My friends feel that I am in a fools’ paradise, as I had thought there might be a national reconciliation after the 1971 war criminals were brought to justice. Yes, I thought once the 1971 war criminals were tried, the division and disconnect between the two large political groups would be narrowed down, and we could emerge as a united nation. I even shared this with many people on national television channels, that I saw the rise of a true nationalist force after the real collaborators and perpetrators of our 1971 massacre were put in the dock.
As I write this piece now, I am embarrassed I was so wrong. My friends told me Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina could never forget the killing of her father in 1975. That she knew there was almost nobody on the streets lamenting the killing of her father. That she also thought late president Ziaur Rahman, the founder of the BNP, was either engaged in or aware of the Mujib killing.
She of course doubts a few of her party stalwarts too, but for bigger political interests she keeps mum. She also strongly believes she was the main target in the August 21 attack. And whoever might have been ultimately behind the brutal incident, it seems she truly believes that Tareque Zia, or Khaleda Zia herself, sponsored the plan or were aware of the incident.
She seems never to have contemplated the following questions. What was the cause of the rift between Tajuddin Ahmed and Bangabandhu? Why was Tajuddin, who planned and led our nine-month fight against Pakistan, forced to resign? What prompted her father to go for one party rule? Was there democracy in independent Bangladesh as of August 15, 1975, when our founding father was killed? Who and what should be credited most for bringing Bangladesh to where it is positioned now, economically and socially?
She seems unaware of Saudi or Middle East factors in Bangladeshi politics, why Bangabandhu wanted a truce with Musim rulers in the Gulf, the role of Jatiyo Samajtantric Dal (JSD), or pro-China left-leaning parties, after the independence and pre-Mujib killing. She is unwavering in her belief that India is a good friend to Bangladesh and has our best interests at heart.
On the other hand, Khaleda Zia believes, it seems, that her husband was a valiant freedom fighter who worked day and night for the rebuilding of a modern Bangladesh. That he was an honest soldier and statesman. Her colleagues and advisers may have told her that her husband was a person who believed in multi-party democracy, and had his own definition of this.
While she is aware that Mujib and his party led the Bangladesh war of liberation, and was a respected political leader, she also thinks her husband was not properly recognised for what he did for Bangladesh. She is happy that her party could create a platform for people with multi-faceted backgrounds and beliefs.
It seems Khaleda also thinks the present AL government, and particularly Hasina, has forcibly kept her two sons away from her, while she is physically unwell and lonely. The same “fascist” government (in her words) has ousted her from her cantonment home, and connived with the group who killed her husband in 1981. She possibly also gave coinage to the popular belief that India was somehow behind the brutal BDR massacre in 2009.
Her party men made her believe that a few politically loyal security forces officials were behind the killing or abduction of her important political colleagues. She believes the country needs more private sector investment to generate employment for the poor people, and thereby accelerate the poverty alleviation process. She also thinks India may not welcome a truly independent and prosperous Bangladesh.
She is not a fool who has not understood the political delinquency of Pakistan, but reality tells us she has more admirers and well-wishers in Pakistan than in the neighbouring state. In the same way, she enjoys more affinity with the Middle East rulers.
Unfortunately for this nation, both the ladies command unassailable popularity within their ranks. This stands in the way of ensuring compliance of democratic values within the party.
The “experts” are only called in to advise them when desired. None of them have clear visibility of their destination. Vested interest groups assist them, try to influence them, or at times guide or command them when possible.
With these on the table, I possibly agree with my friends. Reconciliation between the two major parties, who cannot agree on major national issues, is not possible in the near future.
Each of them has too many stakeholders. Therefore, it is extremely hard for them to chart a mutually acceptable path for this country. Poor Bangladesh.