Three BNP leaders were allegedly picked up by law enforcers from Jashore-Magura highway when they were going to campaign for the BNP candidate of Jashore-3 constituency this morning.
The three leaders are Golam Reza Dulu, BNP vice-president of district unit; Nurunnabi, BNP president of Sadar upazila unit; and Kamal Hossain Babu, Jubo Dal president of Fatehpur upazila.
The BNP candidate for Jashore-3 constituency, Anindya Islam Amit, and the three other BNP leaders were on their way for campaigning.
Their vehicle was intercepted with a truck after it passed Panchbaria area on the highway, Amit told The Daily Star.
Law enforcers got off the truck around 10:45am and detained the three leaders, Amit said.
He claimed that members of both Rapid Action Battalion and Police were among the team members.
Related News
Body:
BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia boarded a flight to the UK for medical treatment a few hours after her scheduled departure. The delay was caused by the thousands who thronged the highway to bid her farewell. The ensuing traffic jam inconvenienced commuters, no doubt, but it was an outpouring of love and support from her admirers and followers. On the same day, the Bangladesh government revoked 97 passports, including that of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who is now exiled in India, having fled after a massive political upsurge.
Just six months ago, the tables were completely turned. Khaleda was under house arrest, while her party was desperately appealing for her to be allowed to travel for medical care. The request was denied many times. Meanwhile, Sheikh Hasina held an iron grip on power, with no one daring to challenge her.
Since Hasina's government came to power, Khaleda had endured relentless verbal attacks but remained largely silent, maintaining a quiet dignity even as Hasina's words often struck with sharp venom. The two women, both giants of Bangladesh's political landscape, share a bitter rivalry, yet their communication styles couldn't be more different—Hasina is known for her fiery, often harsh tone, while Khaleda is known for remaining calm and calculated, rarely engaging in public verbal sparring.
Khaleda Zia's troubles began in 2009 when her archrival Hasina assumed office. The first blow came when Khaleda was forcibly evicted from her Dhaka cantonment house, which she had called home for decades. In a tearful press conference at her Gulshan office, Khaleda accused the government of dragging her out of her bedroom, breaking down her door, and leaving her with nothing but the clothes she was wearing. Awami League leaders, including Hasina herself, dismissed her emotional plea as nothing more than "crocodile tears."
The political climate grew more hostile. On December 29, 2013, as the BNP declared its "March for Democracy" ahead of the controversial January 5, 2014, elections, Khaleda's path was blocked by five sand-laden trucks ordered by the government to prevent her from attending the rally. The sight of the trucks—now infamous in Bangladesh's political history as "sand-truck democracy"—left Khaleda frustrated and powerless. It was the first time she was out of parliament since she began parliamentary politics in 1990. While she was visibly upset, her fury was directed not at Hasina but at the female police officers who had managed to irritate her. In a brief moment of exasperation, Khaleda lashed out in a rare outburst. The only other time Khaleda appeared ungracious was when Hasina wanted to offer condolences for the death of Arafat, Khaleda's younger son. The sitting prime minister was turned back from the locked gates of Khaleda's Gulshan house.
Khaleda's journey took an even darker turn when she was imprisoned on corruption charges filed during the army-backed caretaker government. Meanwhile, Hasina, when she came to power, had all charges against her cleared, even as Khaleda languished in Dhaka Central Jail. Hasina, ever vocal, repeatedly mocked Khaleda, calling her a "thief" and claiming she deserved the punishment she received. Hasina would often declare, while mocking the BNP's political efforts: "Now they're marching for a thief."
Ironically, however, the international media has reported massive corruption allegations against Hasina's cabinet and even her niece, who is a British MP.
Hasina even issued threats that any attempt by the BNP to step up its movement would result in Khaleda being thrown back into prison, deepening the political animosity between the two women and fuelling a bitter feud that shaped Bangladesh's political landscape. Even after sending her to jail, Hasina did not refrain from making harsh comments. Earlier in 2022, she even remarked that Khaleda Zia should be "thrown" off the Padma Bridge. At a programme in London in October 2023, Hasina further said, "Khaleda Zia is over 80 years old, and there is news every day that she is on the verge of dying." She then questioned the point of crying over her health.
