Why the two leaders are not talking?

The two leaders are talking! (a photo from the past)

The origin and mindset
Many well-intentioned citizens believe that there should not be much difficulty to begin a dialogue without perhaps seriously studying the post 1975 political scenario and the mindset of the politicians across the divide.

The older political party, the Awami League, consider the BNP as the beneficiary of the tragic and cruel changes of 1975 that killed the Father of Nation in the most gruesome manner. Information provided recently by a responsible journalist speak of a conspiracy involving a foreign power in connection with the above assassination. Accusing finger is pointed to the founding father of the BNP. One may or may not be able to know the truth in the not-too-distant future but undoubtedly, the facts and circumstances surrounding the great tragedy and its aftermath do not facilitate the creation of a favourable climate for dialogue.

To this one might add the horrendous acts of 21st August 2004 that saw deaths in double figures and hundreds of injuries. To make matters worse, the nation had to suffer the costly tragedy of the murder of AL stalwart Mr. SAMS Kibria, an internationally reputed illustrious personality. The compounding grief is that the investigation of the above two incidents thus far does not raise much hope about the sincerity of the government run by the other major party. To top it all, the verdict of the Bangabandhu murder case remains mired in procedural wrangles with the Awami League accusing the government of a lack of earnestness in pursuing the matter to its judicial end.

The BNP on the other hand accuses the AL of introducing one-party rule and gagging press freedom in 1975 and sees itself as the great deliverer that brought back multi-party democracy and rejuvenated the nation by heralding a new breed of nationalism. Quite often its leaders denigrate the AL for their (AL) so-called fascistic proclivities. Some BNP leaders of lesser stature question the very bonafide of AL as a democratic party and are found encouraged in lambasting their opponents in the most impetuous manner.

Some less-than-responsible personalities from both sides of the political divide display a nearly comical 'more catholic than the Pope' posture, by indulging in virulent criticism of the recognised national figures of the political scene.

Their compulsions, some historical and some personal, may be understood by the discerning observer but cannot be appreciated by any democrat. Their political diatribe, without doubt is fuelling the already pernicious polarisation of our polity.

Divergence and the deadlock
From a study of the very brief account placed herein before, one would perhaps be right to presume that our politicians, unfortunately, hold diametrically opposite views on many aspects of our national life including the basics. Therefore, one may very reasonably wonder how in such a situation there would be a political reconciliation of nationally important issues with the ultimate objective of building a cohesive society? For cohesion is supremely important for socio-economic emancipation of a modern state. One may, however, be right in concluding that such paternalistic or altruistic views betray a pathetic lack of appreciation of the ground realities rooted in our contemporary history.

Coming to specifies, one may hypothetically suggest that all criticisms, however well-founded, of the father of the nation and late President Ziaur Rahman should henceforth be stopped for creating political goodwill. While expression of such a hope may not be difficult, it would be politically and intellectually a near -- impossible proposition. On a point of illustration, it has to be said that any dispassionate analysis of the two figures stated above will contain some unfavourable reference for obvious reasons even if our politicians unexpectedly succeed in restraining their tongue. And since Bengali is admittedly a language of over-statement and with Bangladeshis being a very sensitive and sentimental lot, it may not be long before our political masters lose their composure at the slightest innuendoes and revert to their favourite slanging bouts with renewed gusto. The bad wave moves upward.

On many other matters relating to the body-politic there are dangerously opposing views which are forestalling the much-desired convergence. There are suspicions to believe that some political elements aligned with the BNP have not reconciled to the emergence of Bangladesh on the basis of Bengali nationalism and nurse a desire towards the establishment of a theocratic state. Such elements are obstacles in the way of fruitful political dialogue.

Doubtful criminal cases
Harassing political opponents by the institution of palpably false cases is a sad reality of Bangladesh's political culture. The AL continues to allege that 70,000 criminals have been let off by the BNP government as a matter of political expediency while the latter says that a large number of their party workers were falsely implicated in criminal cases due to political vengeance and that the authority has taken remedial action after proper examination and scrutiny.

Under the above circumstances, one can see that the peculiar dynamics of our politics is giving rise to heightened social tension with the attendant ill-effects. The credibility of state regulatory institutions is eroded. In such an environment meaningful dialogue cannot take place.

There are a host of other factors which also pose as barrier to the initiation of political dialogue but since it is hoped that the identification and resolution of the major irritants may usher in a healthy climate for better understanding, those have not been listed here. Mention also must be made that there are perhaps a few non political factors which debar the two leaders from communicating to each other but as those are not considered very significant, no discussion has been deemed necessary here.

The way ahead
The politics of summitry whether in the international parlance or on the domestic plane require painstaking homework to sort out the thorny issues, may be not all in one go, to enable the supreme leaders to arrive at a desirable outcome. As far as the dialogue of our two principal leaders is concerned, the first task may be to thrash out some common agreements through the wisdom of our political leaders who should be able to arrive at a bare reducible minimum. Thereafter, the leaders may engage in meaningful discussion, aided and supported by the civil society with tacit backup from friendly quarters.

There may be a need to at least agree on the following:

i. Assassination or murder for political or any objective cannot be condoned and the guilty must be brought under the law.

ii. Completed and unconditional commitment to Bangladesh's political identity as a sovereign democratic republic has to be unequivocally ensured.

iii. While criminal activities in support of political objective has to be punished, the emerging political change has to be recognised in the light of the reality warranted by irreversible circumstances.

iv. Contribution to war of liberation by all concerned has to be recognised in true measures and political history of the country has to be recorded in proper perspective.

v. Both parties must have the magnanimity to acknowledge the aberrations caused to the polity by their respective policy and action.

In resolving our political conflict one may have to accept painful compromises. However, we may draw inspiration from our Prophet (PBUH) who accepted many unjust conditions for effecting peace in the greater interest of Islam. His sagacity is our guide. In the history of nations the truth will always triumph, may be belatedly. In the business of politics, the grasshopper may have one or two flings but the ant will be the sustaining factor.

Muhammad Nurul Huda is former Secretary and IGP.