Chandelier and the truth

How felicitous, indeed, are the words against the backdrop of your front-paged commentary titled, "Hon Speaker, you could have taken the JS to a greater height"!

You've seen it from your own angle of the chandelier. I do respect your right to do so. But there are other angles too that call for your appreciation and respect. Therefore, please forgive me if I do not accept your views as the alpha and omega because they represent only one angle of the light fixture.

You've upbraided the JS Speaker, Jamiruddin Sircar, for his so-called callow, and to some extent unseemly, handling of the proceedings and suggested how a good parliament should be run. Perhaps you are right, but surely only up to a point.

I have no reasons to defend Sircar because, like you, I also think that he is an ordinary political species who lacks splendour, skill and wisdom that are expected of a man holding such a high office. But which Speaker, tell me, had been able to stand up to these qualities in the 33 years of our so-called democracy? What about Mohammadullah, Abdul Malek Ukil, Mirza Golam Hafiz, Abdur Rahman Biswas and Humayun Rashid Chowdhury? Were they any different? Could they take the JS to a greater height? I believe not. Then why single out Sircar for it? What was the special in him to be able to be out of the ordinary?

The fault lies in the system, in our milieu; not in an individual. A nation, as the saying goes, gets a leader it deserves. By the same token, a parliament gets a speaker it deserves. So why put all the blame on Sircar?

"A speaker is basically the product of his environment. He represents the quality of the House". This is what Selwyn Lloyd, a former Speaker of the British parliament, had once said. He couldn't be more right. Let's only hope that that kind of quality returns to our parliament one day.

There are a couple of points, Mr Editor, I would like to make before I wrap up. You have criticised the Speaker for not letting the opposition take part in a debate on 21 August incident under rule 62 of the JS's rules of procedures and have questioned Sircar's rationale of allowing a general discussion on the subject. Your logic is quite profound. But can you tell me why the rule is more important to the opposition than the debate itself? The idea should be to speak out loud and clear in parliament, in debate under 62 or otherwise, isn't it? Why didn't the opposition grab the opportunity and say the same thing as they would have said were it under rules 62? Is there any parliamentary precedence in the world where a 58-strong opposition files as many as 150 adjournment notices on the identical subject? I bet you will find none. The two parties have obviously two separate angles of the chandelier.