Sheikh Hasina, hartal and credibility

. PHOTO: AFP

Before coming to that, I could sense the editor's bias. There was the underpinning of a theme in the commentary that seemed like that the editor was telling the Leader of the Opposition that everyone knows that this government has failed; it is undemocratic; corrupt; etc, etc. How did the Editor reach this conclusion? Yes a few acts of the government may have been undemocratic; true also law and order is not good; and it is perhaps correct that corruption is what the editor says it is. But the editor's conclusion that this makes the government undemocratic; corrupt or siding with the terrorists are unrelated and unsubstantiated generalisations. To conclude that the government is indeed as portrayed by the editor would require many more examples, cases, and proofs. Then why does the editor have to tell these to Sheikh Hasina in a tone suggesting as if he knows Sheikh Hasina and the AL are better than Khaleda Zia and the BNP and only if she just gave up hartal, she would rest her case? The use of the term "grand old party" to describe the AL does also show certain bias on the editor's part. I hope the editor has considered while writing the commentary that under the AL, if you allow others to do the cherry picking, one could come with examples that would show that the AL when it was in power was no better on all the counts, law and order, corruption, terrorism, than the BNP.

I am no supporter of the BNP and very critical of many of this government's actions. But what the commentary calls a free press in Bangladesh is unfortunately free in its bias, most of which is against the BNP. Under the AL, Bangladesh was listed the most corrupt which the editor seems to have overlooked while writing his commentary. Then I need not remind which party the people think have more deep rooted connections with terrorists. Does the name of Joynal Hazari ring a bell?

Nevertheless, the commentary does bring to focus a few things. First, hartal is undemocratic for it forces people to close their lives and livelihood for fear of reprisals. Second, it is marginalising Bangladesh as a competitive force in the new international economic order. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition does have a credibility problem for the list is endless where she has made public promises and statements, yes unconditional ones, and later reversed those. The example of no hartal promise even when in opposition to which the editor refers is one. Then in 1991, when everyone, and yes the free press too, had assured the AL victory that she took to heart that made her congratulate the authorities for a free and fair election on the morning she cast her vote became "subtle rigging" when the results proved contrary. In 1996 there was no such problem because the AL won. Then in 2001, the Caretaker Government became the object of her wrath when the AL lost. So all her actions reveal that she will do what the public or the press or whoever it may be thinks is correct when that perception and her interests coincide.