My father was a freedom fighter. He never took his freedom fighter certificate. I have written about why he didn’t take it in another piece. As the child of a freedom fighter father, it is impossible for me to be neutral. I am not neutral—I am deeply and firmly committed to the spirit of the Liberation War. I request that you read this piece keeping this in mind.
Article 29 of ‘The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh’ states:
“(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in respect of employment or office in the service of the Republic.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office in the service of the Republic.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from—
(a) making special provision for any backward section of citizens for the purpose of securing their adequate representation in the service of the Republic;
(b) giving effect to any law which makes provision for reserving appointments relating to any religious or denominational institution to persons of that religion or denomination;
(c) reserving for members of one sex any class of employment or office on the ground that by reason of the special nature of the duties thereof it is considered to be unsuitable for members of the other sex.”
The foundation of the quota system in government employment lies in clause (3)(a) of the above article. The quota system was introduced to provide somewhat additional opportunities for the country’s backward communities to gain representation in education, business, employment, and national policy-making processes. To ensure that disadvantaged groups can play a role in government activities, preference quotas have been established in various specific proportions, though these can be changed, expanded, and revised from time to time as needed. In this regard, Article 133 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh states:
“Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons in the service of the Republic:
Provided that until provision in that behalf is made by or under law for that purpose, the President shall have power to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of such persons, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such law.”
In 1972, to recruit people from various parts of the country into government service and to build a cohesive social structure—particularly to give priority in government employment to family members of those who gave their lives for the country and those who were wounded in the war—the Ministry of Cabinet Affairs issued Order No. ET/RI/R-73/72-109 (500) dated September 5, 1972. This order allocated 20% for merit quota, 30% for freedom fighter quota, 10% for women affected by war quota, and 40% for district quota. Not a single woman applied to take advantage of the 10% quota due to lack of minimum qualifications for job recruitment examinations or adequate evidence of being affected by the war. Moreover, since women affected by war were accorded freedom fighter status, controversy arose over the justification of maintaining a separate quota facility beyond the freedom fighter quota. The current quota system was introduced in 1985, though the 1% disability quota was included later.
The district quota was introduced with the aim of ensuring representative equality for all districts in government employment. But the reality is the opposite. Larger districts with more population receive higher quota allocations, while smaller districts receive very limited quota allocations. In the 15th BCS, it was seen that a woman who ranked 175th in the overall merit list received a job in the BCS Foreign Service cadre through district quota. If my father is a native of some backward district by birth, and my birth and upbringing are in a big city, why should I be entitled to district quota benefits? The financial and educational aspects of family members should be considered in district quota distribution. Meanwhile, most of those getting jobs through tribal quota are Chakma. We could consider processes to involve other indigenous communities more in government employment. At the same time, by increasing educational opportunities for third gender people in society, 1% quota could be allocated for them as well. Women are now much more educated and self-reliant than before. For those who possess the minimum educational and other qualifications to sit for government job examinations, 8% quota would be sufficient. Most of the truly backward women do not have the minimum qualifications mentioned, so they are not relevant here. We must remember that quota candidates do not receive any additional benefits in the BCS preliminary examination. Once that stage is successfully passed, 8% women’s quota for the next two stages would suffice.
According to Notification No. 48.00.000.004.49.233.09-1832 issued by the Ministry of Liberation War Affairs on November 6, 2016, regarding the definition and age determination of ‘Freedom Fighter’: “Those persons who participated in the Liberation War from March 26 to December 16, 1971, responding to the call for independence by the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, with the aim of achieving Bangladesh’s great independence, shall be considered freedom fighters.” In this context, in the real situation, one-fourth of the current allocation rate or slightly more would be sufficient for freedom fighter quota holders. I will explain shortly why I think no more than this is necessary. Keeping in mind clause (3)(a) of Article 29 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, while maintaining the age limit of 32 years for freedom fighter quota holders to enter employment, the allocated quota amount could be reduced, because currently those getting jobs through freedom fighter quota are mostly not included in the ‘backward section of citizens’ mentioned in that clause. If a freedom fighter’s child gets government employment using quota benefits, how can that person’s child—the freedom fighter’s grandchild—be included in the backward section of citizens? In the 20th BCS examination, the number of posts reserved under freedom fighter quota was 843. However, it was found that among the candidates who applied under freedom fighter quota, the number of qualified candidates according to PSC recommendations was 143. Since the remaining 700 posts had to be kept vacant according to rules, PSC was compelled to conduct another special BCS examination.
