recommended introducing a bicameral legislature and allowing MPs in the lower house to vote against their party’s stance on any issue except finance bills.

The country’s political culture has not yet matured to a level where MPs can be granted full freedom in confidence votes. If such freedom is allowed, no government will last more than one or two months, leading to instability.

The National Consensus Commission has sought the views of political parties on 166 key recommendations made by five reform commissions, including this one. Several parties, including BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, and NCP, have already expressed their opinions.

The National Consensus Commission is set to hold separate discussions with the three parties soon.

Validity of the commission’s recommendations

In its report, the Constitutional Reform Commission explained the rationale behind expanding MPs’ voting rights. It stated that Article 70 compels MPs to accept party decisions without asking any question. Although they are allowed to express their opinions within party meetings, they lack the freedom to vote against their party’s proposals. As a result, the Constitution enforces strict party loyalty at the cost of MPs’ ability to represent their constituencies effectively.

The Commission further argued that while Article 70 was originally intended to prevent floor-crossing, its impact has gone far beyond that purpose.

The provision, it noted, contradicts democratic principles. While designed to ensure stability, it has instead weakened political deliberation and party accountability. The restriction limits MPs’ ability to advocate for their constituencies and exercise their independent judgment.

Different Positions of Parties

According to relevant sources, in its written opinion submitted to the National Consensus Commission regarding the power of MPs to vote against their party, BNP stated that voting against the party should not be allowed in matters involving confidence votes, finance bills, constitutional amendment bills, and national security issues. However, on other issues, MPs should be free to express their opinions.

Explaining the reasoning behind restricting freedom in confidence votes, BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed told Prothom Alo that before the creation of Bangladesh, governments in the subcontinent changed almost daily after 1954.

BNP has proposed this position after carefully reviewing the region’s long-standing political culture and history. The party believes that ensuring the government’s stability is crucial.

According to them, the country’s political culture has not yet matured to a level where MPs can be granted full freedom in confidence votes. If such freedom is allowed, no government will last more than one or two months, leading to instability.

When the Constitutional Reform Commission sought opinions from political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami stated in its proposal that the restriction on floor crossing should not be lifted as yet.

They argued that Article 70 was originally introduced to stabilise the parliamentary system and should remain in place for at least two more terms.

Jamaat-e-Islami reiterated this stance in its opinion submitted to the National Consensus Commission. The party’s Secretary General, Mia Golam Parwar, told Prothom Alo that their submission explained the importance of maintaining restrictions in certain cases, including finance bills and confidence votes.

He stated that a vote of confidence is a matter of party policy, and an MP represents their party in parliament. Therefore, MPs must align with their party’s policy. If MPs do not follow the party’s stance in a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister or the President, it could lead to a breakdown in party discipline.

When the Constitutional Reform Commission sought opinions from political parties, Jamaat-e-Islami stated in its proposal that the restriction on floor crossing should not be lifted as yet.
The NCP, which led the July uprising, has also expressed the opinion that restrictions should remain on no-confidence votes, similar to finance bills.

NCP Joint Convener and Reform Coordination Committee Coordinator Sarwar Tusher told Prothom Alo that without such provisions, there is a risk of MPs being bought and sold. For the stability of parliament and the government, the party advocates for allowing MPs to freely express their opinions on all issues except money bills and confidence votes.

How Article 70 was added

The origins of Article 70 of the Constitution, added in 1972, are described in the book Bipula Prithibi by the late Professor Anisuzzaman. Professor Anisuzzaman, who was responsible for translating the 1972 Constitution into Bengali, wrote:

“Bangabandhu summoned Kamal twice to advise him on the constitution - I was also with him.… He said that during the Pakistan period, governments became unstable mainly because members of the council frequently changed parties or voted against their own party, violating party discipline. This needed to be stopped. A rule should be established stating that if an elected member disagrees with a party decision or votes against the party, they must resign, or their parliamentary membership should be forfeited. However, there should also be a provision ensuring that in such cases, they are not disqualified from contesting by-elections or future elections. This intention was reflected in Article 70 of the Constitution.”

Despite this, Article 70 was debated within the Constituent Assembly itself. Anisuzzaman noted in his book that National Assembly members AKM Mosharraf Hossain Akand, Asaduzzaman Khan, Abdul Muntakim Chowdhury, and Hafez Habibur Rahman opposed the article.

He wrote, “Hafez Habibur Rahman objected to Article 70 in the strongest terms. In his view, it would lead to party dictatorship and excessive control by party leaders.”

* The report, originally published in the Bangla edition of Prothom Alo, has been rewritten in English by Farjana Liakat​