Last December, BNP managed to create a strong momentum with successive divisional rallies, defying obstacles from the ruling party cadres and law enforcement agencies. But it lost that momentum when it tried to hold a rally in Dhaka. Since then, the party – which has been out of office for more than 16 years – has been trying to regain that thrust. This time around, BNP held a series of programmes around Dhaka and got some traction thanks to its supporters, leading up to its grand rally of July 28. The party was also able to hold the rally at its preferred venue, in front of its Nayapaltan headquarters. Tens of thousands of BNP workers joined in, defying myriad odds and obstacles. It turned out to be a mammoth rally and, encouraged by the turnout, BNP announced sit-in programmes at five entry points of the capital the very next day, presumably to cut off Dhaka from the rest of the country for several hours between 11am and 4pm. But the sit-in failed in the face of the ruling party's strong presence on the street and the aggressive attitude of the police. And again, BNP lost its momentum.

Since then, a few questions have been circulating in political circles: why did BNP go for such a programme? What did it achieve? And what will the party do now that the national election is just a few months away?

Read more

For every rally, there is a counter-rally

After the announcement of BNP's one-point demand – resignation of the ruling government for a caretaker government to oversee elections – movement on July 12, the party took only 16 days to announce the sit-in demos. Coordination among the party fronts and associate bodies, which requires time, is imperative to make such ambitious programmes successful, but there seems to have been a lack of coordination among BNP leaders in this regard. Even some of the party's senior leaders were in the dark about these programmes till they were announced. The decision of a sit-in demo of such a scale, without much time on its hands, indicates that BNP was in a hurry.

There is no denying that the party has a strategy in place to achieve its goal of the next election being held under a nonpartisan, election-time government. But it seems that the plan may not be as well thought out as BNP supporters would like. The party's leadership felt charged up seeing the large-scale turnout in the rally, but they underestimated the government's strength and strategic abilities. This explains why BNP couldn't succeed entirely in its programme, and now seems to have backtracked from its tough stance. After the sit-in, the party announced demos in districts and cities across Bangladesh, which is a deviation from its Dhaka-centric plans. The lack of coordination and confidence in terms of holding large rallies and showdown-like programmes can demoralise grassroots BNP supporters, who are paying a high price for the erroneous judgement calls of the party's top brass.

Read more

Can BNP really put up a good fight?

For the longest time, BNP has argued that the government and law enforcement agencies are obstructing their peaceful rallies, and the events which unfolded on July 29 has once again lent credence to their clams. The attack by ruling party men, in the presence of the law enforcement agencies, has laid bare just how "democratic" the government will be in the lead up to the elections. Of course, some BNP men did engage in violent activities during the sit-ins, but the previous programmes of BNP were largely peaceful, despite instigations. Either way, BNP knows that any violence from its own party will eventually work against itself. And this time, the party is being careful as it was accused of conducting arson attacks in 2013 and trying to sabotage the January 5, 2014 election.

Back in 2013, the party did not come up with alternative strategies when they saw that the blockades were not working. At least this time around, they have backtracked from their plans and proposed an alternative when they realised that the sit-in had failed. This could be interpreted as the party being more mature and wiser in its current decisions.

Read more

What is the point of attacking BNP rallies?

BNP's real loss in all this was giving the upper hand to the ruling party. There was no doubt that the ruling party felt pressure, especially after the composed and largely organised grand rally. But the following day, when ruling party cadres were able to easily disperse the BNP demonstrators, it worked like a morale-boosting tonic for the former. They felt more confident about being on the streets and not giving anything away to the BNP. This was essential for the Awami League at a time when it seemed to be under pressure from different directions to hold a free and fair election. Now it remains to be seen whether BNP can once again revive their momentum and give the ruling party a run for their money.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

The government has turned down Khaleda Zia's family's application to allow her to be taken abroad for urgent treatment, which her lawyer and her party leaders have termed as a political vendetta. The government's reasoning, as explained by Law Minister Anisul Huq, was that the application, on which the government has suspended the jail sentence of Khaleda Zia and released her from jail on two conditions, has been disposed of and has become a "past and closed transaction." The minister also said that the decision to suspend her sentence was made under Section 401(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

This refusal to allow treatment abroad could not have come at a worse time, as the former prime minister's continuous illness has reached a critical stage, with life-threatening conditions. Besides, political distrust and division in the country over the coming election, too, have become highly charged. Against this context, it is hard to discard the notion that politics played no part in this decision from the government.

