Having been the main opposition camp over the last 15 years, the BNP has been advocating for quick reforms followed by elections. The Daily Star's Golam Mortoza caught up with the party's Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir to talk about a host of issues ranging from elections to media freedom.

TDS: As the secretary general of one of Bangladesh's largest political parties, what are your thoughts on the current political situation. A successful mass uprising has taken place, and an interim government has taken over. Your party has been calling for elections within a timeframe that is both "quick" and "reasonable." Could you clarify what you mean by "quick" and "reasonable"?

Fakhrul: Over 15 years of authoritarian rule destroyed the bureaucratic and political structures of Bangladesh. The institutions essential for a democratic state have been systematically ruined. As a result, following the student-led mass uprising, public expectations have skyrocketed. The primary expectation now is that this government will hold a fair and credible election, enabling people to form a parliament and government of their choice.

There is also another expectation -- to right all the wrongs done during this long bout of misrule.

To read the full interview, click here.

TDS: How would you define a reasonable timeframe?

Fakhrul: There are a few minimum requirements. For instance, the electoral system needs to be reformed to enable free and fair elections. The heavily politicised bureaucracy must be overhauled to make it neutral and capable of facilitating a credible election. Similarly, the judiciary, which has been politicised, needs to be reformed to the extent possible. Complete reform might not be achievable immediately, especially at the grassroots level, but these steps are critical.

TDS: Your acting chairperson, Tarique Rahman, has also spoken about this logical timeframe, making it clear that there's no rush. However, some of your party leaders have mentioned that elections should be held by March or April, leading to some confusion. What is BNP's official position on this?

Read more

Have patience for election

Fakhrul: We don't want to specify exact dates or deadlines because, as a party, we're being pragmatic. There may be some flexibility with the timeline, but elections must be held as quickly as possible for the good of the country and its people.

Having been in government ourselves, we understand that reforms require some time. However, we insist on timely elections because only an elected government can ensure legitimacy. The mandate of an elected government is entirely different from that of an interim administration. When we interact with foreign stakeholders, investors, and industrialists, they often express concerns about investing during the tenure of a temporary government. Timely elections will resolve many of these issues.

TDS: Regarding the interim government, particularly the current one -- there is a suggestion that although it lacks electoral legitimacy, it came to power after a mass uprising involving students and the public, with active participation from all political parties, including the BNP. Doesn't that give this government a mandate derived from the uprising?

Fakhrul: The uprising undoubtedly aimed for reforms. But that doesn't mean this government can operate indefinitely, like what we saw during the 1/11 period [indicating the government that took power on January 11, 2007] or similar situations in the past. An unelected government must not exceed its logical timeframe. Prolonged tenure creates various complications, including difficulties in maintaining international relations.

Additionally, anti-democratic and fascist forces often take advantage of such transitions. During 1/11, the government's attempts at reforms ultimately failed, forcing them to hold elections and leave.

TDS: As someone who has spent the entire life in politics, would you say that the BNP, as a major political party, practises democracy internally?

Fakhrul: I won't claim we do it perfectly well, but we are practising democracy. Our standing committee sits four times a month. Decisions are made collectively. The current situation has prevented us from holding councils everywhere, but we will address that.

Abolishing the caretaker government system was the greatest mistake. Elections under a caretaker government fostered democratic practices. In contrast, there has been no accountability in the last three elections. A country's democratic culture influences its political parties, and all of us must work together to strengthen it.

TDS: Are you concerned that the current government may delay elections or avoid them altogether?

Fakhrul: At this point, I don't see any indication of that. We've had both formal and informal discussions with the student leaders, and I haven't felt that they intend to delay or avoid elections.

Read more

Mirza Fakhrul's unabridged interview

TDS: You are advocating for elections, and the government is too. You're suggesting elections at a reasonable time, while the government wants reforms first. But the government hasn't openly stated any intent to hold on to power indefinitely. Doesn't this align the BNP, the anti-discrimination student movement, and the government to some extent?

Fakhrul: There isn't much difference in principle. However, several fundamental issues need clarification. For instance, some are suggesting rewriting the constitution rather than amending it. Even Dr Ali Riaz, who heads the reform committee, has stated that the constitution will be rewritten.

