Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: Why don’t you say that we want a peaceful movement, that we want peaceful gatherings? That you won’t engage in bombings, vandalism, or terrorism, things that harm people?
Khaleda Zia: We have always said that our programmes are peaceful, democratic, and lawful. Surely you have seen what happened on 7 November 1999 when Awami League was in power: our peaceful rally was attacked, bombs and tear gas were used. Afterwards, in front of the secretariat, we made it clear that we would maintain a peaceful stance. The gathering was indeed peaceful. When the party leader delivers a speech, no leader or activist would want the environment to be disrupted, the leader’s speech left incomplete, or the leader unable to speak. While I was giving my speech, bombs, bullets, and tear gas were fired from the roof. In other words, the government began attacking even a peaceful assembly.
It is being said that our rally led to an attack on the 'Janakantha' newspaper office. We believe in the freedom of the press. We have ensured the freedom of newspapers. We have never believed that any newspaper office should be attacked, and we did not do so. Seeing the massive rally, the government, out of fear, carried out this attack in a planned manner.
On 13 February 2000, a huge rally was held involving four-party and seven-party alliances along with professionals. Even that rally was massive, yet the government attacked it deliberately. No matter how peaceful and lawful our programmes are, the government is now striking and attacking them.
Matiur Rahman: Let me return to the topic of your alliance. There seems to be frustration and questions among your party’s leadership and activists regarding this unity. Leaders and activists who sided with independence or the Liberation War appear dissatisfied with this alliance.
Khaleda Zia: What you are saying is not correct. Such things are being written in newspapers. Whatever we do, our first consideration is always the party. Whether it is a movement or an election, or any programme, the party must be involved first. Today, everyone in the country is acting separately. But we believe that if a movement is to be genuinely strengthened and brought to a rational outcome, unity is undeniably necessary. That is why, without acting from individual positions, we need unity to make the movement stronger and more solid. This decision was made collectively within the party. So it is not correct to say that leaders and activists are frustrated, displeased, or angry about it.Khaleda Zia: The question is, when did I actually form an alliance? They are now an opposition party. Today we are speaking out: the government is denying democratic rights. We are not being allowed to speak in parliament. The country’s economy is collapsing, national independence and sovereignty are at risk, people’s lives and property are not secure, and terrorism is rampant. In this critical situation, they too are holding movements, taking positions. They are also in parliament. As the leader of the opposition, I have a role and a responsibility. That is why, to make this movement stronger and more effective, if they want to join us and support the issues we are raising, we have felt it necessary to include them.
Matiur Rahman: People see that you have allied with Ershad. You are now holding so many meetings and rallies. Yet, at one time, you delivered so many speeches against him. You called him a murderer and had him imprisoned for five years. And now you have allied with him?
Khaleda Zia: The question is, when did I actually form an alliance? They are now an opposition party. Today we are speaking out: the government is denying democratic rights. We are not being allowed to speak in parliament. The country’s economy is collapsing, national independence and sovereignty are at risk, people’s lives and property are not secure, and terrorism is rampant. In this critical situation, they too are holding movements, taking positions. They are also in parliament. As the leader of the opposition, I have a role and a responsibility. That is why, to make this movement stronger and more effective, if they want to join us and support the issues we are raising, we have felt it necessary to include them.
Matiur Rahman: Awami League had used the same strategy. It faced a lot of criticism, and you criticised them too. What would you say now?
Khaleda Zia: There is a difference between our time and theirs. The issues that arose during our time did not exist then. During our time, the country was developing, the economy was strong, schools and educational institutions were functioning well. We placed significant emphasis on education and launched various programmes. We allocated sufficient funds for health, law and order was good, new industries and factories were being established, production was increasing, revenue was rising, foreign currency reserves were healthy—in short, everything in the country was in a good state. The Awami League, finding no substantial issues to remove the BNP from power, went to the field only on the caretaker government issue. That is why the current situation is not the same as back then.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: You were ultimately compelled to accept the demand for a caretaker government.