Hasina's ungracious comments weren't limited to Khaleda. She also targeted other prominent figures, including Muhammad Yunus, who is currently the chief adviser to the interim government. She infamously labelled Yunus a "bloodsucker of the poor." Moreover, during the student protests in late July, Hasina's reaction was far from empathetic. Instead of listening to the youth's grievances, she blamed the students and ordered the police to crack down hard on the protesters.
Ultimately, Hasina was forced to flee the country. Despite her repeated declarations that she would never leave, she fled Bangladesh in the face of mass public anger, abandoning millions of her party loyalists who were left in disarray.
On the other hand, Khaleda Zia departed the country amid a spontaneous farewell fit for a respected leader after years of hardship. Despite that, Khaleda chose not to lash out against Hasina. Instead, she called for "no destruction, no anger, and no revenge," urging the need for love and peace to rebuild the nation.
In a world where silence hardly prevails, Khaleda Zia's restraint became her strength. When the autocratic regime sought to break her, it was the people who showered her with love. This quiet yet powerful defiance set her apart from others.
Where others saw defeat, Khaleda saw an opportunity. As Hasina fled in the face of overwhelming public dissent, Khaleda was met with the kind of love and support that transcended years of political conflict. In choosing peace over revenge and dialogue over destruction, she set an example that speaks louder than words.
Of all the five major political figures in Bangladesh's history—Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Ziaur Rahman, HM Ershad, Khaleda Zia, and Sheikh Hasina—it is only Khaleda Zia who has managed to avoid the label of an autocrat. This distinction is a significant defining aspect of her political legacy.
At a time when politics often rewards the loudest voice, Khaleda Zia's legacy serves as a reminder that silence, too, can be golden. It is this quiet strength that will echo through Bangladesh's history, ensuring that she is not just remembered but also revered.
Mohammad Al-Masum Molla is a journalist of The Daily Star.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
The enormous sacrifices made during the July-August uprising have created a historic opportunity for Bangladesh to reshape its political landscape, strengthen institutions, and ensure accountable governance. However, as the months trickle by and the interim government faces various challenges, a critical question has emerged lately: should the desired reforms precede elections, or should an elected government take the reins of reform implementation? Recent statements by government officials and political leaders indicate a divide that must be bridged for the sake of the nation.
At a two-day event in Dhaka recently, several government advisers weighed in on the issue, emphasising the need for reforms as well as consensus. In his address, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus affirmed that preparations for reforms and elections would proceed simultaneously, suggesting that reforms without consensus and elections without reforms would be counterproductive. Currently, 15 reform commissions are working on proposals expected to be ready by January. Adviser Mahfuj Alam, in his address, stated that consultation with all stakeholders, including political parties, would determine the nature and extent of reforms. "We need agreement on how much reform is possible and whether a legal framework can ensure that future governments continue these initiatives," he said. Meanwhile, Adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan warned that political stability will not be achieved if we falter on the issue of reforms.
Meanwhile, BNP has insisted that elections and reforms should progress in tandem. Senior leaders, including Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir and Ruhul Kabir Rizvi, have expressed concerns that prioritising reforms over elections could stall the democratic process. Rizvi, speaking at a separate event, was particularly critical, claiming that proponents of a reform-first approach harbour "evil intentions" by suggesting that political parties' push for a democratic transition equates to opposing reforms. He underscored the urgency of restoring power to elected representatives, who could then implement reforms with a popular mandate.
We must say that both sides have points that are valid, and not necessarily contradictory. The government's emphasis on implementing some reforms before elections reflects the understanding that a broken system cannot deliver on people's aspirations. Without addressing systemic flaws—such as the politicisation of state institutions, the erosion of rule of law, economic disparities, etc—elections, no matter how well-conducted, risk perpetuating entrenched power structures. On the other hand, delaying elections excessively risks creating a perception of authoritarian drift as well as alienating those eager to exercise their voting rights.