It remains unclear whether the constitution will be rewritten or drafted anew, or simply amended.

TDS: What's your stance on this?

Fakhrul: We've also formed a committee on constitutional reform, which we'll share with the government. We're willing to cooperate in making the necessary amendments to the existing constitution for governance. However, fundamental changes to the constitution should be entrusted to the people. Only their representatives can undertake such tasks.

TDS: But it was the people who carried out the uprising.

Fakhrul: Who exactly are "the people" behind the student-led uprising? Whose voices will you prioritise?

TDS: Those who led it.

Fakhrul: How do you determine that? This issue is being debated from many perspectives.

TDS: You were indirectly aligned with the movement. While you may not have been formally involved, the students led it, and the world witnessed that. Isn't that clear?

Fakhrul: We aren't denying that. We embrace it. We were also part of it. Our point is that any constitutional change requires the people's mandate. This government is not a revolutionary government.

TDS: Do you think they should form a party?

Fakhrul: That's not for me to say.

TDS: If they form a political party, shouldn't they leave the government?

Fakhrul: They absolutely should. Otherwise, the government becomes biased. You claim the government will remain neutral, establish a neutral Election Commission, and conduct impartial elections. But if you simultaneously run a political party and hold government power, doesn't that create a direct conflict of interest? If you want to discuss revolutionary change, then form a revolutionary government and run the country accordingly. But is your political party capable of handling such a transformation?

Take the Awami League in 1974, for example, when they implemented BKSAL. Even their intellectual supporters argued this should have been done earlier, perhaps right after the 1971 Liberation War. By 1974, however, it was too late, and the people rejected it. The lesson is clear: the people's verdict matters. And that verdict comes through elections.

TDS: What's your observation on the AL's politics?

Fakhrul: As I've said before, the AL has become politically bankrupt. You can see it for yourself. The AL is not only defeated but has turned into a despised party. Even within their ranks, those who are somewhat sensible would admit that the party has made grave mistakes.

TDS: Have AL members changed?

Fakhrul: No, I'm referring to those still in the country, not those who've fled. Even within the party, those who genuinely want to pursue democratic politics now believe their party has made serious mistakes.

TDS: When discussions arise about banning the AL -- given that its student wing, the Chhatra League, has already been banned --why does your party disagree with the idea?

Fakhrul: I'm a liberal democrat to the core. No matter how bad the AL is, it's an old political party with a long history. Who am I to decide whether it should be banned? That decision rests with the people. An elected parliament, formed through fair elections will determine such matters. The AL will eventually be wiped out through elections anyway.

TDS: A discredited party, accused of killing hundreds, is still led by Sheikh Hasina in exile -- if a proposal comes to ban such a party, will it be irrelevant?

Fakhrul: I didn't call it irrelevant. What I said is that it's not my responsibility to make that decision. That is for the people to decide.

TDS: Let's assume the BNP wins the next election and takes charge of the country. Would your parliament take the initiative to ban the AL?

Fakhrul: That would depend on the situation at the time. What the party decides at that point is something I can't predict right now. I can't say whether we would take such an initiative or not because it will ultimately be a party decision.

TDS: After banning the Chhatra League, there's been speculation that Chhatra Dal could also face a ban. Some argue that's why the BNP opposed the Chhatra League's ban. Is that true, or is this about upholding democratic values?

Fakhrul: Why view this negatively? Let's look at it positively. The Chhatra League had devolved into a completely terrorist organisation with no trace of democratic values. They wreaked havoc on the entire education system through their acts of terrorism. There are ample evidence and photographs of how the Chhatra League, acting as a political force, killed people during the student uprising -- you probably have more of that evidence than we do. The situation of the Chhatra League and Chhatra Dal isn't comparable at all.

TDS: I'm not comparing Chhatra League with Chhatra Dal. However, considering the allegations of Chhatra League using firearms, machetes, and cleavers to kill students, its ban has been justified. Yet, the BNP seems to believe that the decision was not right. Why is that?

Fakhrul: No one from our party has said that banning Chhatra League was unjustified. What we've said is that the decision to ban any organisation should be made by parliament.