In the 38th BCS, 389,468 candidates applied, and 16,286 passed the first stage. There are 520 posts in general cadre in total. It will be seen that in the quota system, someone ranking 230th may not get a job, while someone ranking 4,600th might get one. Notably, in the 28th BCS, 813 posts remained vacant, in the 29th BCS 792, in the 30th BCS 613, in the 31st BCS 773, and even in the 32nd Special BCS held only for quota holders, 1,125 posts had to be kept vacant.
Let’s think about the preference quota issue from a slightly different perspective.
Suppose a thousand people are invited to a wedding. How many should the cooking be for? In this case, some practical experience must be drawn upon. How? If all the invited guests come and some of them bring along one or two acquaintances (after all, can one go to a wedding empty-handed!), then the number of guests will exceed a thousand. Some more people will come uninvited. They are the ‘there’s a wedding going on, let’s go eat!’ type of guests. Out of courtesy or shame, they cannot be sent away without feeding them. The point is, if you cook only for your list of a thousand people, there’s a strong possibility of falling short of food. You must cook some extra, so you don’t face any trouble.
Now the question is, how many extra people will you arrange for? You need to know what happens at other weddings. Many of the invited guests won’t come, some will bring acquaintances, and some people you never invited will show up. Nothing beyond this will happen, right? Make inquiries in various places, learn from reality. You’ll see that in any invitation, if we arrange food for 20-25% more people than we expect to come, we won’t have to face any unpleasant situations. Two things are needed to successfully organize a wedding ceremony. One: conducting a bit of a survey to understand the real situation. Two: applying the knowledge gained from that survey.
For a thousand-person function, we can arrange food for at most twelve hundred or twelve hundred fifty people. Cooking more than this will waste food. Because that food cannot be fed to anyone outside the guests present at the wedding venue. You might say, suppose we do cook for twelve hundred fifty people. What if that many people don’t come? I agree, in that case too some food will be wasted. How much will that waste be? If we sit with arrangements for three thousand people at a thousand-person function, compared to what would be wasted then, it’s much, much, much less, isn’t it? If money must be spent anyway, let’s spend it in a way that serves a purpose. Let the cooking be for twelve hundred fifty people; with the money saved by not cooking for the remaining seventeen hundred fifty people, some hungry people can easily be fed to their heart’s content. A conscientious person with practical knowledge would certainly do this.
Much has been said, is being said, and will be said about the existing quota reform. This is natural. It is the demand of our times. Affirmative action quota systems exist in all countries, across all systems. Every civilized nation reserves some additional opportunities for its marginalized, backward, disadvantaged, and underprivileged populations. Every human being possesses infinite potential. Yet due to lack of opportunity, many cannot harness their latent abilities despite having tremendous willpower. The state machinery must think of them. For them, there must be somewhat greater opportunities and facilities compared to others. An ideal state’s constitution must take this matter into account. But how much of such opportunity should be provided? As much as necessary, right? That is to say, the state must provide exactly the amount of advantage needed to ensure that this special population group is not deprived of anything in any way. Quota is not discrimination; quota is a healthy system. In a family, the member who earns less or doesn’t earn at all is not given the smaller piece of fish at the dinner table. Without this arrangement for additional advantage, there will be no peace in the family.
For a civilized country, the quota system is not merely logical but essential. None of us has any objection or disagreement about this. Quotas existed, exist, and will continue to exist—they must exist! However, we must think about their distribution. That distribution needs to be made logical and appropriate, keeping pace with ground realities. I know nothing about the recruitment process for government jobs other than BCS. Therefore, I am writing this piece keeping the BCS examination in mind. No one receives quota benefits in the first stage (qualifying round) of the BCS examination—the preliminary test. In the first stage, everyone (quota holders and others) must prove themselves worthy for the next stage through the same kind of competition.