Read more

‘Govt wants Khaleda dead’

It is still unclear what rekindled the hope of her family and party that the BNP chief's treatment abroad could be possible, despite the fact that several attempts in the past have been flatly rejected by the government, citing the same law and argument which the law minister has referred to in his latest legal opinion. Reportedly, Khaleda Zia told her partymen not to agree to participating in the next parliamentary election under the current government in exchange for her medical care abroad.

It, therefore, begs this question: was the life of a politician, of such stature, really made a bargaining chip by either of the parties? The question became even more pertinent when the law minister, responding to reporters' queries on September 24, said that the government did not receive any application from her family seeking permission to take her abroad.

It followed the government's decision to extend Khaleda Zia's conditional release from prison for six more months, based on a separate application filed on September 4. As a result of the law minister's suggestive remarks that the family had not sought permission for her treatment abroad, Khaleda's younger brother Shamim Iskander made another application on September 25 seeking the required approval.

Read more

Khaleda has to return to jail first if she wants to go abroad for treatment: PM

Should we believe that the issue of seeking permission afresh was brought about simply to humiliate the political opponent by reminding them of how "powerless" they are? Questions may also arise about whether the arguments of considering the petition "disposed of" and "a past and closed transaction" are tenable.

It is often said that the law will take its own course. But examples are plenty to prove that the incident at hand was simply political rhetoric. If someone compares the fate of the 78-year-old former prime minister with that of some other politicians, such as Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal leader ASM Abdur Rab, the irony becomes evident. The JSD leader was allowed to go to then West Germany for treatment while he was serving his prison term awarded by a martial law court. Another politician, Haji Mohammad Selim – who belongs to the ruling party – was not barred from travelling to Bangkok for his treatment despite being convicted and ordered to surrender, and having had a record of fleeing the country during the tenure of the caretaker government between 2006 and 2008.

Law Minister Anisul Huq said, "Once an application is disposed of under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), there is no scope to reconsider it under the law." Many other jurists, however, do not agree with his interpretation of the law as there is nothing that bars the government or limits its authority to reconsider its decision. Every law is subject to interpretation, and there are variations in interpretations. Among these variations – except the court's interpretation – some are known as literal, and some are mischievous or intended to create mischief.

Read more

Khaleda Zia in politics: Missed chance for BNP?

Amid the contested claims by the government and by BNP, it would be better to read Section 401 of the CrPC and draw one's own conclusion. Under the title "Power to suspend or remit sentences," the law states in Section 401(1), "When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the Government may at any time without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced."

Additionally, Section 401(6) says, "The Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with." As the literal meaning of the rule is far from convincing, it would be wiser for the government to reconsider its decision, which may help improve the current political environment in the country.

Kamal Ahmed is an independent journalist. His X handle is @ahmedka1

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission. 

The contrast between what the government promised opposition political parties and its actions on the ground couldn't be starker, as a rundown on the 22 days of BNP's ongoing countrywide protest programme shows. What the government promised them was – peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. What they are actually having is – violent assembly and fear of speech/reprisals. While this turnabout is politics 101 in Bangladesh, it also begs the question: was the promise of fair play, and the congeniality expressed in the PM's "Will offer BNP leaders tea if they come to besiege my office" comment, at all meant to be taken seriously?

A report by Prothom Alo shows that between August 22 and September 13, violent attacks and clashes were reported in 48 events of BNP organised as part of a countrywide protest programme against the price hikes of fuel and daily essentials and also the deaths of two of its activists in police shooting in Bhola. Multiple people were injured so far, with BNP claiming to have lost three of its activists as of September 4. In 25 places, houses, vehicles and business establishments of its leaders and activists were vandalised, many of them having since left their neighbourhoods in fear of further reprisals. And in 17 places, section 144 was issued because of Awami League events overlapping with BNP's. Finally, 46 cases were filed in 18 districts.

