Activists of Awami League today allegedly set fire to a house and a poultry farm and vandalised at least two houses of BNP supporters at Shibganj upazila of Chapainawabganj district.
AL men went to Boro Chak area around 11:30am and vandalised two to three houses and also set fire to the house of Jewel and poultry farm of Aminul Islam, our Chapainawabganj correspondent reports quoting officer-in-charge of Shibganj Police Station.
Locals brought the flame under control before fire-fighting units could reach the spot, the correspondent said.
However, Sarwar Jahan Sentu, BNP office secretary of Shibganj upazila unit, claimed that a group of AL vandalised four houses of local BNP supporters.
No one was injured in the incident.
Related News
Body:
We may all breathe a sigh of relief that the brouhaha over the EVMs is finally over, with the Election Commission deciding to forego the use of the electronic machines in the upcoming parliamentary election citing a lack of funds. Since it was first introduced in 2018, there have been widespread fear about its fool-proofness to electoral tampering; in particular, concerns were raised about the audit cards via which election results are collected, which are vulnerable to manipulation in the absence of a voter-verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT). Despite strong reservations from many political parties, including the BNP, and civil society actors, the EC, till now, seemed hell-bent on going ahead with its decision to use EVMs, finalising a massive Tk 8,711 crore project for EVM procurement and management last year.
We are glad that the EC has finally seen reason, if only in consideration of the enormous expenses that the project would entail. Back when the proposal was first made, we had warned the EC against such an expensive undertaking in the midst of the worst economic and cost-of-living crisis in over a decade, particularly given that Bangladesh was buying the EVMs at inflated costs. Now that the EC has retracted its position, we wonder what will happen to the 150,000 EVMs already bought in phases since 2018, at 11 times the price of the machines in India. EVMs worth Tk 642 crore have already become unusable for a lack of proper storage facility and maintenance, according to EC documents. We urge the EC to make sure that our remaining stock – paid with taxpayers' money – are stored properly so that they may be used in the future, if and when it is decided, through political consensus, to switch to EVMs.
While the decision to scrap the EVMs is a step in the right direction, the EC must not lose sight of the fact that there are many other pressing issues that it must address before the public, and other political parties can be confident that the upcoming elections will be free, fair and participatory. Foremost among them is ensuring full independence of the EC, and guaranteeing the ever-illusive "level-playing field" for all political parties. Unfortunately, the performance of the EC in the by-elections, except for one notable exception, has not inspired confidence in its ability to rise above and rein in party politics. As it tries to engage with other political parties and to ensure them of its neutrality, the commission needs to remember that it is only through its commitment to the electoral process – rather than the party in power – that it can inspire faith about its ability to guide the nation to a democratic future.
The EC must also prove its ability to ensure compliance of the administration and law enforcement in playing their part in defending the democratic process. It must not be seen as reflecting the increasingly intolerant stance of the government towards critics, human rights defenders and the media.
The BNP, on its end, must forego its propensity to reject any and all proposal and initiatives of the EC, without due consideration or discussion. Such wholesale rejection will not produce constructive results, and risks jeopardising not just future prospects for the party, but the country at large.
Body:
Hearing the ruling party's general secretary say that the BNP's October 28 rally in the capital would face a similar reaction as did the one on December 10 last year, we can now gauge what the intention of the government is. Perhaps, many of us have already started adjusting our diaries, out of fear of violence or to avoid harassment in the name of heightened security. The possibility of another unannounced shutdown (better to be called a hartal enforced by the supporters of the ruling party) may also encourage them to leave Dhaka simply to avoid any additional suffering.
The warning given to BNP by Awami League General Secretary Obaidul Quader for its expressed intent is undoubtedly worrying and deplorable. On the other hand, it is also an admission that the government did crack down on the opposition on December 7, 2022, for which they had so far put the blame on BNP's alleged subversive activities.
Many questions still remain unanswered as to why the government was so desperate to deter BNP from holding a mass rally in front of the latter's central office, to the extent that police had to storm the party office in Nayapaltan, clear the whole area, and term it a no-go zone for about a week. Can anyone forget that a simple dispute over a venue had caused so much trouble not even a year ago?
There's little doubt that the government's refusal to participate in open talks with the opposition – and find a way of holding a credible election according to international standards – is prolonging BNP's agitation. To make things worse, the ruling party's counter programmes, aimed at keeping a hold on the streets, have already caused trouble across the country as AL members have interpreted this as a directive to deny the opposition any space for holding protests.
In the end, the authorities did allow BNP to hold its grand rally on the day, only a few kilometres away. But in the meantime, one person had to die, tens of people were injured, and a couple of the opposition's top leaders were imprisoned. It was then reported that police had fired at least 1,780 rounds of rubber bullets, tear gas canisters, and sound grenades during the clash. Instead of a supposedly day-long disruption to normal city life, it became such a prolonged nightmare for citizens that the restriction of their movement did not stop at random frisking/checking of people and vehicles, but also infringed their rights to privacy by way of law enforcers going through the contents of citizens' personal mobile phones.
The violent suppression of the opposition's protest also alarmed the international community. Expressing concerns over reports of intimidation, political violence, harassment by police, arrests of opposition party members, and restrictions on the ability of opposition parties to meet and hold peaceful rallies, the United States called for guaranteeing the right to peaceful assembly and refraining from using excessive force against protesters. The UN and a number of rights groups also joined voices in support of allowing peaceful protests.
Early indications, such as suing and detaining opposition activists on charges of alleged "subversion," suggest that the threat of the December 10 situation being repeated should not be taken lightly. Despite the fact that the nature of our politics is historically confrontational, the current round of protests spearheaded by BNP is reasonably peaceful. But the vocabulary used by leaders of the ruling party, and by Obaidul Quader in particular, seem to be aimed at fuelling anger and escalating tension. Human Rights Watch has already called it, saying "threats against opposition leaders undermine election integrity." Quader's earlier warnings include a threat of "pouring uranium" on the head of BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and not allowing him to return to Dhaka.
Many observers have hoped that the ruling party will change its strategy and strive to improve the political climate ahead of the election, since the government has been seen trying to convince the international community that it will deliver a free and fair election. Despite this pledge, the international community is far from convinced due to the controversies surrounding the elections in 2014 and 2018. The current Election Commission, too, has admitted that it's been a victim of the fallout of those sham elections. Given this context, the US announced a visa policy regarding "individuals responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh."
There's little doubt that the government's refusal to participate in open talks with the opposition – and find a way of holding a credible election according to international standards – is prolonging BNP's agitation. To make things worse, the ruling party's counter programmes, aimed at keeping a hold on the streets, have already caused trouble across the country as AL members have interpreted this as a directive to deny the opposition any space for holding protests.
It is quite perplexing why the government seems set to repeat the measures that led to horrifying consequences between December 7 and 11 in 2022. No one wants to see the SWAT being deployed in battle gear to tackle a political protest. If a political party wants to stage a sit-in protest, why should they be denied that right? Didn't the Awami League itself stage such protests many years ago, and in order to demand the introduction of a caretaker government system, no less?
In any case, resolving differences over election management, instead of suppressing protest, would also be in the best interests of the country's economy. The US visa policy, undeniably, has unnerved our business community the most as they can ill afford any penalty imposed on the economy, which has already been experiencing its devastating shocks.
Kamal Ahmedis 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.
Body:
Events leading to the schedule announcement of our 12th parliamentary election appear to be eerily similar to those before the previous two much discredited and disputed elections. This time, apart from serious disagreements among the most potent challengers centring the election management process, the Election Commission's consistently inconsistent statements and decisions show that it lacks the courage and capacity to act decisively and independently. Otherwise, Chief Election Commissioner Kazi Habibul Awal's address to the nation would not have been full of contradictions.
CEC Awal admitted that "the EC has been noticing differences among the political leadership regarding the polls, particularly on the issue of the institutional system of elections," and that "consensus and solutions are needed," but announced the voting schedule without any resolution of the disputes. He then expects the nation to trust him when he says, "We believe the upcoming polls will be free and fair, impartial, participatory, and peaceful."
He said, for a free, fair, inclusive, and festive election, there is a need for a conducive political environment, but leaves the responsibility for creating it on the parties entangled in an existential fight. He again contradicted himself when he said "... if conflict and violence take place due to differences, instability can be created, which will have a negative impact on the election process," but in the same breath urged the people "to go to polling centres in festivity and exercise their voting rights freely, keeping aside all concerns, anxieties, and discomforts." The CEC then reminded the nation that "meaningful competition is an essential element of an election," but didn't explain how the next election could be meaningfully competitive without participation of the ruling party's main challenger and several other political parties.
Other events that have proved the EC's inability and partisan behaviour towards the ruling party include its failure to deal with gross irregularities in local government and parliamentary by-elections, granting registration to two unknown and dubious parties, declining registrations for a number of well-known parties on shallow grounds, and entertaining discredited election observers associated with the ruling party—who brought in fake foreign observers—and enlisting them as local poll monitors despite earlier rejection.
Such inconsistencies are nothing new. The EC has repeatedly said one thing and did something other than that, if not the opposite. A more disturbing trend has also emerged, in which we see the EC secretary cancelling out the CEC's observations. The most recent one is secretary Md Jahangir Alam's assertion a week ago that a conducive environment to announce the schedule of the next general election exists, though the CEC in his address to the nation decried its absence and urged all parties to reach a consensus. One may wonder whether the CEC would exercise his authority over the administration and replace the secretary who is clearly out of line. Former election commissioner late Mahbub Talukder's book, Nirbachonnama, bears the testimony of how the EC secretariat served its political masters instead of the constitutional body.
Other events that have proved the EC's inability and partisan behaviour towards the ruling party include its failure to deal with gross irregularities in local government and parliamentary by-elections, granting registration to two unknown and dubious parties, declining registrations for a number of well-known parties on shallow grounds, and entertaining discredited election observers associated with the ruling party—who brought in fake foreign observers—and enlisting them as local poll monitors despite earlier rejection. These events suggest that the EC is either giving in to pressure from some powerful quarters, or it lacks the required skills and independence to regulate the crucial elements of a genuine election.
Ignoring substantial opposition to holding a one-sided election, the EC has argued that it has a constitutional obligation to hold the election in time. However, the commission has conveniently forgotten that it also has a constitutional obligation "to ensure effective participation of the people" (Article 11 in Part II of the constitution, under the title "Fundamental Principles of the State Policy"). Footnotes in the most updated version of the constitution—available on the official website of the law ministry—reminds us that the part about the "effective participation of the people" was omitted by the fourth amendment and again inserted (following a national consensus to revert to a parliamentary system) by the 12th amendment in 1991. Should we be sacrificing effective participation of the people in the name of constitutionalism, albeit, which has been amended (by the 15th amendment) allegedly in an unconstitutional manner?
Effective participation of the people is not only a national requirement, but an international one too. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states, "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
On November 16, 2023, the global body representing parliamentarians of the world, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) published a new tool called the Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, which offers a new approach to measuring parliamentary capacity, resilience, and performance. It devised 25 indicators to evaluate the parliament's own strengths and weaknesses, and one of those indicators is electoral integrity. In judging the electoral integrity, IPU sets the criteria as such: "In practice, elections take place regularly. A significant proportion of citizens participate in these elections. Elections are competitive and citizens' fundamental rights are respected before, during and after election day."
Rescheduling the national election is neither impossible nor without precedence. It was rescheduled, though by seven days only, in the not-too-distant past, in 2018. If parties can agree on the way forward, buying some additional time for holding the election is also possible, as the counting of 90 days can begin afresh if the parliament is dissolved. It is true that the history of dialogue between the two archrivals—Awami League and BNP—is an unhappy one, but there were exceptions, too, such as during the 1991 amendment for returning to the parliamentary form of government.
It may sound superstitious, but the day fixed for voting is a Sunday, the same day of the week the last two sham elections—January 5, 2014 and December 30, 2018—were held on. The last time the people in Bangladesh freely voted was not on a Sunday, but on a Monday. We need a genuine election, not another sham one.
Kamal Ahmedis 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.
Body:
The Awami League is set to hold a public rally in Rajshahi on January 29. Party leaders and activists have been taking preparations to ensure that it will be a mammoth one. As the national election is just a year away, such public rallies will basically turn into election campaign rallies. So, aspiring candidates will try to get as many bodies as possible on the streets to reflect the range of their strength and support.
In all of this, one piece of news caught my eye. A special train is set to take Awami League leaders and activists to Rajshahi from Natore to attend the rally on January 29. State Minister for Information and Communication Technology, Zunaid Ahmed Palak, told journalists that the special train will not affect the schedule of regular trains. He also said that the AL men would pay for the ride.
But another report stated that AL lawmaker Habibe Millat Munna of Sirajganj has rented a special train of 15 coaches for the Rajshahi rally.
Can a political party – regardless of whether they are in power or in opposition – use public property to attend a party rally? And is this option available to any citizen, for any political party?
In September last year, the main opposition camp, BNP, announced divisional rallies protesting the killing of BNP men, hike of electricity and fuel prices, and to demand the release of party leader Khaleda Zia. Almost all their rallies were obstructed by the ruling party, directly and indirectly. The same thing happened when the BNP held its rally in Rajshahi. A transport strike was "called" across the entire division on the morning of December 1. Rajshahi city was practically cut off from the rest of the country.
At the time, ruling party leaders and ministers said that transport owners and workers had enforced strikes and that they had nothing to do with them. But we also witnessed the transport strike being withdrawn soon after the BNP rally ended. We also found that mobile internet services were disrupted around the venue on the day. We saw how BNP activists were obstructed and, perhaps more importantly, how the general people suffered as a consequence.
As a journalist, I covered some of the BNP rallies and found the same narrative to be true. I saw how a single-day rally turned into a three-day rally. For the BNP, there were transport strikes so that its supporters and sympathisers could not join. For the Awami League, there were arrangements of special trains so that party faithfuls could join the rally in droves.
Our political culture has taken such a turn that we take for granted that the ruling party will get some special treatment when they hold rallies, and the opposition is bound to face obstruction for doing the same. What happened centring on BNP's rallies is actually normal and, it appears, so is what's about to happen on January 29 in Rajshahi (that is, the special train for Awami League's rally).
This new normal is currently the most pressing problem in Bangladeshi politics. We used to hear the phrase "level playing field," but when the caretaker government system was abolished following a court order, opposition parties and many civil society members said there wouldn't be a level playing field anymore. And a free and fair election would not be possible if a level playing field is not ensured. But ever since the 2014 election, the term "level playing field" appears to have evaporated from our political vocabulary, speeches, discussions, and even from rhetoric. That is the new normal.
As distrust, fuelled by intolerance, widens among the two major political camps, and the path towards mutual understanding is basically shunned, this new normal will push the whole nation into an abyss of political uncertainty that is far from normal.
Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is deputy chief reporter at The Daily Star.
Body:
In my last column preceding BNP's October 28 rally, I said that the day would be important for both the main opposition and the ruling Awami League, and the party getting the upper hand in the rally would be ahead in the upcoming general election. After the rally, it became crystal clear that the ruling party got the upper hand, while the opposition faced a setback as it had not been prepared for the violence that unfolded on the day, driving the BNP members away from the rally venue. There is no doubt that the country is heading towards a long-drawn confrontational politics ahead of the election. True, the rival camps were already at loggerheads, but the situation just worsened after the fateful rally.
