But are these two ladies solely responsible for what happened in Bangladesh in this respect? As 'succession to the throne' did not come to them by virtue of their own efforts and the grooming of their offspring for succession to the throne after them, it appeared to be a joint venture between the two ladies and their yes-men. Hasina and Khaleda are not solely responsible for the situation created in the political arena.

When Sheikh Hasina returned to Bangladesh staying abroad for a long time after her father's assassination, the senior leaders of the Awami League immediately placed the young, inexperienced woman at the helm of affairs. There was no fault on her part to think that she rightfully inherited the position from her late father. Similarly, when Khaleda Zia, a housewife, was placed at the top of the BNP by its senior leaders after her husband's assassination, she took it to be an inheritance from her late husband who had founded the BNP.

About grooming of their successors by the two ladies, Hasina and Khaleda are not solely responsible. People of Bangladesh have seen on TV how Sajib Wajed Joy, the young son of Sheikh Hasina, was received at Zia International Airport with garlands when he came from the USA for a short stay in his home country. It was a royal reception. Sheikh Hasina came to the airport accompanied by senior leaders of the Awami League and supporters of the party gathered to line up along the roads to Shudha Sadan. It did not occur in the minds of the leaders that Joy was 'nobody' of the Awami League, only the son of its president!

Similarly, people have seen on TV how Tarique Rahman, elder son of Khaleda Zia, crowned a Sr. Joint Secretary of the BNP overnight, started attending meetings of the BNP at different places of the country as chief guest, while senior leaders of the party, some of them of his late father's age or even older, only served as "accompanying" persons.

Were not the leaders of the two major political parties of the country more responsible than their chiefs for patronising dynastic politics? No leader was ever reported to have resigned in protest against the conduct of their chiefs or their offspring. The shame is more on the political leaders of the country at large, than anybody else.