Embrace of hope
WHEN the leader of the opposition Khaleda Zia visited Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to offer her condolences at the passing away of Dr. Wazed Miah, they had tearfully embraced each other, and for once, all the differences were set aside and the two met as humane beings. One would have liked to see them meet under happier circumstances and not one occasioned by the death of a spouse.
This was perhaps the first time since the two became the leaders of their respective parties that a meeting between them has taken place without rancour or acrimony or open display of mutual apathy being flaunted with palpable delight.
It was grief that brought them together. It is a pity that death had to be the reason for the two ladies to meet. It is worth recalling that the late Dr. Wazed Miah at one point in time had tried, in vain, to bring about reconciliation between the two.
And in Bangladesh the meeting was news. There is good reason why, in our country, a perfectly civil and normal act of our leaders makes the headlines. Meetings and exchanges of pleasantries between the leaders of the two major political parties are an exception rather than the norm, and anything out of the normal run of their conduct catches our attention, as this recent gesture of Begum Zia has.
But in giving the importance that the media has to the event it has perhaps reflected the desire of the vast majority of the Bangladeshis to see the two shed permanently the divide that keeps them psychologically apart.
It is quite understandable that while Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina will continue to be political opponents, being leaders of the two parties that matter most in our politics, what is quite unacceptable is that the political divide should continue to pervade their psyches to a degree that prevents them from indulging in common and customary social interaction, as is expected of political personalities representing a vast majority of our people.
Unfortunately, this attitude has trickled down to the party members, particularly the senior leadership, and the impression of the public is that one considers the other not as political opponent but sworn enemy. There is predominance of mistrust and suspicion that shapes their attitudes towards each other.
Given that the political environment in Bangladesh has been primarily the product of AL-BNP relationship, no wonder that it has been a vitiated atmosphere that the people had to endure since the time democracy was restored in the country.
I for one feel that there is much in common that the two leaders have with each other. Both have suffered great personal tragedies and both have had the mantle of leadership thrust upon them. They are leaders not by default anymore but by choice of the people, and both have had the good fortune of being entrusted by the people, twice each, to govern the country.
The two had joined hands to dislodge a pseudo-democratic government in 1991 and both had committed to help democracy flourish. Both have been the victims of harassment from time to time of the powers that be, and only recently both have had to suffer the indignity of incarceration on allegation of corruption.
Unfortunately, it is history, or subjective perception of it, that has had much to do with the shaping of attitudes of the two leaders. It is unfortunate that the House of Sheikh Mujib and the House of Zia have developed an irreconcilable attitude towards each other. The former feels that Zia was the beneficiary of the death of Bangabandhu and had a hand in the Augus 15 killings. And Khaleda Zia feels that popular movements have suffered because of the attitude of compromise of Sheikh Hasina.
The people want to see the state of animus between AL and BNP come to an end. The inevitability of being ruled by either of the two houses has come to be accepted by the people. The news that Sheikh Rehana is likely to be given a high party post confirms the fact that political personalities might change but not hereditary rights. And, therefore, the better the understanding and harmony between the two houses the better would be the way national issues will be addressed. (On principle one should not have any grudge against such an arrangement. If some big business houses can go by the law of heredity why cannot the political houses? Our only plea is do not turn politics into business.)
There is need for unanimity on national issues. Certain matters of national interest must be addressed cutting across party lines and in this the two leaders must show the way. If family grief and distress can bring apparently intractable opponents together why can't national issues that cause distress to the people move them enough to forget their differences?
We would like to see in the meeting of the two more than mere symbolism -- we would like to see it as an embrace of hope that would bring a qualitative change in our polity and politics.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments