PMO's rejoinder
Our attention has been drawn to the commentary titled 'Lessons from NCC verdicts. Ivy, Shamim cannot be treated alike' written by Mahfuz Anam in The Daily Star on 04 November 2011.
In his commentary Mr Anam brought some unfounded and imaginary allegations against Prime Minister and Awami League President Sheikh Hasina.
We have found it difficult to understand what went wrong in holding meeting by the Prime Minister with the winning and losing candidates together. What is the wrong if the winning and defeated candidates are treated alike? Rather, treating both alike should be the norms in democratic polity.
It is quite astonishing that Mr Anam, who often in his writings advocates for reconciliation and rapprochement, could castigate the Prime Minister for having meeting with the winning and defeated candidates of NCC polls. Mahfuz Anam time and again had called for holding meeting between AL President Sheikh Hasina and BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia whose party bagged only 29 seats in the 2008 election and overwhelmingly rejected by the people. Now, when Sheikh Hasina took initiatives for reconciliation among her two party candidates, he found wrong with it. Isn't it a double-standard?
The comments of Mr Anam remind us the medieval 'victorious takes it all' theory where defeated had no voice and no right to survive. If he sticks to this proposition, then BNP-Jamaat would not have any choice to do politics in the country. Look at US President Barack Obama. He picked up his rival candidate Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
Both Selina Hayat Ivy and Shamim Osman are Awami Leagues' active leaders and both of them contested in the NCC polls. As party Chief while meeting with them before withdrawal of nominations papers, Sheikh Hasina did not impose her decision either on them. Rather, she let them stay in the fray to win the hearts of the electorates.
Awami League officially or unofficially did not lend support to any candidate. It's true that some of the central and local leaders of Awami League extended support to Shamim Osman, but many party leaders equally supported and worked for Ivy. The party high command did not restrain anyone from doing so. So, there is no question of lending support to Shamim Osman from the part of the Prime Minister. What Mahfuz Anam mentioned in his piece is unfounded and completely imaginary.
There is nothing wrong to advise the winning and defeated candidates to work together, especially when both were from the same party. Whereas Mr Anam should appreciate the Prime Minister's noble effort to sink the differences, if any, between them for the betterment of the people of Narayanganj, rather he discovered mischief in it. It's really painful!
Sheikh Hasina has been doing politics for the country's down-trodden people. She is the people's leader; she is the daughter of Father of Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Sheikh Hasina is not an intruder in politics. She has reached today's position with the blessings of the people. So, it is not prudent to make remark that Sheikh Hasina had failed to gauge the people's mood.
Prime Minister and AL President Sheikh Hasina does not believe in muscle or money power. She is an ardent believer of people's power. So, weighing others with Sheikh Hasina in regard to patronizing muscle power is mischievous and ill-conceived.
OUR RESPONSE
We take note of the rejoinder from the Prime Minister's Office to the commentary, 'Lessons from NCC/Ivy, Shamim cannot be treated alike'.
We appreciate this attempt to engage with the media and through them, with the wider public. We invite more such engagements.
We, however, leave it to our readers to judge the merit of our commentary.
Comments