The Bangladeshi government claimed copyright over the country's constitution for the first time in 2006. This was controversial as the constitution outlines citizens' fundamental rights. Tanbir Siddiqui, a human rights activist, criticized the move as citizens should have access to the highest law of the land. Siddiqui's organization was denied permission to reprint the constitution for educational use. Successive governments have rarely printed copies of the constitution, possibly to limit public awareness of their rights. The constitution has also been manipulated for political purposes, with prefaces added that shaped the country's history. There are calls for the constitution to be more widely available to citizens.

1. Constitutional Troubles / Nader Rahman
On the 23rd of July 2006 the government of Bangladesh took out a caution notice for the first time in
the history of Bangladesh in different national daily newspapers. The message it gave out was
unsurprising, that people who falsely reprinted the constitution would be taken to task. They could face
both jail time and extensive monetary fines up to Tk. 2 lakh. But something was added in that notice
that till then had never been seen or heard of before. In no uncertain terms they stated that the
copyright of the constitution lay with the government (Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary
Affairs as per schedule 1 of the rules of business) and under section 82 of the Copyright Law 2000.
Just to be clear, the government claimed that they alone held the copyright for the constitution. The
highest law of the republic and the home of our fundamental rights was seemingly now the
government's property. To say that was scandalous would be severely downplaying the incident, but
then again in a country where our national history changes every five years, this was not particularly a
major event. But how did it get to this situation?
Possibly the person who seems best fit to answer that question is a gentleman who has spent his career
trying to spread the knowledge of the constitution, only to be continually stonewalled by successive
governments. Tanbir Siddiqui is a human rights activist and an expert on all things constitutional, his
organisation Change Makers, a human rights and civic education organisation, has been heavily
involved in the teaching of the constitution. “The government notice on the constitution proved that
there was demand for it" he says. "A few unscrupulous businessmen reprinted the constitution using
the government logo and format, which was widely known to everybody particularly to the ministry
people, for them many people had to suffer. Their malpractice led to the notice, which in turn proved
to be explosive. The government got themselves all tangled up by saying that they owned the copyright
of the constitution, which was wholly incorrect and could be challenged by any citizen of the country.
How can the constitution be under any copyright? What are the arguments behind this? If our
fundamental rights as citizens are stated there, is it possible to say that one has copyright over that!”
The topic gets him quite worked up for a number of reasons, his organisation Change Makers actively
went out into rural Bangladesh and taught high school children about the constitution along with other
issues under their civic education programme, yet he faced massive problems with handing out copies
of the document itself. Truth be told he could never get copies to hand out, the government would
never give him any copies because they only printed it once in a few years. That in itself is rather
shocking that governments' only print the constitution every few years, don't they realise that every
citizen should be entitled to a copy, if needed? With that in mind after being sent away empty handed
on numerous occasions, Siddiqui finally asked the government for permission to reprint the
constitution from his organisation for educational purposes; he stated specifically that they would not
be sold for profit. He was denied by the government, denied what he and many others believed to be
one of their fundamental rights.
There are many theories as to why the constitution was never really widely available; the answer that
seems simplest is that successive governments have never wanted the people to truly know what their
rights were, and what the supreme laws of the land were. It seems utterly plausible in a country like
ours where the politicians feed off the public's lack of knowledge. As Siddiqui says “The constitution is
the ultimate source of knowledge for a conscious citizen”.
But there may also be more sinister reasons behind its lack of circulation. In the past 30 years our
nation's history has been changed several times and the constitution has been used as one of the major
history changing tools. In 1998 the government in power reprinted the constitution, with a preface and
many appendices for the first time (preface and these appendices are not part of the constitution) such
as Proclamation of Independence, The Laws Continuance Enforcement Order, 1971, the Provisional
Constitution of Bangladesh Order, 1972. These additions to the constitution would lead to many
others in the future. Firstly there was absolutely no need for a preface to printed. The preface itself

2. created a storm as it stated that Bangabandhu declared independence, whether he did or not is not the
point but why was such an obviously unnecessary and biased preface included with the constitution?
As if to prove their point that government included appendices such as Bangabandhu's declaration of
independence speech. It was the largest constitution ever printed in Bangladesh, truly an epic.
In late October 2006 (though August was mentioned on the constitution as the time of publication)
the previous government had to reprint the constitution for the first and only time during their tenure;
interestingly enough it was a few days before they were to leave office. They went about their history
shaping by writing a 'completely new preface' where the late Ziaur Rahman declared Bangladesh's
independence, without mentioning a specific date. The only good thing they did achieve was that they
left out all the previously incorporated appendices, but no doubt even that was done for their own
selfish purposes, as the appendices included in the 1998 version only backed up the thought that
Bangabandhu actually declared Independence. Soon after the newest version was printed, a Judicial
Inquiry was ordered by the Metropolitan magistrate court on November 10, 2006 against the
immediate past Law Minster Moudud Ahmed on charges that he changed the history of the nation.
Many media outlets stated that he changed the preface of the constitution (which is not a part of the
constitution).
Where does one go from here? Two political parties have used the constitution as their own private
battlefield while the rest of the nation is still trying to get hold of a copy. People like Tanbir Siddiqui
have had to bear the brunt of it. The immediate past government printed the constitution once, and
that too, mere days before they left office. As a result, the 14th amendment which was passed in 2004
was only added and printed in constitution in October 2006! For two years the country had an
amendment finally which was never published by the government. Tragically the distribution of the
newly published constitution was suspended as the former law minister Abdul Matin Khasru
demanded removal of the newly written preface and suspension of distribution.
While they have the audacity to send out a caution notice against people who have illegally printed the
constitution, another question is still unresolved; what will happen to them who applied to the ministry
and sought permission to print the constitution on their own for educational purpose, not for sale or
profit? What they should have done is pin a medal on them instead of threatening them. At least they
tried to inform the public about what was going on, while the government waged its private battle over
the 'real' history of the country. As Tanbir Siddiqui says “The constitution belongs to everyone, all we
are saying is give it back to them.”