Khaleda Zia: Yes, we did, because we wanted peace and stability in the country, and because we did not want the progress we had initiated, the developmental path we had set the country on, to be disrupted or destroyed. But we said it must happen through a lawful, constitutional process. They demanded it suddenly, as if it could be given immediately. We said that is not in the Constitution, and we cannot do it that way. That is why we asked them to come to parliament and discuss it. Through discussion, it could have been done in due course. But they suddenly walked out of Parliament and eventually resigned, which is why it could not be done then. We implemented it only after our term ended, and we did so by amending the Constitution.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: You previously had an understanding with Jamaat, then there was none, and now you have allied with them again. Yet you have criticized them sharply in the past as being anti-independence.
Khaleda Zia: Jamaat-e-Islami participates in elections and comes to the National Parliament as representatives of the people. At that time, we had an understanding and a line of communication with them. Awami League was then the opposition party. We also had a relationship with Awami League, and we maintained that relationship. Together, we amended the Constitution. To strengthen the democracy for which we have long struggled and fought, we worked inclusively, bringing everyone on board.
Matiur Rahman: Awami League also said that they formed alliances with those inside Parliament, yet you criticised them.
Khaleda Zia: The alliance that Awami League formed in Parliament had no real issue. Their issue was simply to remove BNP from power and assume office themselves. That is why they allied with Jamaat-e-Islami and Jatiya Party.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: BNP has a strong position in the country. If you had remained independent without forming this alliance, standing as a centrist party, could you have advanced further. Have you ever thought that? In the 1980s, for example, you did not share a platform with the Awami League, nor did you ally with Jamaat-e-Islami; you acted independently, leading your own movement. Would it not have been better for the party to remain a centrist force?
Khaleda Zia: BNP has remained in its own position. We have not shifted from our stance. As I said before, we began the movement independently. After we started, they also began movements from their positions. We saw that they were focusing on the same issues we raised and had their representatives in Parliament. They said they wanted to join us in the movement as the opposition party and with the leader of the opposition. We saw that isolated movements were happening across the country against the Awami League, with various parties participating, and the people wanted it. When a movement is happening, if it is united, success comes sooner, and the momentum increases.
Matiur Rahman: You could have carried out simultaneous movements like in the 1980s.
Khaleda Zia: Yes, simultaneous movements could have happened. In fact, it was precisely by starting in that way that we have reached this stage today.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: You also spoke a great deal about hartals while you were prime minister. We remember that even as leader of the opposition, in a discussion with leaders of the Chittagong Chamber, you said that if the government declared it would not call hartals when it went into opposition, then you would also consider that. Later, as prime minister, you told editors, “All right, when we go into opposition, we will not call hartals.” At that point, you said no, that this would not happen. People then felt that your objective was to oust the government by any means necessary.
Khaleda Zia: I have always said this. Even when I was in government, I spoke out against hartals. Now I am in the opposition and am calling hartals. Even so, I still say that hartals are not beneficial for the country, at least not for the country’s economy. We do not want to call hartals. But when do we resort to hartals? When we are unable to carry out lawful, orderly programmes. I said this at one point, but the government did not respond then. I was the first to keep the garment industry outside the scope of hartals. During our time, when the Awami League called hartals, garment owners went to them asking at least that the garment industry be kept outside hartals. They did not do so, but I did. Now they are under pressure and are being forced to say that they will not call hartals. They cannot be trusted as they have broken their words time and again.
Matiur Rahman: Given the current situation between the government and the opposition, is there no way out now? Is there no possibility of moving beyond this division and conflict? Could someone from outside make such an attempt? Do you have any suggestions on this? For example, could you say that civil society can do it, or intellectuals can intervene, is there anything that can be done, or any path that could be explored?
Khaleda Zia: The problem was created by the government. The very issues that have caused so much distance between us are theirs to reduce. It is the government’s responsibility to take steps to resolve the problem. But the government is not taking any initiative, and they have no interest in doing so. As long as the government does not express willingness, no matter who takes the initiative, it will not be effective.
Matiur Rahman: The opposition also has some responsibilities. Whenever the opposition is asked to act, people say the government did nothing. Could you not take some initiative?
Khaleda Zia: We did take the initiative. That led to two agreements. But those agreements were not upheld. Because we took the initiative, you saw a new programme, something no one had done before, we started a road march. The government irresponsibly created obstacles for us crossing the Jamuna Bridge.
We said, “All right, we will go there. As long as they do not open the way, we will maintain our position there.” We said the northern region would come to a standstill, and so would Chittagong and the surrounding areas. Then the government realised this might not be proper. Reluctantly, they said, “All right, let’s discuss how to resolve this problem.”