What we're witnessing is downright denial of political space to the opposition camp. It reminds us of the acrimonious circumstances leading up to the controversial 2014 and 2018 elections.

Bizarrely, though, the official line puts the blame for violence on BNP itself, as if the party brought this all on itself in some sick display of self-loathing or to discredit itself. The truth is, it is the police that stands discredited, firstly because of its partisan role in handling the protests, and secondly, because of its heavy-handed and rather collusive legal response. As a breakdown of the 46 clash-related cases illustrates, 29 were filed by the police and 17 by the leaders of Awami League and affiliated organisations, mostly against their rivals in BNP and affiliated organisations. The total number of accused are 21,709. Of them, 2,777 were named and the rest unnamed – a classic formula to allow for more names to be added later. More damningly, however, the abovementioned report says that a number of accused were sick, old or overseas, meaning they were nowhere near the protest sites.

Read more

Attacks on BNP a worrying sign for the future

What we're witnessing is downright denial of political space to the opposition camp. It reminds us of the acrimonious circumstances leading up to the controversial 2014 and 2018 elections. This, it goes without saying, is not amenable to creating the level playing field so essential for a fair, safe, and participatory election. As things stand, the ruling camp, despite what it said officially and despite demands by independent parties to protect people's right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, appears totally unwilling to allow the opposition to reach the ears of the masses.

This is totally unacceptable. We urge the authorities, including the Election Commission, to ensure the opposition is allowed to protest and prepare for the upcoming election. The ruling party must discipline its activists and the police and keep them from infringing upon these inalienable rights of the opposition.

That the BNP chief Khaleda Zia would not be directly involved in her party's activities or politics has been a moot point since February 2018, when she was jailed on corruption charges. BNP's failed movement to release Khaleda from jail seemed to further ensure that her days in politics had indeed come to an end – although the matter has made headlines recently, thanks to the contradictory comments made by the ruling Awami League leaders. With the next parliamentary election less than a year away, the matter has understandably gained much attention.

Khaleda Zia's legal rights notwithstanding, the BNP, which is effectively the main opposition camp in Bangladesh, smells a rat in all this. Party insiders suggest that the ruling party is intentionally reviving the issue as a topic of debate. The ruling party leaders, on their part, counter that they have no intention of bringing the issue to the fore, but have just explained what is written in the executive order on the basis of which the 77-year-old BNP chief walked out from jail on health grounds.

Read more

Debate if Khaleda can do Politics: Her health more pressing question

The debate on whether Khaleda could come back to politics began when senior Awami League lawmaker Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim said on January 26 that she had been released from prison "with an undertaking" not to get involved in politics. It took a new turn when Law Minister Anisul Huq and Agriculture Minister Abdur Razzaque said she could indeed make a comeback to the country's political scene, but not contest elections, only to be countered by Information Minister Hasan Mahmud and Road Transport and Bridges Minister Obaidul Quader.

Amid this debate, the BNP has decided to be extra cautious. With the election round the corner, any mistake could cost them dearly as the party has been out of power for three consecutive terms. In the last two elections, they took different approaches that brought them the same outcome: nothing.

There are at least four possible scenarios for which the BNP suspects the Awami League has intentionally revived the Khaleda Zia issue.

First, the BNP has been rather successful in their street campaign to push its 10-point charter of demands, including a general election under a non-partisan interim administration. Many were sceptical about the party's organisational strength to wage any such campaign. Many even mocked the party for thinking of a campaign on the streets. But the BNP proved everyone wrong and has been running a successful campaign with wide public support, challenging the ruling party with huge rallies. The recent discussion about Khaleda, according to BNP insiders, is to throw the party off its game; the street campaign will be defused as leaders would get busy talking about the party chief.

Second, there is a "pressure" on the government to hold an inclusive and credible election. Without the participation of the opposition BNP, the next election would not be an inclusive one. So, the issue of Khaleda's engagement in active politics could be a ploy to get the BNP to come to the table for talks.