So, how can we bridge this gap? Through dialogue and compromise, of course. Both camps must find common ground in their positions, tempering their adversarial tones to prevent the ongoing reform drive from being questioned or derailed. That said, the sacrifices of July-August demand more than short-term fixes or a partial democratic transition. Proper reforms are crucial not just for safeguarding the gains of the uprising but also for ensuring that future governments operate within the desired framework of accountability.
We, therefore, urge political parties to engage in the reform process in good faith, ensuring that their push for elections aligns with the broader goal of strengthening democracy. At the same time, the interim government must address the scepticism about its reform agenda, demonstrating its commitment to meaningful and inclusive change. Only through a collaborative approach can the reform vs election debate be resolved.
Body:
The January election has been the centre of attention for well over a year now. Everyone was curious how this edition would eventually pan out, especially whether BNP would finally be able to pressure the government into forming a nonpartisan election-time government, which is difficult, if not impossible. Some were just excited about the possibility of voting and it actually counting, unlike the last two elections. However, with BNP's boycott confirmed and seats distributed among Awami League's alliance, the results are almost a foregone conclusion.
Brig Gen (retd) M Sakhawat Hussain, former election commissioner, said this election is essentially a quest for an opposition party (read opposition in parliament). Although 27 parties are contesting in the polls, the search for a viable opposition remains the most prominent feature. The situation is so obvious that even someone without much political insight can predict that the ruling AL will form the next government with an absolute majority.
So, when the results are a foregone conclusion and winners are already known, the election has little significance. The results are predictable as the elections will be held under a range of restrictions.
The restrictions are an important issue here. The Election Commission asked the government to take measures so that no political programmes, other than for electioneering, can be held after December 18. In a letter sent to the home ministry, the EC said parties should be stopped from holding rallies and other public events that may "obstruct the election process and discourage people from casting their votes." The measures should be in place till after the election on January 7, said the letter, addressed to the senior secretary of the Public Security Division.
It is the EC's role to ensure a congenial atmosphere for people to cast their votes freely. But the way the commission is stopping the activities of political parties is merely a bid to hide its failure through other means. This type of action had not been taken by any EC, not even by the 2014 Rakib commission. But this is not unexpected, as the commission itself announced the election schedule amid high security and beefed up police protection, with the deployment of armoured personnel carriers and water cannons.
Basically, this level of security at the EC betrays the election's true nature and how congenial the prevailing atmosphere is. True, BNP and other opposition parties are enforcing hartals and blockades, demanding a nonpartisan interim government. But the political opposition is fully within its rights to demand and campaign to oust the government. Obviously, opposition parties will not support the government when elections come around.
But for the EC to also act as an extension of the political government and bar political programmes that might "discourage people from voting" betrays its inherently nonpartisan design. Holding rallies is a fundamental right not just of a political party but also of individuals, a right that should not be tainted with equivocations or conditions, or intermitted because of "special circumstances."
Not even the home ministry can lawfully abide by the commission's request. Just like casting votes is a right, so is not casting it. And so is waging a peaceful campaign to convince people not to vote at all. Since there is no "no vote" option, as there was in 2008, citizens may not feel compelled to vote. Thus, any campaign to discourage people from voting is as lawful as the urging people to vote for a certain candidate.
To complicate this further, in a television interview, ruling party leader and agriculture minister Abdur Razzaque said BNP received a number of generous offers. The party was even told that all its leaders would be released from jail overnight if it decides to join the January 7 election.
Distancing the ruling party from Razzaque's comments, AL general secretary Obaidul Quader, the very next day, said the remarks were not of AL's but that of the minister's alone. On the same day, Razzaque said, "I think what I said, I did not say anything wrong, not a bit. The statement is correct."
For a long time, BNP leaders have been accusing the government of politicising the legal system and imprisoning its activists and members illegally. Razzaque's statements only vindicate what BNP has been claiming all this time.
As BNP is not contesting the polls, it will try to make the election controversial, demonstrating the loopholes and deficiencies. And towards that end, the opposition parties must give a big thanks to Razzaque and the Election Commission, as they are doing the opposition's work, making it easier to illustrate that the system is so tainted that an election under Awami League would never be fair.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina already said that BNP is plotting to create a famine in the country, after realising that it won't be able to thwart the upcoming election, and perhaps realising that tough times are coming a few months down the line. We are hopeful that under Hasina's iron-handed leadership, there will be no such famine in the country. But it appears there is another kind of crisis under her watch—a 10-year drought of proper elections, a drought that won't let up soon, it appears.