TDS: Allegations have surfaced that BNP leaders are now engaging in the same extortion and land-grabbing that AL leaders were accused of. What's your take on this?

Fakhrul: You can't generalise such claims. Yes, there have been isolated incidents, and we've acted decisively. Over 700 members have been expelled for misconduct. We're well aware of the issue and remain vigilant.

TDS: Final question. There seems to be a growing narrative against certain media outlets in Bangladesh, particularly The Daily Star and the Prothom Alo, labelling them as accomplices of fascism, with even calls from some quarters to shut them down. Though this sentiment may not be widespread, it does exist. As the secretary general of a major political party, what is your stance on this, and what do you think should be done in this regard?

Fakhrul: Our position is very clear: we strongly believe in the complete freedom of the press. It was Ziaur Rahman who first brought this principle forward.

That being said, media freedom must be exercised with responsibility. For example, some time ago, a newspaper published a report claiming that all arrangements had been made for Begum Khaleda Zia to leave the country, but she refused to go. This was utterly baseless and a completely false report. The media must refrain from publishing such unfounded news, especially when it concerns national leaders. There must be a solid basis for such claims. Baseless reporting should not happen.

Right now, the media's most significant responsibility is to contribute towards ensuring that this government quickly holds fair elections. Another crucial role for the media is to avoid maligning the parties that are genuinely involved in the movement for democracy. These are our expectations. There may be differences of opinion, and that's fine, but deliberate misrepresentation is unacceptable.

We're vocal about press freedom. For instance, we welcome the decision to repeal the Digital Security Act and Cyber Security Act. This is a very positive step, and it is what we've been advocating for. However, we also want everything to be done with a sense of responsibility. In a democracy, rights are essential, but so is accountability. Everyone must act responsibly.

As for the calls to shut down media outlets or burn them down, we're entirely against such actions. Some isolated incidents may have occurred, but we've protested against them to the best of our ability.

TDS: Thank you very much for your time.

Fakhrul: Thank you as well. We're always in support of ensuring that you can continue to speak the truth freely.

For the full interview click here.

The July 2024 uprising in Bangladesh marked a pivotal moment as students and citizens rallied for transformative change, challenging established political hierarchies. Unlike previous movements, this protest operated independently of any political party leadership, underscoring a grassroots demand for reform that had eluded mainstream opposition efforts for over a decade. For the first time, a mass uprising forced the removal of a seemingly entrenched regime through sheer public resolve, demonstrating the often-overlooked power of collective action—an "event" as described by eminent French philosopher Alain Badiou: a disruptive break from the status quo of conventional political order.

On August 8, the formation of an interim government emerged as a critical turning point in Bangladesh's political landscape, briefly uniting opposition forces, including the BNP, around a shared agenda for paradigmatic change. Initially supportive of the student movement, some argue that the BNP later tempered its endorsement, seemingly distancing itself strategically from some of the demands for structural reform of extractive institutions widely seen as enabling the rise of illiberal, authoritarian governance, epitomised by the recently ousted regime. Notably, the BNP is now subtly yet unmistakably shifting away from calls for the immediate resignation of the sitting president—a figure closely tied to the discredited past—and towards advocating for a more cautious, electoral roadmap. This strategic repositioning has allowed the BNP to present itself as a stabilising force focused on continuity and gradual reform through electoral processes, a choice that critics argue reflects a conservative impulse to preserve familiar structures.

According to cultural theorist Frederic Jameson, understanding such political decisions requires analysis through multiple lenses or "horizons." On the "political horizon," Jameson's first level of analysis, the BNP's reluctance to support student-led calls for immediate presidential removal can be viewed as a tactical move to balance reform aspirations with stability. By prioritising an electoral roadmap over sudden upheaval, the BNP is perhaps portraying itself as a seasoned opposition force. This approach positions the party as a measured alternative amid calls for radical change—a strategic choice to avoid being swept up in what it might see as "instant gratification" in favour of long-term goals. However, critics argue that this approach risks the party appearing overly conservative and misaligned with the youth-driven energy fuelling the July uprising.