If we had not taken the initiative, we would not have gone. We discussed because we wanted peace. You saw how we crossed the Jamuna Bridge in an extremely peaceful and lawful manner. What happened afterward, you surely saw. When the Home Minister issued a statement, could any responsible leader or minister have done that?
Matiur Rahman: You have opposed the Ganges Water Treaty and the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, raising many questions. Yet in practice, water is still coming despite some problems. And the scenes of war and casualties in the Hill Tracts have stopped.
Khaleda Zia: The Farakka problem did not start just now. It began after the Awami League came to power and agreed to operationalize Farakka. The Farakka issue must be resolved through dialogue between the two countries. During the time of Shaheed Ziaur Rahman, the first respectable agreement was reached between the two countries. In that agreement, we received our rightful share. All elements required in an international treaty were included. We stated that the Ganges water would be distributed, and it was distributed then. After that agreement expired, no new Farakka agreement was made during Ershad’s time.
Even during our government, we tried and negotiated extensively, as you have seen. Various delegations went to India at different times. I personally met with the Prime Minister there. Our first agenda was always the water treaty. We made every possible effort to secure water, but since we did not succeed, no formal agreement was signed. Yet water was still coming at that time.
After the Awami League came to power, however, they did not truly implement a Ganges water treaty. The agreement that exists is effectively a water treaty from Farakka, but it does not safeguard our national interest.
We know that agreements between governments are reached only after expert studies, discussions, and deliberations. Certain clauses must be included, as they were during Shaheed Zia’s time, for example, a guarantee clause; a dispute resolution mechanism was included because any bilateral agreement can face problems at any time. There were other elements as well. But this current agreement includes none of these. Everything in this treaty favours India; everything depends on India. If India wills it, we get water; if not, we do not. In reality now, we are not receiving the water, or it is not coming. Newspapers constantly report that the water promised to us is not being delivered. As a result, rivers are drying, irrigation projects are failing, ferry services are disrupted, salinity is increasing, and arsenic problems are arising, various problems are emerging. The government itself admits that, according to the agreement, we are not receiving water. Moreover, even in cases where the two countries are supposed to meet to resolve problems, India does not come. They do not give time, and Bangladesh cannot compel India to sit and negotiate.
Matiur Rahman: You were the prime minister and also the SAARC chairperson. You spoke extensively on bilateral issues with India. India is a large neighboring country. We cannot change that geographic reality. We must coexist with them, protect our interests, and assert our demands. Yet, many of your speeches and statements show strong anti-India sentiment. Is that helpful for your party? In the future, if you return to government, how would you handle this stance?
Khaleda Zia: We won the country’s independence through war. We may be a small country, but we have self-respect. As an independent nation, we want to live with our heads held high and with dignity. That is why we aim to maintain good relations with everyone. For the issues we may face with a large country like India, we want to resolve them on the basis of mutual respect. But we cannot accept that just because India is a large country, whatever they say must be obeyed, or that they can force something upon us. When they try to impose something as a big country, or attempt to infringe on our sovereignty, as a patriotic political party, we are obliged to speak out against such injustices. If saying these things makes people think we are anti-India, then I have nothing to say to that.
Matiur Rahman: The then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina told Prothom Alo in an interview that the BNP is India-supported, while there is also a narrative that you or your party are Pakistan-supported.
Khaleda Zia: The BNP is a party supported by the people of Bangladesh. The BNP always acts to protect the interests of the country and its people. We are not for or against anyone. As I said before, we won independence through the Liberation War. Shaheed Ziaur Rahman declared the country’s independence. We did not make the country independent to serve anyone or to be in someone’s pocket. We made it independent so we could live with dignity and pride.
We are not for anyone, neither Pakistan nor India. We are for Bangladesh, for the people of Bangladesh. Our sole goal is Bangladesh’s interest, sovereignty, and development.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: There has been a major campaign against you, claiming that your party was created from the cantonment and that it was built while in government.