Let's look at the opposition camp first. BNP, which has remained out of power for 17 years, has been holding rallies and road marches in Dhaka and around the country peacefully as part of its anti-government campaign for the last one and a half years, drawing increasingly large crowds. Until the grand rally in Nayapaltan, Dhaka on October 28, the party was successful in keeping its street programmes peaceful—despite provocative rhetoric from some AL leaders and non-cooperation from the law enforcers. Throughout the non-violent movement, BNP was also able to distance itself from the violent street programmes that it had launched before the 2014 election. At the time, the party faced severe criticism at home and abroad for mindless violence and arson attacks, killing and injuring many, to foil the election. However, throughout its current movement, BNP high-ups announced their street agitation programmes very carefully, and were able to keep their activists in check during demonstrations.
But it suffered a setback as the October 28 rally suddenly turned violent, leaving a policeman and a BNP leader dead, and injuring scores more, as campaigners clashed with the police. The day also saw a return of vandalism and arson attacks on vehicles. Could this violence have been averted? I think it most certainly could have. BNP leaders should have had more of the restraint and patience that they had shown earlier. Media reports said BNP men attacked AL activists, and then police and the Awami League men went on to disperse the BNP members from the rally. The police's role was questionable from the beginning, since they were instrumental in barring thousands of BNP activists from entering Dhaka to attend the rally.
This violence triggered BNP to go for the typical hartals and blockades. Many of the party leaders said they had no option but to toughen up their programmes as their peaceful rallies had not been effective. The government did not pay heed to their demands at all, so it was inevitable that at one point BNP would have to employ tougher measures such as general strikes and blockades to bring life to a halt. But it had intended to do that much later, if at all; what happened on October 28 forced its hand. Regardless, given how the current regime has everything under its iron-fisted control, BNP's chances of success in having its demands realised appear to be very slim.
The more interesting point concerns Jamaat-e-Islami. It did not get permission to hold a rally. The media reported that police would be very tough if Jamaat made any such attempts. But we saw that Jamaat held it peacefully and police did not obstruct it. Why Jamaat was allowed to have a rally is not clear. True, Jamaat is not a banned political party. But how were they allowed to hold it without permission? The curious case of Jamaat may answer many questions regarding BNP's violent rally.
The ruling Awami League is upbeat after the rally. Although very few ruling party members took to the streets on the rally day, they were there carrying sticks. Police and the ruling party men were on the streets to contain the BNP and Jamaat. But then, that is not quite the role of the ruling party men, is it? One must ask: who gave the AL men the authority to guard the streets with sticks? If they have to take to the streets to protect public property, what are the police supposed to do? This trend is nothing new in Bangladesh's politics, though; it seems to have become the norm.
One can assume that after the October 28 rally, the ruling party is feeling relieved about the upcoming election, and will possibly be unchallenged in the battle for the ballot. BNP has been saying that it will not take part in the election if it is held under the current regime, but the way BNP is cornered with most of its senior leaders on the run or in custody, it is almost impossible for the party to join the polls anyway.
Awami League General Secretary Obaidul Quader has warned the BNP against tough programmes. Referring to what happened at Shapla Chattar in Dhaka on May 5, 2013, he said the consequences would be far worse for the BNP. Addressing a massive rally of AL's youth wing at Bangabandhu Avenue on Monday afternoon, he said, "What happened at Shapla Chattar that night? Didn't they flee? Didn't they run away? I do not want to say it, but BNP will have a more tragic end. Sheikh Hasina does not bow down and fears no one except Allah."
It is unfortunate for a nation that it could not devise an election strategy that would ensure a safe and peaceful transfer of power and ensure people's voting rights after five decades of independence. It's a matter of shame for us, and our politicians are to blame for this. Many people asked me who won in the October 28 rally. In reply, I said no matter who won, it's the people who lost.
Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is chief reporter at The Daily Star.
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.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