Read more

The fight for social accountability in Bangladesh

The "social horizon," meanwhile, explores deeper class and institutional interests that shape political choices, often unconsciously. Here, the BNP's distance from grassroots reform demands can be seen as aligning with the entrenched two-party system, which has long structured politics in Bangladesh. By prioritising incremental reforms and institutional stability over radical transformation, BNP implicitly supports structures that have historically benefited both itself and the Awami League. This reluctance to disrupt institutional power structures could be understood through Jameson's concept of the "political unconscious," where underlying class interests influence behaviour that may appear pragmatic but, in effect, serves to protect established hierarchies. The BNP's stance could be reflective of this tendency, preserving a status quo that risks sidelining the radical reforms that some segments of the public are increasingly demanding.

In the "historical horizon," Jameson's final layer of interpretation, BNP's response to the uprising can be seen as part of Bangladesh's cyclical political struggles. Rather than embracing a transformative shift, BNP's positioning could suggest a reluctance to break from long-standing political rivalries, framing itself as the ideological heir to the student movement's anti-Awami League sentiment while resisting a deep engagement with systemic overhaul. But this positioning could risk reducing the uprising's transformative vision to another episode in the Awami League-BNP rivalry. In Jameson's view, such cyclical politics underscore a missed opportunity for genuine change, as BNP's actions could hint at continuity within Bangladesh's familiar political pattern to some, rather than a break from it.

French philosopher Alain Badiou's concept of the "moment" underscores the unique potential of the July 2024 uprising to introduce new political realities. For Badiou, such a moment represents a radical rupture from established norms, challenging entrenched power structures and creating the possibility of unforeseen political reforms. The uprising's mass mobilisation of public sentiment without major party backing exemplifies that this kind of "event" informed disruptive rupture, a grassroots force demanding structural change that bypasses established political channels.

Read more

Enforcing economic and social rights through constitutional interpretation

However, Badiou also warns that these transformative moments can be co-opted or neutralised if not sustained by active revolutionary commitment, or what he calls "fidelity" to the event. The BNP's stance, which shifted from initially aligning with the students to later portraying the president as a stabilising figure, could risk dissipating the transformative potential of this "moment." By reverting to conventional political processes, BNP's approach could undermine the movement's radical energy, restoring the status quo ante, rather than actualising the profound systemic reforms demanded by some people.

Ultimately, the BNP's decision to prioritise stability over radical change illustrates a complex dilemma: straddling the aftermath of a revolutionary "event" and realpolitik. While the party's cautious stance may preserve order and avoid immediate risks, it also places the BNP at odds with some segments of society that have become increasingly disillusioned by traditional politics. This hesitance could alienate reform-minded citizens, especially younger voters who may view BNP's position as self-serving or evasive. Rather than merely adopting the movement's ideological legacy, BNP's strategic ambivalence risks positioning it as another entity within the political duopoly that the uprising implicitly critiques.

BNP's strategic choices in the wake of the July uprising reveal a tension between preserving continuity and embracing transformative potential. While Jameson's "Three Horizons" show how the party's stance aligns with established power structures, Badiou's concept of the "moment" underscores the revolutionary potential that the BNP risks missing. By aligning itself too closely with stability, and gradualism, BNP could marginalise itself in the eyes of a public yearning for meaningful change. To truly capture the movement's spirit, the party may need to move beyond mere strategic positioning and fully engage with the grassroots demands that fuelled the July uprising—demands that traditional, incremental politics can no longer afford to overlook. By the same token, this challenge also calls for a delicate balancing act of realpolitik, as the party weighs transformative ambitions against the pressures of political continuity and stability in an unpredictable landscape.

Faridul Alam lives in and writes from New York City, US.

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.   

The BNP appears to be apprehensive about the sudden controversy over the resignation letter of ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina.

The party, which had been on the receiving end of severe persecution by the Awami League during its 15-year rule, is keeping a close watch on the developments surrounding the issue that has arisen two and a half months after the interim government took over.

"We are worried that the interim government might find itself in a precarious situation, potentially allowing a third party to take advantage," said a senior leader of the BNP, wishing not to be named.

The controversy arose after Manab Zamin's Editor-in-Chief Matiur Rahman Chowdhury met President Mohammed Shahabuddin, and the daily's political magazine Janatar Chokh on Sunday ran their conversation where the president claimed he did not have a copy of the prime minister's resignation.

