HC seeks govt explanation on March 7 memorial
Staff Reporter
The High Court (HC) yesterday issued a rule asking the government to explain why it should not be directed to build a statue at Suhrawardy Udyan where Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had delivered his historic speech on March 7, 1971 to declare independence for Bangladesh. The court asked the government to explain why it should not be ordered to preserve the exact place by setting up a memorial resembling the original stage from where Bangabandhu had delivered the speech and to commemorate the historic event. The government has to submit its explanation to the court within two weeks. The secretaries to the Liberation War affair ministry and the cultural affair and information ministry, the director general of the archaeology department, and the mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation have been made respondents to the rule.
An HC bench of Justice Naima Haider and Justice Zafar Ahmed came up with the rule in response to a writ petition filed by four architects, including Mohammad Abduall Al Masum, yesterday.
The petitioners sought the courts directive to preserve the historic venue at Suhrawardy Udyan. Advocate Dr Basir Ahmed filed the writ petition on behalf of the four architects.
On March 7, 1971, Bangabandhu with his fiery speech at Racecourse Maidan (now Suhrawardy Udyan) had exhorted freedom-loving Bengalis to wage a decisive struggle against the Pakistani rulers.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has also recognised Bangabandhus March 7 speech as part of the worlds documentary heritage.
On November 20, 2017, the HC issued a rule asking the government to explain why it should not be directed to set up a sculpture of the iconic posture of Bangabandhu during his March 7 speech and a museum at the place where he had delivered it.
It also asked the government why March 7 should not be declared as National Day.
Six secretaries, including those of the Cabinet, finance, public works, culture and education ministries, were made respondents to the rule. Besides, the court asked the Cabinet secretary to submit a comprehensive report by December 12 last year on the steps taken following the issuance of the rule.