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.
Body:
At least 15 people were hurt during an attack on an election campaign of opposition Jatiya Oikyafront in Chattogram’s Fatickchhari today.
The injured include Oikyafront’s candidate for the constituency Azim Ullah Bahar and his associates, our local staff correspondent reports.
Bahar alleged, Chhatra League men known as ‘Tayeb Bahini’ attacked his campaign at Tokirhat around 2:30pm and foiled their campaign.
Fatickchari police station Officer-in-Charge Babul Akter confirmed The Daily Star of the attack and said “miscreants” swooped on his campaign.
Confirming reports of injuries, he said BNP men blocked a road at Jongkar Road area protesting the attack and vandalised some vehicles there. Five men were detained in this connection and additional police deployed.
Meanwhile, the AL men allegedly attacked another election campaign of Islami Front Bangladesh candidate Saifuddin Ahmed Maijbhandari at Bhujpur union in Fatickchhari.
Saifuddin told The Daily Star: “Cadres of AL candidate Najibul Bashar Maijbhandari attacked us during our campaign and took away our loud speakers.”
“The attacks left 12 workers of my party injured,” claimed the candidate.
Officer-in-Charge (OC) of Bhujpur Sheikh Abdullah said: “We went to the spot and found nothing. We have advised the candidate to file a written complaint.”
Body:
There is currently a huge Awami League-shaped hole in Bangladesh's electoral politics, so BNP trying to dive headlong into it comes as no surprise. Since Sheikh Hasina's fall on August 5, BNP has had to navigate a delicate tightrope—balancing its ambition to return to power with the pressure to support popular demands for state reforms. The party doesn't want to risk the ire of the very students that ousted its arch-rival, potentially putting it in pole position to win the next election. But reforms take time, something it doesn't have plenty of after nearly two decades of wait. And the grassroots are getting impatient.
"Impatient" is perhaps an understatement for what has unfolded over the past month and a half. A more fitting description would be a chaotic transformation of a party getting used to having things its way. As BNP-affiliated leaders, activists, and professional groups scramble to fill the void left by Awami League, we are getting an early preview of the making of another regime—and it's nothing short of disturbing.
For example, since August 5, at least 14 BNP members have lost their lives, eight of them in factional clashes. The most recent murder occurred on Friday in Chattogram's Changaon area, where a Jatiyatabadi Jubo Dal activist was fatally stabbed during a clash between rival factions. On the same day, heavy clashes between two BNP-linked groups in Chandpur left at least 30 people injured. On Sunday, a similar clash in Narayanganj left at least 12 injured, followed by another in Kushtia two days later, injuring 10 more. These violent power struggles, often revolving around the control of extortion rackets, have become disturbingly common. In that, the BNP grassroots seem to be re-enacting scenes from Awami League's time in power which, too, was plagued by factional infighting, with over 150 of its leaders and activists killed in mostly turf wars since the 2018 election.
Over the past weeks, reports have also emerged of BNP leaders and activists taking over slums, footpaths, transport hubs, extortion rackets across various markets and informal businesses, and even former Awami League offices. Meanwhile, in the civil service, there have been allegations against BNP-affiliated groups trying to influence promotions, placements, public contracts, etc.
Officially, the party is against such practices. Tarique Rahman, the acting chairman, recently warned that BNP will not tolerate any reckless actions by "misguided" individuals that could harm "the trust and love" it has earned through "years of struggle, sacrifice, and perseverance." He urged party members to "identify and resist" those tarnishing BNP's image, emphasising its commitment to not only expelling such individuals but also taking "legal action" against them.
These warnings coupled with occasional disciplinary measures, however, have proven insufficient to deter errant party supporters, which suggests two things: either those were not strict or convincing enough, or the party is not trying hard enough. Both scenarios are likely in an environment of patronage politics that has long been the mainstay of our political culture. This system of patronage begins at grassroots with the capture of extortion rackets or other undue benefits by political thugs, and culminates with systemic regulatory capture by vested interest groups, all of which serves as an incentive for them to keep working for a party. Barring exceptions, the prospect or promise of mutual gain largely governs the relationship between major parties and their supporters.