Khaleda Zia: Who says that? Those against us, that is, the Awami League, have spread this narrative. The BNP is a party of the people. It was built with the people of Bangladesh, not from the cantonment. Leaders from various political parties, including NAP, joined. NAP is a very old party; at one time, the oppressed leader Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani led it. When the people of this country placed Ziaur Rahman in power, believing he could protect the people’s rights and the country’s independence and sovereignty, Maulana Bhasani supported him in the last years of his life, prayed for him, and entrusted his leaders to Shaheed Zia. The BNP was thus formed with patriotic leaders and activists from various parties.
The BNP presented a political philosophy that no one had before: Bangladeshi nationalism. Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Bengalis, and hill people, all are included within this nationalism. People of all religions can live here and practice their faith. This created a comprehensive political framework, rooted in our culture and geography. While others emphasise Bengali nationalism, we emphasise Bangladeshi nationalism. That is where our politics succeeds.
The people of Bangladesh speak Bengali, and so do the people of West Bengal. Through Bangladeshi nationalism, we integrate our territorial integrity and include all ethnic and religious groups in a comprehensive politics. That is why the BNP’s popularity has grown, and many have engaged with this politics. We have also presented an ideal-based program: a 19-point program focused on nation-building and development, involving people from Bangladesh and leaders from various political parties. Our party includes retired army officers, government officials, and professionals. No one before us has presented such a principle- and ideal-based politics, which is why some, envious of BNP, label it as a cantonment-backed party. And the cantonment exists within Bangladesh, it is not outside the country.
Matiur Rahman: We see that your party functions based on your sole decisions. The constitution of the party gives you centralised authority. The lack of democratic practice within your party is a major question.
Khaleda Zia: Our constitution may formally be centralised, but we always act with consultation and involvement of our leaders and activists. According to our constitution, a standing committee exists to make decisions, and we decide through discussion with our members. If necessary, we expand the discussion beyond the standing committee, including vice-chairmen, advisers, officers, and others whose input we believe will lead to a better decision. Many times, when decisions are taken in the standing or executive committee, we invite others separately, discuss with them, and then finalise decisions.
Matiur Rahman: Can others express differing opinions in front of you, or disagree with what you are saying or thinking? Do they even argue against your views?
Khaleda Zia: Here, everyone expresses their own opinion, and we make decisions by consensus. Discussions take place in the standing committee, differing opinions are voiced, debates happen, and you have even reported these in the newspapers.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: You are one of the two main leaders of the country as the opposition leader, and the other is the prime minister. Both of you have suffered from two major tragic events. Is there no possibility of mutual sympathy or understanding between you, a space where you could be together? The country watches to see if you look at each other, smile, or exchange a few words.
Khaleda Zia: Even while in the opposition, we made sincere efforts from our side. I first went to Dhanmondi No. 32 to convey my New Year greetings. Later, for the sake of a movement, we went to Mr. Wazed’s (MA Wazed Miah, Sheikh Hasina’s husband) residence in Mohakhali. These were our efforts. But while we were in the opposition, we received no cooperation from them. Even after returning to government, we wanted to work together and create a good political and personal relationship. As prime minister, I went to their iftar party and later to their daughter’s wedding. You may have noticed that even basic courteous behaviour toward me was not extended there. It did not matter who I was personally, the respect and recognition due to me as the elected prime minister of the country were not given. That is how distance began to grow between us.
Matiur Rahman: Still, as a person, or as a woman, do you have no sympathy at all toward the prime minister?
Khaleda Zia: That is why, as you have seen, I never personally attack her. You will notice that whenever she gets a chance, in parliament or outside, she attacks me personally and even mentions family matters, using indecent and inappropriate language. But notice that I never respond by personally attacking her. I have never spoken against her father or her family. I believe it is not right to do so.
Prothom Alo :
Matiur Rahman: The hatred, conflict, and division we see in the country, there seems to be no immediate way out. Will it continue like this? Will you not make any effort or take any initiative? Forget BNP-Awami League rivalries for a moment and think. The country cannot function this way.
Khaleda Zia: I have always said I do not believe in politics of division and confusion. I believe in politics of development and democracy. If there is something we can do to continue and strengthen that process, I am ready to do it. But it cannot be done unilaterally. We tried such efforts while in government, but while we were in the opposition, the Awami League gave no cooperation, so we could not accomplish those tasks. A one-sided effort cannot succeed. Now the Awami League is in government. Therefore, to remove division and confusion and to resolve the problems they have created, they must come forward. If they do, they will have our full cooperation.