This claim runs contrary to what the president had said in his address to the nation after the fall of Awami League government in the face of a mass uprising. In his August 5 speech, he said the prime minister had tendered her resignation.

Read more

Hasina’s resignation: ‘I have no documentary evidence’

BNP senior leaders said they suspect a move is afoot to remove the president and it may create a constitutional vacuum.

The party believes any constitutional crisis regarding the issue should be avoided at this moment, the senior leaders said.

The senior BNP leaders held a virtual meeting on Tuesday night and decided to make the party's position clear to the interim government.

Accordingly, a three-member delegation went to meet the chief adviser yesterday. There, the BNP spoke of its stance on the issue of calling for the president's resignation, said party sources.

At the party forum on Tuesday, BNP leaders discussed elaborately how things unfolded in the last few days.

They said the question over the former PM's resignation letter; then the demand for the president's resignation, and laying siege to the Bangabhaban are suspicious and there may be a conspiracy behind these.

Three senior leaders wishing not to be named told The Daily Star that they wonder whether this sudden move is an attempt to extend the term of the interim government.

They said the country's constitution was not suspended after the change of government following the uprising. The president administered oath to the members of the interim government. So, they argued, there is no question of going beyond the constitution now.

They said they are trying to figure out why the president claimed he did not have the resignation letter of Hasina.

"Almost all the senior leaders agree that removing the president won't be the right thing to do now," one of the standing committee members said.

After yesterday's meeting, Nazrul Islam Khan, a member of the BNP standing committee, said his party's delegation had urged the government to make sure that it does not give rise to a constitutional vacuum or crisis.

Salahuddin Ahmed, another standing committee member, said the president's is a constitutional post, and a sudden resignation will lead to a  crisis.

The taunts and barbs leave little room for doubt that the 33-year-old ties have soured. Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina's government on August 5, BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami leaders have differed in private and in public on various issues, including reforms and election timeframe.

BNP has made it known that it wants elections after a reasonable set of reforms. Its longtime ally Jamaat on the other hand has made it clear that it is willing to wait and allow Prof Muhammad Yunus-led interim government more time.

Experts say they have not previously seen such opposing views, that too in public, by the two parties that formed electoral alliance on multiple occasions in the past and even fought side by side to topple Hasina for years.

According to them, the two parties do not need each other anymore after the political changeover, as their "common political rival" Hasina is no longer in the scene. 

BNP leaders say the rift between the two allies surfaced when Jamaat chief Shafiqur Rahman in a statement on August 26 alleged that BNP has already "grabbed 80 percent of the power".

"They [BNP] don't even need an election. They have grabbed whatever there is to grab – from footpath to begging business," Shafiqur had said.

"BNP and Jamaat came closer to face Awami League though their ideologies were different. But after the fall of the Awami League government, there is no need for them to stay together."

— Prof Al Masud Hasanuzzaman, Jahangirnagar University

Earlier on August 11, Dhaka City North unit member secretary of Jatiyatabadi Jubo Dal, the youth front of BNP, Rabiul Islam Nayan, allegedly led a mob that tried to take control of Islami Bank's main branch in Motijheel. Jamaat, which allegedly wanted to establish its dominance over the first Shariah-based bank in Bangladesh, was upset by this, according to Jamaat insiders.

The gap between BNP and Jamaat appears to have widened centering also on appointments in key government posts, as both parties seek to solidify their control over various institutions.

BNP leaders say the interim government removed pro-Awami League people from different government positions, educational institutions, banks and insurance companies. Many of these posts have been given to pro-Jamaat men.

The differences became visible soon after Prof Yunus's address to the nation on August 25, where he did not mention the election timeframe.

In his reaction the next day, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said the chief adviser failed to address the election issue.

On the same day, the Jamaat chief said the nation will not accept any political party's demand for an election at a time when hundreds of people are still lying on hospital beds from injuries sustained during the July uprising.

As if in a direct response, Fakhrul told a press conference at the party chairperson's Gulshan office on August 28 that those who do not have public support and cannot run government have different thoughts about election. "Those who cannot afford to win are against elections," he said.

Although both parties are in favour of reforms, BNP wants a reasonable level of reforms to some institutions, while Jamaat supports sustainable reforms, according to sources in the two parties.