BNP, for all its pro-reform posturing in the aid of the interim government, has yet to demonstrate a real willingness to dismantle this corrupt system. While, to be fair, it has shown some signs of remaking itself as a party with a more open political ethos, the revolutionary times that we are living through demand much more.
Ironically, Awami League's ouster through a bloody uprising has stripped BNP of two key advantages that it could have used in an election campaign: anti-incumbency bias, and public sympathy for the repression it had endured. In an alternate reality where those factors still mattered, BNP could have expected Gen Z—with no lived memory of its 2001-06 rule—to support it unquestioningly, and older generations to accept it as the lesser of two evils. The problem is, the new generation has shown a political maturity beyond their years, and to win them over, BNP now must offer something genuinely new.
Ironically, Awami League's ouster through a bloody uprising has stripped BNP of two key advantages that it could have used in an election campaign: anti-incumbency bias, and public sympathy for the repression it had endured. In an alternate reality where those factors still mattered, BNP could have expected Gen Z—with no lived memory of its 2001-06 rule—to support it unquestioningly, and older generations to accept it as the lesser of two evils. The problem is, the new generation has shown a political maturity beyond their years, and to win them over, BNP now must offer something genuinely new.
So far, it has been giving mixed signals. On the one hand, it acknowledged that repeating Awami League's mistakes could lead to the same fate for itself, stressing the importance of understanding the shift in people's mind-sets. On the other hand, it continues to call for elections as soon as possible. Its rhetoric surrounding the student-led mass movement, trying to co-opt it as its own, and its suggestion that long-term reforms should be left to an elected government also reveal glaring contradictions. Perhaps the army chief's recent statement—in which he vowed to back the interim government "come what may" to possibly ensure elections within the next 18 months—will prompt BNP to reassess its approach. While expecting an election roadmap is not unreasonable, it must lift its sights beyond its ambition and bring the reform drive to its own doorsteps.
At 46, BNP is in need of renewal, and the sooner it realises this, the better. As the largest party in the country now, it has a responsibility not just to its leaders and activists but to the entire political landscape. To truly demonstrate that it remains in tune with the spirit of the mass uprising, BNP needs to lead by example and undertake the following initiatives.
First, it must help dismantle the patronage system by making it clear to party leaders and supporters that BNP politics will henceforth offer no undeserved benefits, and anyone using its name for such purposes will be met with swift punishment. Second, it should ask its loyalist groups within the civil service to stop influencing decisions, or risk being blacklisted. Third, it should establish a democratic, secular, and gender-inclusive party structure, and have a high-powered committee constantly check erosion of these values in party activities. Fourth, it should bring clarity on its finances by making the names of its donors public and conducting internal audits of assets held by party leaders. Fifth, it should control its grassroots leaders and activists, preventing infighting and any criminality through strict enforcement of disciplinary measures.
Sixth, it should comply with the Representation of the People Order (RPO) clause that prohibits political parties from having affiliated student or teacher organisations. Over the years, political parties, including BNP, have bypassed this law on mere technicalities, passing their student wings off as "brotherly" or "associate" organisations, thus enabling crimes and hegemonic practices that led not only to a deep distrust of student politics but also unimaginable sufferings.
There can be many other reforms that are necessary. What BNP can do to remake itself in line with the spirit of the mass uprising can be the topic of a discussion that the party should itself encourage for its own benefit.
Just before the January 7, 2024 election, I wrote an article titled "Can BNP survive the pre-election meltdown?" amid heavy crackdowns by Awami League. I guess the question now is, can BNP fulfil the post-uprising expectations? After all, if political parties do not break free from their long-entrenched monopolistic and authoritarian attitudes, changing the constitution and implementing other state reforms cannot prevent future regimes from turning dictatorial again. BNP has a historic responsibility in this regard.
Badiuzzaman Bay is an assistant editor at The Daily Star.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
