Season's greetings from PM to opposition

The speech given by the prime minister at the BNP grand rally at Paltan Maidan on December 21 was certainly a disquieting one for those who were hoping for some kind of rapprochement or reconciliation between the government and the opposition with which to celebrate the end of another difficult year for the country.

Instead, what we heard was an unmistakable shot across the bow of the AL leadership that sent the clear message to the opposition to watch its step. Speaking obliquely, but clearly referencing the leader of the opposition, the prime minister warned that she could face sedition charges if she did not "restrain her tongue" and "refrain from creating anarchy."

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Excoriating the AL-led main opposition for its refusal to participate in a national dialogue to combat terror, the prime minister and other senior cabinet ministers directly pointed the finger of blame at the opposition, stating forthrightly for the record that those who stayed out of the dialogue were the accomplices of the militants.

This is nothing new. Even in the run up to the national dialogue, senior members of the government, including the prime minister, did not hesitate to openly and publicly lay the blame for the rise of extremism at the door of the main opposition.

It should be noted that thus far not one of the JMB cadres who have been arrested pursuant to the drive against extremism has been charged with sedition, even though the stated mission of the organization is to replace the country's entire democratic system of governance with a religious theocracy, and that they had been involved in bombings and other acts of violence in pursuit of this goal.

When I spoke to senior opposition leaders prior to the decision to decline to attend the national dialogue on terror convened by the government, the principal reason they gave for their refusal to attend was their belief that the government was acting in bad faith and had no intention of entering into a meaningful discourse on the issue or of taking the steps necessary to counter the threat.

The dialogue would at best provide political cover for the government and at worst be used as a set-up to turn the tables on the opposition.

"In what capacity are we being invited to attend the dialogue," questioned senior AL leader Saber Hossain Chowdhury, "are we being invited as the prime accused to face charges of complicity and terrorism or are we being invited as participants in the dialogue on an equal footing?"

So long as the prime minister and other senior ruling alliance leaders continued to point the finger at the AL without one shred of supporting evidence or substantiation, there could be no scope for discussion, he told me.

The senior AL leadership claimed to be genuinely concerned that if they participated in the dialogue, and that it went poorly as anticipated, that the government might try to use this failure to demonstrate that the opposition were the ones behind the militancy and use the breakdown in the talks as an excuse to send the law enforcement authorities after them.

I thought that it was a mistake for the main opposition to boycott the dialogue and did not find this line of reasoning persuasive. I did not think at the time that the government would move beyond its rhetoric of implicating the opposition to take actual steps to bring them to book for their supposed crimes.

Today I am not so sure.

The speech made by the prime minister at Paltan Maidan seemed to signal that a threshold has been crossed and that the government is determined to take action against its enemies. The government's enemies being defined as the opposition and not the extremists.

The prime minister's fire-breathing speech is not the only reason to suspect the government is moving into high gear when it comes to attempting to turn around its political fortunes. However, as with the PM's speech, the other measures put in place or contemplated by the high command seem more calculated to restrain the administration's political enemies than to counter terrorism.

Senior members of the government continue to rail at the media at every opportunity and there is serious discussion on the table to amend the Press Council Act to bring the press into line. This proposal comes hard on the heels of a systematic campaign on the part of the government to discredit the press due to its reporting on the failures and the misdeeds of the administration, specifically with respect to the unchecked rise of extremism during its tenure.

In addition to this, last week the president promulgated an ordinance legalizing the tapping of telephone lines, which is set to be ratified in parliament early next year. As with the campaign to silence the press, this move seems aimed more at intimidating and harassing the political opponents of the government than as a legitimate effort to tackle the terror threat.

Finally, in the aftermath of the twin suicide bombings on Chittagong and Gazipur court premises on November 29, it was reported that the government is considering an army-led combing operation similar to Operation Clean Heart to combat the militants who were responsible for the recurring bomb blasts and suicide attacks across the country.

These developments, when taken together with the prime minister's recent speech, do seem to indicate that perhaps there is something to the opposition's fears of being targeted by the government. It is clear that at the very least the government is determined to silence or intimidate its critics and opponents.

For its part, the opposition has been equally vocal in implicating the government in the rise of extremism and the bomb blasts and suicide bombings that have brought such anxiety and apprehension to the nation.

However, in the first place, the opposition does not have at hand the machinery of the state to take any action pursuant to its allegations. The leader of the opposition's statements might be incendiary, and even unhelpful, but there is no need to fear that they will form the template for state action.

The government does control the state machinery, and that is why the statements made by the prime minister implicating the opposition are that much more alarming than the very similar statements made by the leader of the opposition implicating the government. This is more than a tit-for-tat blame game.

Secondly, there is abundant evidence, from confessional statements of those arrested in connection with the bombings, to documented ties between the extremists and members of the ruling alliance, to statements made by concerned members of the ruling alliance itself about the links between the extremists and elements within the government, to back up the opposition claim that there is a nexus between the militants and a section of the government.

I would prefer it if the leader of the opposition made her claims of government complicity in terrorism in a national dialogue rather than at public meetings. I think that both the country and indeed the opposition would have been better served by such an approach, which would both put the government on the spot and give it the opportunity to respond.

However, the prime minister's claims of opposition complicity in terrorism are, for the reasons stated above, far more worrisome, and concern for what it all means for the future of the nation hangs over our head as the year comes to a close.

Meanwhile, let us not forget that the terrorists are still out there planning their next attack.

Zafar Sobhan is Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.