While most of the media focus of Khaleda Zia’s press statement on Monday has been on her interim government formula, there were other parts of her speech which deserve close scrutiny.
Her statement was a refreshing departure from her past stance and tasks relating to terrorism and militancy, which is very significant in nature.
We welcome this posture, which basically was to respond to the West’s and Indian concern and to assuage their fear about the rising trend of militancy during the last BNP government’s tenure. But given her past records and BNP’s gradual shift from its centrist politics to extreme religious right in the last one decade, the big question is can she pull it off?
It is possible that she can pull it off, but it will definitely entail tremendous steadfastness on her part.
In the past we have not found any willingness of BNP to keep the militants and terrorists at bay. And in recent times, especially following the Hefajat mayhem, we have not seen any change in BNP’s attitude. We have not seen her ever condemning terrorism and when the Hefajat carried out its widespread violence, she had falsely called the police action “genocide”.
And when Hefajat came up with its highly reactionary 13-point demand that basically advocated a radicalised society, BNP supported it.
These actions of BNP only cast a serious doubt on how truly Khaleda can deliver on her promise.
In fact, in the face of AL-government’s continued oppressive actions against BNP, the party has moved significantly to the ultra right Jamaat and other religion-based parties. It is so much so that once what had been Jamaat’s survival tactic to shield behind BNP has turned the other way round. Today BNP has rather adopted the survival tactic of depending on Jamaat, which has a large number of regimented activists.
Much of Khaleda’s Monday’s postures and remarks, analysts believe, showed how desperate BNP is right now to win over the hearts of the West, which it lost during its last stint in power due to its pandering to various terrorist groups like Huji and JMB.
It is also a clear indication that it has dawned on her that BNP’s past stance on India does not suit the present global political situation where India and America are close allies in their common fight against terrorism.
She has also promised a change in political culture, a pledge we had earlier heard from Sheikh Hasina in the last election of 2008 and which was then grossly violated by Hasina herself.
These realities apparently dawned on Khaleda following her advisers’ repeated meetings with the western powers. It was clearly indicated to her advisers that the West wants to see a clear distancing between BNP and the militant groups.
Khaleda’s attempt to squarely drop the blame of terrorism on AL was ironic. The moment she stated that “people knew fully well that militancy and terrorism took its root during the past Awami League rule”, a series of images cross the minds of those who do not suffer from dementia. Among the images appear Bangla Bhai, JMB, Huji, simultaneous blasts of 200 bombs across the country, the brutal killing of former finance minister SAMS Kibria, and of course, the horrible scenes at Bangabandhu Avenue where grenades were thrown on an AL rally with the aim to finish off the entire AL leadership including Hasina. The dying images of Ivy Rahman with her legs blown away will stay with us forever.
Also will stay with us the memories of how the BNP had tried to trivialise the August 21 grenade attack by destroying all evidence, by spurring its lawmakers to say that the attack was in fact a doing of AL itself, and by instituting a farcical one-man judicial inquiry which came to the absurd conclusion that a neighbouring country (read India here) was behind the attack.
And we remember those famous words: “There is no Bangla Bhai, it is a creation of media” by Motiur Rahman Nizami, Ameer of Jamaat, a key ally of BNP, and “We are looking for Shatrus” by Lutfozzaman Babar, then state minister for home, after the grenade attack while he had invented a petty thief named Joj Miah who he insisted had carried out the attack.
The 10 truckloads of arms accidentally seized while being unloaded in Chittagong for supply to insurgents in India has shown how the BNP policy was for destabilising the region. The trail progressed so far reveals a fascinating story of how the state machinery was used in this regard.
We have seen in the past how Hasina had promised many good things like change in political culture, good governance and fight against corruption. We also have seen how she could not deliver on them. They remained only vote gaining rhetoric.
Now as Khaleda promises a change in policy, she has to navigate through the mines of extremists with extreme dexterity. Her party’s every move in this regard will be closely watched by everybody including the USA.
Only time can say if she really means business.
Source: The Daily Star
The author of the article has to be congratulated for his discovery in Khaleda Zia’s speech that she has acknowledged that terrorism is a bad thing and that she has now promised not to encourage terrorism in future. Whether Khaleda Zia actually ever promoted and allied with terrorism is a different issue and is a subject of much debate and research, but turning our attention to this article all I can say is that the author made some very unkind and unsubstantiated observations about what Khaleda Zia would not do in future and infers that Begum Zia’s statement on terrorism is more of a “trick” less of a “pledge”. This is unfortunate – this only reveals state of author’s own twisted mind and not that of Begum Zia’s vision (this is not to say that Zia and her party did not commit mistakes including violence in the past).. .
Filled with one-sided data and reports, author’s analysis is inherently biased and flawed and even provocative.. This is the kind of mind-set we could do well to do away with in Bangladesh.
Instead of preempting with self-constructed speculative scenario of what one would do or not do of a good pledge, it is important that we applaud the pledge itself and instead of criticising it provide encouragement to the proponent so that ‘pledge’ gets implemented.
In Bangladesh, violence is not a monopoly of a particular group or a party, almost every political party has adopted violence as way of countering their opposition. However, the saddest part is that our experts, columnists, members of civil society, media etc. etc. see use of violence in a biased way and end up providing little or no incentive for change. On the contrary their partisan behaviour has fulled and perpetuated violence and embedded it as a norm.
It is therefore important that more than the politicians it is the the experts, civil society and media that need to make the pledge that not to tolerate any form of violence (regardless of whether these are committed by opposition or government) by anyone, instead encourage everyone to commit fully to the principles of tolerance and non-violence qualities, that are vital for healthy politics but are.badly missing in current political culture of Bangladesh.