The Fourth Amendment to Bangladesh constitution was an insult and betrayal to the independent war.

In Bangladesh, the great struggles of freedom in which go to the heart of post mother language battle of February 21, 1952. As the aggression and tyranny continued, once again in 1971, a nation stood up strong and passionately with fiery hands against the belligerence and unjust in hoping to provide equal justice, individual freedom, collective rights, freedom of religion, freedom of press, democracy, equal economic opportunity, and most importantly peace and security for all. The world was shocked and as well in high spirited to witness how a brave nation fought so fearlessly, sacrificed millions of lives, and in nine months in December 16, 1971 secured an own place in world map.


A moment of freedom, Bangladesh institutes self-governance and finds her in a time of extraordinary change. The population of the country, the size of the domestic economy, the size of the world market, the borderless economy, attractive changes in mobility and communication, the on going demands and improvements of technology, they are started in growing to be all larger, more alarming, more complicated, and certainly more difficult not only to achieve as well to manage. In many ways, to meet up these extraordinary challenges, a war torn country have need of an unselfish leadership with an unwavering mission with a clear vision to leaded the country.


The liberation war and a government, the strong endeavor of individual wisdom and responsibility unquestionably survived Bangladeshis coming together as one nation in 1971. All together, at nation’s best, a time to make real the promises of freedom to lift this nation from an unjust to a just society rested upon with post war government. Therefore, as country’s first elected government, Sheikh Mujib’s administration (1972-1975) was the defining period for the future of Bangladesh.


There is no higher calling than the sacrificing life for the country. Yet, the moment of glory stayed for a short period of time. Given the political attitude of the country, the sacrificed of three millions lives have on no account been treasured and realized. In addition, the war torn country took a demoralizing turn, the Fourth Amendment to the constitution was passed on January 25, 1975 abolishing parliamentary democracy, banning all political parties and introducing one-party presidential rule with a creation of one party system- “Bakshal.”

Not long ago, a nation stands at once as the wonder and admiration of the whole world. When more than ever the nation is in urgent need of moral courage from its public officials, the fourth amendment to the constitution demonstrated a more serious line of attack not only to the peace and security of the country as well it was a direct confrontation with the principle of the independence war. The courage, nation’s pride and honor, individual and collective freedom and rights, democratic process, and equal justice these all have been replaced by political uncertainty and with a vicious future.


Drawing on a wide range of arguments, one can suggests if nation’s aspiration was only to become free from then West Pakistan (now Pakistan), the implementation of fourth amendment could have been studied differently. But, given the objectives of the independence war, a close study suggests that because of the fourth amendment not only moral strength of a nation state purely collapsed as well social system as a whole. In reality, still today Bangladesh is striving to recover from.
The revolutionary nature of Bangladeshis, the evidence suggests nothing is clearer than their resolute belief in equal justice, and equal opportunity which are the social and moral fiber for a nation. As nation’s honor and social system collapsed, it was clear to envision that Bangladeshis will have a very long journey not only to have political stability as well to make social peace. Let us remember, it is always easy to have a handle on when a corporation or a group of people failed. But if history is any guide, at any time a government should failed a country generations bound to suffer from it.


The impacts of Sheikh Mujib’s era (1972-1975), one approach is to observe, the truth always will remain the truth, falsehood always will remain falsehood regardless of what people have to say. In truth, the policies his administration embraced and actions he pushed forward represented a great threat to Bangladesh’s future from all aspects: the military, equal justice, education, trade and industry, technology, civic leadership, and most of all the freedom. Thus, it was a departure from peace and security for the country. On the other hand, peoples of Bangladesh have failed to make the Fourth Amendment to take lesson from.


Given the fact, it is never easy to hold powerful officials accountable for their misdeeds, but it is still important to try to do so. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment raises complex issues about the future of the country. The government owes to the people of Bangladesh an open public hearing and thorough investigation about Sheik Mujib’s decision on Fourth Amendment. And as a responsible person, one shall have moral duty to ask why did an unchallenged leader such as Sheikh Mujib desire to do so? And did he act alone or was he advice to do so?


For the most part of Bangladesh’s history, the government and the opposition party in the parliament have not been able to advance their own agenda beyond the rhetorical stage, and in every day nation’s future grew uncertain. Thus, it will be right to say that there should be a strong agreement, the peoples of Bangladesh may have earned freedom, but they are not free, not yet.


Now it addresses the question we all are left with, how did a country like Bangladesh ever end up here? Certainly, the corruption and violence will not end until the occupation ends and people of Bangladesh are allowed to exercise genuine self-determination. In conclusion, self-determination will begin when Bangladesh will have a constitutional amendment outlawing a person to become a head of the government more than twice in a five years term.