Let the policy of Give and Take win

[This was published in Dhaka Courier on 08 November 2013]

Needless to utter twice that an unprecedented but unfair and unacceptable mockery is on in the political firmament of Bangladesh centering  the point between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Leader of the Opposition Begum Khaleda Zia as to who should be first to call each other breaking the silence between them. Few days ago it was Sheikh Hasina who initiated the move to break the long-standing face-off between them and now it should logically be expected that the turn is for Begum Khaleda Zia. Everybody is aware of their wretched dialogue that generated more distrusts, hatred and distance instead of better understanding and amity. The very telephonic talks between them may also be called a ‘kind of tug of war without having reflection of any national interests’. It was in fact a brief history of the somber confrontational political stands of the two leading stalwarts of Bangladesh upon who rests at present the fate of the nation and democratic order and necessary processes.

Sheikh Hasin, eldest daughter of the father of the nation Bagabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, is Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, widow of the valiant freedom fighter and Founder of BNP late Ziaur Rahman ,is  Khaleda Zia with all their relevant traits and ingredients. Both are carrying the legacies plus loaded political background for a long.  We know of their respective approaches to the ensuing poll-time government, which is diametrically opposed to each other. Each of them is firm, pigheaded and uncompromising on their particular stands. Both of them, of course, from their own mathematics and arts are gearing the fostered- political stand-off and on all counts it deserves to be settled politically. There are three options i.e. (a) Through Domestic initiative or (b) through external initiative or (c) through both external and internal initiative.

History bears testimonies that in the past, remote or immediate, domestic initiatives failed mostly because of the non-buoyancy of the opposing stands of the two major political parties AL and BNP. External initiative got upper hand at the backdrop of overseas prying in the name of friendly cooperation and the failures of the parties concerned at home. Accordingly, route in-between the two is not so dominantly evident. The ongoing political landscape and the role of foreign powers in particular USA, India and European Union now carry the repetition of this actuality in a more exposed mood and mode. Further noting is that China is also poking nose for the first time since its ties with Bangladesh after the changeover of 1975. I apprehend that if the trends are allowed to go unheeded and unchecked that days are not far away when even Bhutan shall start feeling free to talk on the political issues in Bangladesh. What a wonderful application and implication of Vienna Convention in this land of golden Bangladesh!

Moreover, civil societies in Bangladesh because of their recapitualistic stand and understanding could not come to the forefront, although there were lot of opportunities and reasons to do so. Truly speaking, civil societies in Bangladesh are nowadays exceedingly divided into two contrasting blocs under the silhouettes of the two key political parties. Questions arise in acute form and dimension, are they compelled to do so or are they free whatever role they like to play for the greater interest of the nation? Is there any possibility to emerge a current, which does not belong to any of them as a whole?

Replies are clean and clear that those civil societies and think-tanks are born and nursed along the very lines of the politics of AL and BNP and hence, there is hardly any avenue for the emergence of independent voice. Brain-mortgage, short-time or long-time, and brain-sale and so on are number one threat in this jurisdiction. In today’s Bangladesh independent voice means voice of the feeble, which is less heard and less publicized in all respects.  They are, speaking in the superlatives, very much cornered politically, administratively, economically, culturally even socially as if ‘orphans’ without guardians(political silhouette) In the field. Therefore, it is better and wiser to forget for the time being the weights of the ongoing civil societies and think-tanks despite the reality that there as well exists, survives and continues very few civil societies and think-tanks with a sort of soft-independent standing in the face of Himalayan challenges, intimidations, harassments and limitations. Let us salute them with due respect and flavor.

Therefore, if the very interference is to be minimized or diminished the best option lies before us is to see the taking place of dialogue between Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia for an amicable and acceptable solution for a poll-time government. That’s why question of becoming the first or not first is irrelevant as a whole. What is needed now is to take initiative to open dialogue. I feel now Khaedla Zia should come forward since Sheikh Hasina has already talked much about her possible considerations and concession including making a phone call to Khaleda Zia on poll-time government. We should not forget that this is 2013, not 1996. Flexibility, not rigidity on the basis of ‘Give and Take’ should be the centre point of dialogue. If Sheikh Hasina is the main concern then what shall be stand of BNP when Hasina put herself in a position to take decision to quit the office of the Heard of the poll-time all-party government in favor of the Speaker or the President?  Shall then Khaleda Zia still continue to beat the drum of non-party, neutral care-taker government? Therefore, time is matured enough to attach importance to the highest order to the policy of ‘Give and Take’