Democracy for the dead?

At least 71 people have been killed so far with many of them burnt alive in arson attacks. The economy continues to bleed and academic life of students is in peril.

All this is happening in the name of agitation that the BNP termed a movement for "restoring people's democratic and voting rights." 

The crucial question is: can the right to personal life and liberty be sacrificed for the sake of any other democratic or voting rights?

Analysing fundamental rights in his book Constitutional Law of Bangladesh, eminent jurist Mahmudul Islam writes, "No right is so basic and fundamental as the right to personal life and liberty, and exercise of all other rights is dependent on the right to personal life and liberty."

Those killed in violence during the ongoing blockade have been denied their most fundamental constitutional right -- the right to life. For them, democratic or voting right turned out to be meaningless.

It is obvious that if there is no right to life and liberty, other democratic rights like freedom of association and assembly, and freedom of speech bear no meaning.

So, how can the ongoing movement that is causing deaths be an agitation for democratic rights?

This question must be thought over by the BNP that assumed powers thrice since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1991.   

Amid such a situation, the High Court, which has the constitutional jurisdiction to protect people's fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, on Sunday questioned the legality of the ongoing deadly blockade and hartal.

In the past, the same issue had been raised before the apex court.

In 1999, the HC declared hartal as a political and constitutional right. It, however, held that committing acts of violence and coercion for or against hartal is a criminal offence.  

The judgement was challenged before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

The Appellate Division agreed partially with the HC's decision that declared hartal as a political and constitutional right. It, however, overturned the other part of the HC verdict that declared violence and coercion for or against hartal a criminal offence.

In neighbouring India, the judiciary has already set some examples in efforts to protect people's fundamental rights from destructive political agitation.

It was the Kerala High Court that first rang the bell in a landmark verdict in 1997 by declaring forced bandhs (similar to hartals in Bangladesh) illegal. The Indian Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1998.

The Indian SC in 2002 declared illegal all forms of forced stoppage of public activities.

The Bombay High Court in 2004 imposed on Shiv Sena and the BJP a fine of Rupees 20 lakh each for organising the Bombay Bandh in 2003.

In 2004, the Kolkata High Court declared illegal and unconstitutional the Bangla Bandh called by the Trinamool Congress, and directed the party to withdraw it and publish a withdrawal call in the media.

In January 2010, the Gauhati High Court also declared that bandh is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates citizen's fundamental rights.

In February 2013, the Kolkata HC took strong stance against forcible shutdown when 12 trade unions called a two-day strike.

 An HC division bench led by then Chief Justice Arun Mishra directed the director general of police to deploy adequate force at all points in the state -- roads, railway tracks, railway stations, schools, colleges and market places -- to remove blockades.

The Kolkata HC also wanted the administration to make sure that no one, willing to work on these two days, was prevented from joining work.

It also held the strikers liable for disruption or damage, and observed that organisations calling the strike would have to compensate for the loss.

In Bangladesh, indiscriminate street agitation by political parties continues to cause huge losses to the economy and people. But who is to compensate for that?