Following the fall of the Awami League government amid a student-public uprising, discussions surfaced in political circles about forming a national government under the leadership of Professor Muhammad Yunus. On Thursday, a Facebook post by National Citizen Party (NCP) convener Nahid Islam reignited controversy over the matter.
At 12:11 p.m. on Thursday (31 July), Nahid Islam posted on his verified Facebook account, “BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul recently said in an interview that no proposal for a national government was given to them by the students. That they received the proposal through other means. This statement is not true.
In the press briefing on the night of 5 August, I clearly stated that we want to form an interim national government. Following that briefing, we held a virtual meeting with BNP Acting Chairman Tarique Rahman. During that meeting, the anti-discrimination student movement proposed the formation of a national government and the drafting of a new constitution. Tarique Rahman did not accept this proposal and instead suggested forming an interim government to oversee the election, composed of civil society members. At that time, we mentioned Dr Muhammad Yunus as the proposed chief advisor.”
Nahid further wrote, “In the early hours of 7 August, we discussed the interim government and advisory council with BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul at his residence. Before the advisory council took oath, another meeting was held with Tarique Rahman to discuss and review the proposed members of the advisory council.”
When asked about Nahid’s statement, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir told Prothom Alo, “The claim made by Nahid Islam is not accurate. Things don’t work that way. Our party never discussed about a national government. We are not aware of the communication with Tarique Rahman either.”
The interview Nahid referred to was published in Prothom Alo on 26 July, in which Mirza Fakhrul said, “We did not meet the (anti-discrimination) student leaders after 5 August—on that day or the day after. The proposal for a national government did not come from the students. It may have come from other quarters, but not from them.”
The Awami League government was ousted in a mass uprising on 5 August last year, led by the anti-discrimination student movement. That night, key student leaders, including top coordinator Nahid Islam, addressed the nation via the private television channel Channel 24. Nahid referred to this broadcast as a press briefing.
Allegations against Shibir leader
In the same Facebook post, NCP convener Nahid Islam also criticised Islami Chhatra Shibir central leader Abu Shadik Kayem. “Shibir leader Shadik Kayem recently claimed in a talk show that Shibir was involved in the formation of Chhatra Shakti, and that we worked under Shibir’s instructions. This is a lie,” Nahid wrote.
He stated that Chhatra Shakti was formed by members from the Guruvar Adda study circle, along with a faction that had resigned from the Dhaka University (DU) unit of Chhatra Odhikar Parishad. A study group from Jahangirnagar University (JU) also took part in the formation. The Guruvar Adda circle, Nahid added, had long been working to establish a new student platform.
“We were active on campus for eight years,” Nahid wrote. “As a result, we knew all student organisations and leaders—both from public and private universities—and maintained contact with all parties. That we had communication or occasional cooperation with Dhaka University Shibir does not mean they were part of our political process.”
Despite his assertions, it is true that many frontline coordinators of the anti-discrimination student movement were members of Gonotantrik Chhatra Shakti, a student group for which Nahid served as central member secretary. Members of Chhatra Shakti used to organise regular Thursday discussions on the DU campus with like-minded students—an informal forum they called Guruvar Adda.
Nahid further alleged: “Shadik Kayem was not a coordinator of the anti-discrimination student movement. But since 5 August (2024), he has been using that identity. Due to the significant role of Shibir in the uprising, Shadik was allowed to participate in the press conference. However, since the uprising, his supporters have spread the narrative that Dhaka University’s Shibir unit led the entire movement, while we were just figureheads. No one denies Shibir’s involvement, but this was not a Shibir-led uprising, nor did it follow their directives. We made decisions after engaging with all parties.”
When contacted, Shibir leader Shadik Kayem told Prothom Alo, “From the beginning to the end of the July mass uprising, I was involved in various aspects—including policy-making and field-level coordination. We regularly consulted with Mahfuj Alam (now an adviser to the interim government), Nahid Islam, and Asif Mahmud (also a government adviser) before taking key decisions. When the list of coordinators was being prepared, I had a detailed discussion with Mahfuz about it.”
He further claimed that from 19 July to 1 August 2024—during the absence of top-tier coordinators—he helped design programmes, engaged with the media, and arranged safe shelter for coordinators.
“I was in touch with all potential partners, including various media outlets, during that time,” he said. “Nahid is only harming himself by making such statements.”
Coordinators pressured on the night of 2 August
In his Facebook post, NCP convener Nahid Islam also revealed a previously unheard allegation about a critical moment during the July mass uprising. Nahid claimed that on the night of 2 August 2024, expatriate journalist Zulkarnain Saer Khan attempted to orchestrate a transfer of power to a section of the military through a coup.
“On the night of 2 August, Zulkarnain Saer wanted to hand over power to a section of the military by staging an army coup,” Nahid wrote. “To that end, the student coordinators housed in the so-called ‘safe house’ were pressured and threatened to declare a one-point demand for the government’s resignation on Facebook that night—cutting off further communication with us. Rifat (current president of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, Rifat Rashid) has referred to this in several of his writings.”
Nahid added, “Our position was clear: such a declaration must come from the field, from amidst the people. The way this pressure was applied raised serious questions about the motives behind it.”
He further stated that, from the beginning, their group agreed that power must not be handed over to the army or any army-backed entity under any circumstances. “That would only recreate another ‘1/11’ scenario. Awami League could find a way to return, and the armed forces would suffer damage. This must be a spontaneous mass uprising driven by the people. It should pave the way for political parties to move forward—not military forces,” Nahid wrote, reiterating that this stance had been maintained since 5 August.
Nahid also alleged that Zulkarnain Saer had repeatedly tried to create a counter-leadership to undermine their authority after 5 August. “In that effort, he used Shadik Kayem and his followers—and they allowed themselves to be used,” he wrote. “Saer’s attempts continue: leaking call records, surveillance, character assassination, propaganda—there’s nothing they haven’t done. The level of defamation being spread against the current ministers (advisers to the interim government) is unprecedented in this country. But lies don’t endure—and these won’t either.”
Responding to these accusations, Zulkarnain Saer told Prothom Alo on Thursday night, “These allegations are utterly ridiculous. The claims are not only false and baseless—they’re a cheap attempt to distract the public from their own misdeeds, which have been regularly reported in mainstream media. It’s frankly shameful that I even have to respond to such baseless allegations.”
Earlier that afternoon, at around 3:00 pm, Zulkarnain Saer had posted on Facebook addressing Nahid directly, “For your information, Nahid Islam, I had no role in placing anti-discrimination extortionist Riad (Abdur Razzak bin Sulaiman, recently arrested on extortion charges) under any kind of surveillance. Nor was I involved in installing the CCTV camera that caught him trying to collect the money.”
He added,“You’re upset with me because you’ve been falsely said that I was the key figure behind Riad’s exposure.”
Nahid’s post—published amid celebrations marking the anniversary of the July Uprising—has sparked fresh political debate and controversy. When contacted by Prothom Alo for clarification about the timing of the post, Nahid declined to elaborate, saying only that he stands by what he wrote and does not wish to comment further.