The freedom fighter quota allocated in the BCS examination is 30%. Since this quota comes up most in discussions, let us consider it as an example. Let’s assume that in the first stage preliminary examination of a particular BCS, 2000 candidates participated who had applied for freedom fighter quota benefits. The total number of posts in that BCS is 200. Under the existing system, 60 out of those 200 posts are allocated for freedom fighter quota applicants. Do those 2000 people receive this benefit in the first stage? No, they don’t. Among them, only those who can prove themselves worthy in the first stage of competition will receive it. Now let me come to the second stage of competition. Let’s assume that out of those 2000 candidates, 87 proved themselves as worthy as others to participate in the second stage by taking part in the same kind of competition without taking any additional advantage. None of these 87 people are any less qualified than any of the candidates who passed the preliminary examination in that BCS. Because they were selected through healthy and fair competition in the first stage of a transparent recruitment process. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the total number of candidates who passed the preliminary stage in that BCS examination is 1450, of whom 87 are freedom fighter quota holder candidates. These 87 candidates, despite being backward compared to others according to Article 29(3)(a) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, proved themselves equally worthy and were nominated for the written examination. If the others had been as backward as those 87, perhaps they wouldn’t even have qualified for the preliminary stage. In that sense, it can be said that those 87 are actually more talented than the remaining 1363, because despite receiving fewer advantages than others, they managed to prove themselves equally worthy as the rest.
What percentage of the total 1450 do those 87 constitute? 6 percent. Therefore, if they are to be given advantages, let that 6 percent be reserved for them. Simple calculation! Since some additional advantage is their due according to the structure of an ideal state, arrangements must be made for it. How much more should that additional be? An additional 6 percent advantage has been provided! Should there be more? Well, let there be! What should its percentage be? 1 percent? At most 2 percent? That’s it, right? Keeping more advantage than this means devaluing the merit of some more talented individuals. If more than 7 or 8 percent in total is allocated in affirmative action quota for those 87 equally qualified, more talented people, then practically their qualifications are being questioned. We who firmly believe in the spirit of the Liberation War cannot in any way support any arrangement that is humiliating for the children of freedom fighters, the finest sons of the nation. We give up our seats to elderly people when riding buses. Why? Because they are physically less capable than us, so it’s difficult for them to stand. This is called humanity. If one able-bodied young man gives his seat to another able-bodied young man, even if someone forcibly calls it humanity, in practical judgment the matter is shameful and humiliating.
Now the question is, how can the reform be carried out? In my humble consideration, I can suggest one method. For the convenience of discussion, let’s focus on the freedom fighter quota, which has the highest percentage of allocated posts. The past 10 BCS examinations can be taken into consideration. The percentage rate of freedom fighter quota applicants among those nominated to sit for the written examination can be determined. A total of 10 rates will emerge. Then, by averaging those 10 rates and adding 1 or 2 to that number according to the quota reform commission’s proposal, the freedom fighter quota can be restructured. The same calculation can be applied to other quotas. Then, I believe, the quota system in employment will become timely, realistic, and fair.
From the 16th issue of Bangladesh Public Administration Journal, we learn that the Administrative Service Reorganization Committee (ASRC) formed by the government in 1974 recommended not maintaining any kind of quota in first-class jobs. The Father of the Nation, Bangabandhu, had also taken initiative to implement this. But after the assassination of the Father of the Nation along with his family on August 15, that work came to a halt.
Let us read some scholars’ opinions about the existing quota system:
Akbar Ali Khan says, “The jobs in freedom fighters’ quota can be reserved only for war-wounded freedom fighters and for the children of those who are receiving freedom fighter allowances from the government. But if quota is given to the children of well-off freedom fighters, then rewards are being given. That wouldn’t be helping the backward population.” In such a situation, he believes that many talented candidates are not getting jobs due to the quota system despite preparing for a long time and taking exams.
When asked “Should the quota system be completely abolished or should it be reduced?” Akbar Ali Khan says that the Bangladesh government had established three Public Administration Reform Commissions. All three commissions clearly stated that quotas should be completely abolished.
However, he mentions that if the quota system is suddenly abolished completely, problems might arise. According to him, quota cannot be a permanent arrangement. Quota is a temporary system.
I’m presenting some statements from Sa’dat Husain’s recent interview with bdnews24.com:
Since this system continues based on population, small districts don’t get any quota at all. As a result, the opposite of the intended purpose has occurred. Districts like Meherpur, Lalmonirhat, Sherpur, Lakshmipur don’t receive any quota.
Apart from gazetted officers, there are thousands of first and second-class posts in non-cadre positions where another type of quota system needs to be introduced. Those who will work in third and fourth-class positions won’t be the country’s policymakers, so another type of quota needs to be introduced for them. Merit isn’t needed there. Let quotas be increased there. Let there be abundant quotas for peon posts. Let regional quotas be increased here, and quotas in cadre positions be reduced.
…However, quota reform doesn’t mean only freedom fighter quota reform. All quotas need to be reformed.
Neither the ruling party nor the opposition alone can provide a solution to this. A solution must be reached involving all stakeholders. Quota has a cluster of variables. Work needs to be done with those. Looking at one side will create problems on the other side. It won’t work to just focus on BCS; work needs to be done with other aspects. Otherwise, new complexities will be created in the quota of many complexities.
Look, quotas exist in many countries around the world, including the United States. But in a different way. In the United States, quota holders are given a number first. Then there’s competition in open examinations. And India has taken quotas to a beautiful level. Quotas exist there, but based on income. High-income people don’t get quotas. In this case, they don’t even spare ethnic minorities. And once someone receives quota benefits, they can never get quota benefits again. Suppose if a father receives quota benefits, his children will not receive any quota benefits. If someone gets admitted to college through quota, then they won’t get the opportunity to enter university (through quota benefits). And whoever enters university through quota will never get quota benefits in employment.
…Whoever enjoys quota benefits once, the opportunity for them or their successors to enjoy it a second time must be closed. Suppose I received the benefit of backward region quota. I enjoyed this benefit to build my social and economic position, to establish my family and children. Therefore, they will no longer receive quota benefits. Similarly, for freedom fighter, indigenous, and women’s quotas, those who receive quota benefits once should have rules preventing them from receiving this benefit a second time. Only then will the fruits of quota come.
Professor Sirajul Islam Chowdhury, Emeritus Professor of the English Department at Dhaka University, says this is clearly unacceptable. Civil servants play a major role in running the country. If the less meritorious get in through quotas instead of the meritorious, the entire system becomes weakened. On the other hand, frustration is building among meritorious students who hope to get jobs through examinations. Yet the less meritorious are getting good positions through quotas. There should be quotas for the backward regions of the country, such as for hill people and small ethnic groups, but I don’t think there should be quotas for any other matters after that. The freedom fighter quota existed at one time, and that was fine. But so many years after independence, this quota should no longer exist. Now appointments should be based on merit. Women have also advanced considerably now. They are performing well in various public examinations, including university exams. So there’s no need for reserved quotas for women either. (I respectfully hold a somewhat different view from the Professor’s statement that “…there should be quotas for hill people and small ethnic groups, but I don’t think there should be quotas for any other matters after that.” I have already explained why I hold this different view.)
Professor Dr. ASM Amanullah of the Sociology Department at Dhaka University tells Jugantara, …Currently, 5 percent quota can be kept for women. However, in this case, a time limit needs to be set—how many years this quota will remain: 10 years, or more than that. The freedom fighter quota can be kept at 10 percent, and it should be ruled that a family can avail this benefit only once. Grandchildren, great-grandchildren, the entire extended family should not get this benefit—whatever is to be received should be received only once. Small ethnic groups are still backward, so 3 percent can be given to them. Some districts like Netrakona, Sunamganj, Gaibandha are still backward; 2 percent district quota can be kept for these. And the disabled are part of our society. If they can come through written examinations, 2 percent disabled quota can be kept. With this total of 22 percent quota, if the remaining 78 percent is recruited on merit, the problem will be temporarily solved.