Multiple Jamaat leaders said they want to allow the interim government more time for the sake of their own preparations for the election. They also said they are likely to join polls on their own. Before that, they want to "brighten the party image" through extensive social work. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal party matters.

Talking to The Daily Star on August 28, Mirza Fakhrul said Jamaat is no longer their ally and that BNP is making preparations to run in the election on its own.

Saiful Alam Khan, a member of Jamaat's central executive council, denied that there are any strains in the relations between the two parties.

"The two political parties have their own perspectives and opinions, and they will speak on the basis of their opinions. That does not mean that a tense situation has been created between us," he told The Daily Star.

BNP and Jamaat became political allies in 1991, when they formed government for the first time after the fall of HM Ershad, an autocrat.

In the 1991 election, BNP won 140 seats out of the 300 and needed 11 more to form government. Jamaat, which bagged 18 seats, extended its unconditional support to BNP.

BNP formed an electoral alliance with Jamaat in 1999, and the two parties went to the polls under a common banner, and eventually formed an alliance government in 2001.

BNP and Jamaat participated in the 2008 election under the four-party alliance banner and lost heavily to Awami League.

From 2013 to 2015, they launched a joint movement against the AL government.

The relations developed some cracks over seat sharing before the 2018 election, when Jamaat was first given 25 seats, which was later revised down to 22 seats.

As Jamaat lost its registration with the Election Commission in 2018, its candidates participated in that election with BNP's electoral symbol.

In 2022, the two parties officially broke up their alliance, and started a separate yet simultaneous movement against the AL government.

In the July uprising against Hasina's 15-year rule, both parties lent support and joined the movement, but separately.

Talking to The Daily Star, several mid-ranking BNP leaders said the differences with Jamaat essentially centre around politics of power and policy.

"This is not a conflict; it is rather a difference over beliefs and policies. And this difference is permanent. Jamaat is dreaming of assuming state power and then fulfill its desire," a BNP leader said, asking not to be named.

Asked about the differences between BNP and Jamaat, Prof Al Masud Hasanuzzaman of government and politics department at Jahangirnagar University said, "It's obvious. BNP and Jamaat came closer to face Awami League though their ideologies were different. But after the fall of the Awami League government, there is no need for them to stay together."

According to him, BNP and Jamaat are the main beneficiaries of the student movement that forced Hasina to flee to India.

"Both parties are now busy with their own political calculation. So they are keeping distance for their own interest now," he said.

Once a fierce critic of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), former Foreign Minister Dr Hasan Mahmud now finds himself in an unexpected role. The Awami League (AL) politician, who is currently in London, recently sang praises for the BNP—or, as some may put it, he tried "wooing" his once-despised rival. After 15-plus years of relentless criticism and jabs aimed at the BNP, Hasan's sudden pivot, following the ouster of his government through the July uprising, has left political analysts and laypeople scratching their heads. A tale as twisted as a Dickensian plot, his evolution from BNP's heckler to a begrudging admirer is nothing short of literary satire.

Let's rewind to a simpler time: the era of Mahmud's full-throated attacks on the BNP, almost as consistent as the sunrise, and twice as intense. He labelled BNP as a "party of parasites" and often credited them with conjuring chaos as easily as Shakespeare's Iago wove schemes in Othello. BNP leaders, according to him, were architects of anarchy, always "misleading the masses" and "haunted by the 'Tarique-ghost,'" referring to the party's acting chairman, Tarique Rahman. His words were chosen with such precision and relish, it was as if he had plucked them from Dante's Inferno, casting BNP leaders into circles of political damnation.

Read more

Bread before ballots and rice before reforms

One could almost hear his booming voice, drenched in theatrical scorn, recounting BNP's supposed failure to win the people's favour as he proudly paraded AL's achievements with an air of unearned grandeur. "The BNP presented a fake adviser to Joe Biden," he would proclaim with mock indignation, using his platform like a mediaeval troubadour, weaving tales of his rivals' bumbling with all the flair of a Marlowe villain.

