Editorial
Corruption and the Jamaat
The adviser's comments are surprising
Communications Adviser M.A. Matin's observations on the involvement or otherwise of the leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami in corruption have surprised us. His comment that the law has not been applied in the case of the Jamaat because the party's leaders have perhaps not indulged in corruption flies in the face of reality. As matters stand, there are cases against as many as thirteen figures of the party, including some leading ones. Among such cases is one relating to extortion against the secretary general of the organisation. Besides, quite a few former Jamaat lawmakers are already in jail on various charges ranging from extortion to pilferage of relief goods. Against such a background, it is quite inconceivable as to how the adviser could make a sweeping statement. Of course, anyone can speak on charges or otherwise against individuals belonging to a party, but defending a party is a different proposition altogether.There are risks involved in the kind of observations the adviser has made about the Jamaat. The risks are of two sorts. In the first place, such comments are quite likely to raise suspicions in the public mind about the government's attitude toward the Jamaat. In the second, when the adviser suggests that the Jamaat may not have any charge of corruption pending against it, his remarks may lead to a situation where any possibility of investigating the party and its leaders for corruption might be pushed under the rug. In effect, General Matin's comments will likely be construed as exonerating the Jamaat of the allegations against it. One cannot quite easily dispel the fact that the Jamaat happened to be part of a government whose record of corruption clearly surpassed the performance of all previous governments. The adviser has asked the media to provide the government with evidence of the Jamaat's involvement, assuming they have any, to the government. The request is misplaced, for the responsibility of tracking down corrupt individuals is fundamentally that of the government. It will perhaps not be unwise to suggest that the comments of some of the caretaker government advisers on various issues confronting the country are confusing, off the cuff and uncalled for. Obviously, the implications of such comments are not always understood. We will hope that in future circumspection will be exercised where government functionaries are expected to give their responses to national issues as they develop. May we suggest that sometimes it would be nice to hear our advisers say 'no comment' to some of the sensitive questions put to them?
|
|