Professor Dr. Mesbah Kamal of the History Department at Dhaka University tells Jugantara that quotas are necessary to bring the disadvantaged people of society to the same level. But various complications have arisen in our country’s quota system. Especially due to the quota proportion being higher compared to the merit list and the allocated positions for quotas not being filled, those positions remain vacant.
As a result, complications have increased further. Our education system is creating educated unemployed people. For a long time, adequate steps have not been taken regarding their employment. Consequently, the unemployment rate is rising, and if attention is not paid to that core problem, the frustration of job seekers will increase further. Therefore, reform of the quota system is necessary.
…The 10% district quota can be removed and 2% quota can be kept for these upazilas. There are more areas for reform in this manner. Rules should be made about who will receive the benefits of all quotas, including the freedom fighter quota. Those who are financially established should not be given this benefit to their families. And no quota should be received by one family more than once, at most twice.
Dr. Soumitra Shekhar, Vice-Chancellor of Kazi Nazrul Islam University, says there is a need for quotas to exist. So quotas will remain, but their proportion can be reduced. Whether the freedom fighter quota will continue through generations of grandchildren and great-grandchildren requires serious consideration. I think this can remain at most up to the children of freedom fighters.
Former Education Secretary N I Khan has given his opinion in favor of quota reform. Advocating for reducing quotas, he says the freedom fighter quota can be 5 percent, not 30 percent, and the women’s quota should also be brought down to 5 percent.
He says one family should not be given the opportunity for quotas multiple times. Quotas for orphans and disabled people should be activated. And those who make fake freedom fighter certificates should be brought under punishment.
Regarding quotas, Emeritus Professor Anisuzzaman of Dhaka University says, “My statement about quotas is brief and clear. I don’t think there should be more than 10 percent quota at present.”
Professor Asif Nazrul of the Law Department at Dhaka University writes in Prothom Alo:
In an early list of the current government, the names of 2 lakh 2 thousand 300 freedom fighters were published. Objections were filed against 62 thousand of them on the grounds that there were fake freedom fighters among them. Whether these objections have been resolved or whether those who were later given certificates as freedom fighters are actually freedom fighters—this doubt has never been cleared.
In Bangabandhu’s time, however, the Interim Recruitment Policy formulated in 1972 mentioned 30 percent quota for freedom fighters. The very fact that it was called “interim” meant there was a thought to keep the quota applicable for a short period.
Supporters of the quota system argue that other countries also have quotas. But to my knowledge, there is no blanket quota system like ours anywhere else. Let me give the example of India. In India, the quota system is known as reservation. There, according to the constitution, there are quota arrangements in government jobs, public representation, and higher educational institutions only for scheduled lower castes and tribal classes. Later, according to the Mandal Commission report, from 1992, quotas were also arranged for children of people from other socially and educationally disadvantaged professions (such as agricultural laborers, barbers, washermen, etc.). According to a 2006 survey, although these disadvantaged people constitute 41 percent of India’s total population, 27 percent quota has been kept for them. On the other hand, scheduled caste and tribal populations are 29 percent, while the quota is about 22 percent. In comparison, although the quota proportion for women and tribal communities in Bangladesh is low, it is much higher in the case of children of freedom fighters. Although the number of listed freedom fighters is two to two and a half lakh, there is a 30 percent quota in government jobs for their children!
In the interest of justice, it is urgent to bring reform to Bangladesh’s quota system. The current quota system is not only degrading the standard of civil administration but also creating extreme inequality and injustice in society—which is contrary to the spirit of the liberation war. Many of our heroic freedom fighters were wounded and killed in the war for the country. The state must certainly fulfill its responsibility of properly identifying these freedom fighters and keeping proportionate quotas only for their children. Among other quotas, district quotas should be abolished. Quotas for women and small ethnic groups should continue, and the government can also arrange limited quotas for the disabled. However, under no consideration should the number of quota holders exceed one-third of total recruitment.
At the beginning of this writing, I mentioned that my father, despite being a freedom fighter, did not take a certificate. I have tried to tell about my father’s heroic saga in the writing titled “I Am Not a Freedom Fighter.” Those interested can read it from my website.