Third, the party fears that if Khaleda Zia becomes active in politics, the government may suspend the executive order that allowed the former premier to get out of jail. The government might claim that since Khaleda is active in politics, she must be in good health, and hence must go back to jail.

Fourth, since Khaleda has been in jail, her elder son and the party's Acting Chairman Tarique Rahman has been at the helm of the party. The current campaign has also been taking place under his leadership. Those who don't like Tarique's leadership within the BNP, however, have no option but to go along.

Read more

Protest Programmes: BNP plans to get back momentum

The party, so long as it is under Tarique's leadership, is adamant about not joining the polls under the Sheikh Hasina government. So, if that section of leaders brought Khaleda back to politics, it would create enough of a buzz for the old guards to rally around the former prime minister. That would challenge Tarique's leadership within the party and, at the same time, it would be possible to send Khaleda back to jail, and split the party and bring a section of the party to the election to make it inclusive.

Whatever the case may be, the BNP leadership has decided to remain quiet for now. What is almost certain, however, is that in politics, one does not get a second chance to seize the initiative. And the BNP appears to have lost its chance. The party leaders could well have tested the waters with a countermove soon after the law and agriculture ministers' comments. What if they had mentioned that Khaleda would speak to the press shortly? Or that she would address a public meeting remotely from her home? What would have happened? At best, she would have had half an hour that would be the most covered and most watched news event in quite some time. At worst, she would be sent to jail and the BNP would have another reason to take to the streets with a stronger resolve for the 10-point demand. What is certain is that it would have tested the ruling Awami League's sincerity or resolve.

The BNP's current risk-averse behaviour is not conducive to running a successful campaign. Electoral politics needs quite a lot more pluck.

Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.

After Wednesday's deadly violence at Naya Paltan, there is only one direction in which the ruling establishment can look – inward. What could it possibly gain from a heavy-handed confrontation and raid on the central office of BNP? Was it to orchestrate a situation that would paint the party in a bad light? Was it a message that a mobilisation of this scale at the heart of the capital will not be tolerated? Was it to suppress BNP's months-long movement? Whatever the motive was, it's unlikely to work in the long run. If anything, the ruling camp has come out from the whole exercise looking flustered and rather desperate in the face of a resurgent opposition.

Read more

Why this relentless assault on BNP?

The government, therefore, must look inward before it moves forward on this issue. True, given how BNP has promoted its December 10 rally as the culmination of a "mass upsurge" against an "anti-people" government, it has the potential of reaching a flashpoint. But rallies held by BNP in other divisions in the build-up to December 10 have been mostly peaceful, meaning that any objection to its holding one at Naya Paltan has less to do with law and order than with political considerations. After all, BNP has held some 11 small and large gatherings in front of its central office over the last three months. If police were not bothered about them before, why are they now?

Read more

What is the Awami League afraid of?

BNP must look inward, too. After all, it could have softened its stance on its choice of venue – which ostensibly led to Wednesday's chaos. It could have chosen Suhrawardy Udyan, regardless of the restrictions it says this might put on its rally, or shift the venue away from the city, as it did during the Faridpur rally. But the stringent conditions imposed on its venue selection may make any compromise look like a defeat to Awami League, a fact validated by the latter's toughening of its anti-BNP stance even after the Naya Paltan mayhem. Reportedly, police have declared the area a "crime zone". Meanwhile, more than 1,900 BNP leaders and activists have been sued over the clash, while about 450 of them have been arrested and produced before court. The media has also reported various forms of obstruction to movement around the city, like those reported during previous rallies, potentially to discourage participants.

Read more

Please spare us your ‘khela’

What all this shows is how the prospect of peace is getting dimmer by the hour. Still, as a newspaper that has always stood for democratic rights and freedoms, we feel duty-bound to call for an end to this unsavoury display of confrontational politics. Our appeal may well be unheard, but we must still stress on the importance of allowing BNP to hold its rally, unimpeded. Any lingering of tensions in this regard serves none of the parties involved, certainly not the public. We must remember that any pursuit of peace through violence or heavy-handedness is nothing but a political dead end, which we can ill-afford given how high the stakes are ahead of the next election.