With the authoritarian AL regime suddenly overthrown, Mahmud went from denouncing BNP's every move to extolling the virtues of "restoring democracy," a concept he had once wielded as a cudgel to suppress dissent. His rhetoric, once thick with sarcasm and scorn, now drips with the honeyed appeal of a suitor attempting to rekindle an old flame—except, of course, that the "old flame" is the very party he tried to extinguish.

Now, as if reliving Romeo and Juliet, he calls for "working together" with the BNP for the "greater good" of Bangladesh. In an ironic twist, Mahmud has become something of a Capulet seeking Montague's embrace, promising a collaborative future he once vehemently rejected. Some critics have taken to calling this performance "The Tragedy of Dr Hasan," a farce in which a once-proud antagonist now plays the role of political supplicant.

It was not long ago that Mahmud championed AL's "unassailable" record of peace and prosperity. He proclaimed with the conviction of an orator from ancient Greece that his party had brought unprecedented development to the country. He scoffed at BNP's concerns for democratic reforms, dismissing them as desperate ploys of a "party that cannot survive without scandal." He scoffed at BNP's advocacy for free and fair elections, dismissing it as an "elaborate hypocrisy." And yet, here he stands now, as humbled as King Lear on the stormy heath, calling for the very reforms he once deemed folly.

Read more

A moment of truth for BNP

At a recent event—his first appearance after weeks of silence post-uprising—Mahmud appeared almost repentant, though it was clear that old habits die hard. Attempting a dignified pivot, he assured his audience that he was "always an advocate for democratic values." The line was delivered with the sincerity of a character in a Restoration comedy, and the audience responded with what could only be described as a collective gasp of incredulity.

A keen observer might draw comparisons to Chaucer's Pardoner, a man who sells indulgences with a face so earnest that one could almost forget his dubious dealings. Much like the Pardoner, his newfound alignment with BNP's calls for transparency and electoral fairness reeks of opportunism dressed as redemption. "I agree with the BNP on many issues," he declared in a voice as smooth as an actor's monologue, his words carefully rehearsed for maximum effect.

Mahmud has gone beyond mere agreement; he now echoes BNP's proposals as if they were his own, including the idea of a bicameral parliament. With a straight face, he praised BNP's acting chairman for "championing the cause of intellectual inclusion," seemingly oblivious to his own years-long campaign against him and the BNP. In a feat of cognitive dissonance that would make Orwell proud, Mahmud now promotes Tarique's vision for governance reform, a cause he had once called "antithetical to Bangladesh's stability."

One might wonder, is this newfound admiration genuine, or merely a last-ditch attempt to salvage his relevance in the present scenario? Perhaps he sees himself as a transformed man, like Scrooge on Christmas morning, proclaiming his repentance to an unsuspecting world. Yet, unlike Scrooge, Mahmud lacks the charm of a man humbled by self-awareness; instead, he projects the aura of a politician whose convictions change as easily as the tides.

This metamorphosis, this shedding of old skin for a new one, is almost too convenient to believe. Just as Shakespeare's Polonius is quick to switch allegiances to remain in favour with the court, Mahmud's chameleon-like shift seems less an act of principle and more a strategy of survival. The difference, however, is that Polonius's fickleness ultimately led to his downfall—a cautionary tale that Mahmud might do well to heed.

In his newfound role as BNP's begrudging ally, Mahmud's journey resembles that of a character from Molière—perhaps Tartuffe, the unctuous hypocrite who feigns virtue to gain favour. If history is any guide, his overtures will likely be met with the same distrust and ridicule as Tartuffe's grand gestures. After all, in the court of public opinion, where actions speak louder than words, Mahmud's record as AL's attack dog cannot be erased with a few conciliatory statements.

As we watch this spectacle unfold, one cannot help but see the humour in Mahmud's plight. Here is a man who spent over a decade railing against BNP's every move, only to find himself on the other side of the table, professing solidarity with those he once derided. It is a tale worthy of satire, a drama of contradictions played out on the national stage. Perhaps the moral of Mahmud's story is one he himself might struggle to accept: that in politics, as in literature, irony has a way of catching up with those who least expect it.

HM Nazmul Alam is lecturer at the Department of English and Modern Languages in the International University of Business, Agriculture and Technology (IUBAT). He can be reached at nazmulalam.rijohn@gmail.com.

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.