The job sector in Bangladesh is currently experiencing significant upheaval due to ongoing protests related to the quota system. This issue has reached the appeal stage in the legal system, with a final hearing scheduled for next month. Meanwhile, students across the country have taken to the streets to voice their concerns.
Root Cause of the Protests
The students’ demands extend beyond the upcoming court hearing. Their grievances encompass constitutional principles, legal complexities, the government’s stance, and their own demands for fair treatment and opportunities.
Legal Developments and Government Response
A recent summary judgment ordered the cancellation of the quota abolition, which is now under appeal and will be decided in the final hearing next month. This judgment nullified the 2018 circular that had completely abolished the quota system for first and second-tier government jobs.
The initial quota reform protests took place in April 2018, with students advocating for reforms across all sectors of government employment. In response, the government issued a new circular in October 2018. However, instead of reforming the quota system as the students demanded, the government decided to abolish it entirely for first and second-tier government jobs, while retaining it for third and fourth-tier civil service positions. In 2024, a writ was filed by families of freedom fighters challenging this abolition, leading the High Court to declare the 2018 circular invalid.
Constitutional Considerations
It is essential to examine whether the constitution inherently includes any forms of discrimination. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, particularly Article 29, emphasizes equality of opportunity in public employment, which the students believe the quota system violates. However, the constitution also allows for special provisions for disadvantaged groups under Article 28(4), which supports the existence of a quota system but raises questions about its implementation and the extent to which it can create disparities.
Historical Context of the Quota System
The quota system in the Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) has long been a subject of contention. Historically, the BCS quota included a 56% reservation: 30% for the descendants of freedom fighters, 10% district quota, 5% tribal quota, and 1% for the disabled. The focus is often on first-class jobs, but the quota system extends beyond this, affecting various levels of employment.
Misunderstandings and Media Representations
Many people are unclear about the actual contents of the 2012 case, which addressed the duration of job benefits for freedom fighters, not the percentage of the quota itself. This has led to confusion and attempts to mislead the public. Understanding Article 150, which pertains to transitional and temporary provisions, is crucial. Despite being intended as temporary, these provisions are still in place after over fifty years, highlighting an ongoing transition.
Issues with the Current Quota System
The current student protests argue that the 2018 circular and the existing quota system create significant disparities. They advocate for constitutional amendments to ensure fair treatment for all citizens. The application of these quotas is problematic. For example, the same individual might use the quota for university admission, employment, and promotions, repeatedly benefiting from the system. Ideally, a family should benefit from the quota once, allowing the individual to mainstream and succeed in their field without further assistance. However, this is often not the case in Bangladesh, where many claim to be freedom fighters to secure quotas for their descendants.
Respect for Freedom Fighters
Freedom fighters fought the liberation war out of love for their country, aiming to eliminate discrimination. Yet now, the grandchildren of these freedom fighters claim that they too deserve special treatment. One important point often misunderstood is that the quota reform movement is not against the spirit of the liberation war. Many freedom fighters and their descendants believe that the current quota system, which includes grandchildren, constitutes discrimination. Even some children of freedom fighters, such as those attending Dhaka University, think that the freedom fighter quota is unfair and discriminatory. Respect for freedom fighters cannot be achieved through such quotas.
Improving Social Status without Quotas
It is acknowledged that many freedom fighters may not have received the benefits or certificates they deserve. Increasing allowances and improving the social status of those who did not benefit from the system is necessary. However, using quotas to achieve this may not be the best solution. The protesters argue that respect for freedom fighters cannot come from imposing quotas for their grandchildren.
Ministry of Freedom Fighters’ Challenges
Another critical point is the Ministry of Freedom Fighters’ inability to complete the list of martyrs even after so many years. This reflects poorly on the true spirit of the liberation war. Genuine respect for freedom fighters should not rely on quotas but on substantive actions.
Recent High Court Judgment
On June 5, 2024, the High Court published a judgment related to the quota system, but the full judgment has yet to be released. The Appellate Division issued a circular to maintain the current status until the next hearing in August. This judgment has significant implications for the student protest movement, which started with the 2018 circular. The students are not only protesting against first and second-class quotas but against discrimination in employment at all levels. Their demands go beyond the contents of the 2018 circular.
Government’s Role and Discretion
The quota system is a political issue, and many do not understand the complex legal language involved. The recent judgment suggests that the government has the discretion to increase or decrease quotas as it sees fit. The government’s ability to issue new circulars or laws during ongoing litigation is debatable. The government’s willingness to address these demands is crucial. Whether through policy decisions or legislative action, the government can choose to reform the quota system if it prioritizes the issue.
Conclusion
As we wait for the full judgement to see the full extent of the decision, ultimately the hope is that the Supreme Court will make a just and fair decision on this matter. The resolution of this issue should reflect both the spirit of the liberation war and the principles of fairness and equality. It is essential that all countries appoint individuals based on merit, ensuring that the most meritorious people are given opportunities. It is my greatest hope that I have managed to entangle some of the legal, political and general jargons in a conceivable manner. I conclude with a final thought: the quota system is essentially a privilege, not a right. As a privilege, it falls under executive discretion. In this context, the question arises whether involving the judiciary was a futile attempt to obscure a more sinister agenda.
