In the current political landscape of Bangladesh, the recent meeting between top leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami and BNP in London is undoubtedly significant. However, it has received surprisingly little attention online and in mainstream media. Even the Jamaat-aligned daily Naya Diganta published the news as a small, single-column report on the second page.
This meeting took place amidst ongoing tensions and hostile rhetoric between grassroots and online supporters of both parties. No official statement or briefing followed the meeting, though many had anticipated one, especially considering the public curiosity surrounding the subjects discussed.
While it may have been just a courtesy meeting, it would be unrealistic to rule out political discussions between four top leaders of two major parties. Given the current state of the country, political topics were likely touched upon. This raises key questions: who initiated the meeting, and who stands to benefit from it?
Since the formation of the interim government, BNP and Jamaat—the two main opposition forces—have had significant disagreements over election timing and other policy issues. These disagreements have contributed to uncertainty about the upcoming elections and have intensified social polarisation.
Uncertainty over elections often directly leads to uncertainty in investment. This time, two additional negative consequences are visible: administrative inertia and a development vacuum in rural areas lacking local government representation. Meanwhile, market syndicates from previous regimes are reactivating and extending influence—both in political circles and the media.
For these reasons, whether BNP and Jamaat could align on an election date during the London meeting has become a matter of national interest. If they agree to bring the election date forward, the interim government may have to step down sooner than expected. This could spell bad news for newly-formed political parties.
Just yesterday, the BNP expressed dissatisfaction after meeting the chief adviser, citing the lack of a specific election date. After the meeting, Mirza Fakhrul told reporters that the chief adviser did not provide a firm deadline, only suggesting a window between December and June. “We are not satisfied at all,” Fakhrul said. “We clearly stated that if the elections aren’t held by December, the political, economic, and social situation will deteriorate.”
In light of the current trust deficit between BNP and Jamaat, the London meeting has triggered speculation about whether these old allies might re-establish ties. This could become a point of concern for BNP’s centrist allies. It might also impact the internal dynamics of BNP leadership.
In light of the current trust deficit between BNP and Jamaat, the London meeting has triggered speculation about whether these old allies might re-establish ties. This could become a point of concern for BNP’s centrist allies. It might also impact the internal dynamics of BNP leadership.
Tarique Rahman, in the past 7–8 months, has signaled a shift toward more liberal political positions. If BNP were to resume its old-style alliance with Jamaat, this would certainly alter the political equation. Questions are now arising: Is such a development imminent? Has Jamaat proposed a seat-sharing agreement? Regional powers are also curious. Meanwhile, influential figures from the US are arriving in Bangladesh, and EU ambassadors have recently met with the National Citizen Party.
The clear interest of foreign actors in Bangladeshi politics is partly due to the inability of local political leaders to unite and provide direction—as they did in July. It also reflects a perceived decline in the moral authority of the current government.
As debates around reform unfold—marked by a mix of hope and frustration—supporters of the ruling Awami League are finding space to become active. Whether BNP and Jamaat grow closer or stay apart, either scenario could expand that space.
This space has emerged largely from the post-uprising failures of alternative political forces. If BNP and Jamaat had reached an understanding earlier—especially involving students and youth activists—this opening could have been delayed. Now, will the London meeting inspire any momentum? Even if it was merely “courtesy,” political meetings always leave an impression.
Could similar meetings in London also happen with student, youth, or labour organisers from the mass uprising? Only time will tell. This is the start of a new chapter in politics. Rumours suggest that even a high-level government figure may be willing to meet BNP leadership in London.
That said, we must remember that Bangladeshi politicians have historically failed to reduce differences through dialogue. We’ve seen numerous rounds of failed talks between BNP and Awami League—between Mannan Bhuiyan and Abdul Jalil, between Syed Ashraful Islam and Mirza Fakhrul.
These dialogues not only failed but sometimes led to violent consequences. Both parties suffered—some immediately, some years later. These failures show the limits of our politicians in rising to statesmanship.
The success of dialogue depends on a willingness to compromise. Due to the lack of democratic culture within political parties, there's often little sincerity in making concessions during talks.
Many times, dialogue here becomes just a tactic to buy time. Sometimes, it’s a cover for preparing to impose control. Without a genuine “win-win” attitude, the current dialogue process in Bangladesh won’t produce anything positive. In such a scenario, foreign interference may increase. In the past, media hype around dialogues has also complicated matters, even contributing to their failure.
But Bangladesh no longer wants to return to those days. Already, once dialogue and negotiations begin, the focus shifts away from people’s movements and grassroots leadership. In July, students, workers, and the general public clearly voiced their aspirations. In the eight months since, neither the administration nor political parties have been able to give those hopes a concrete form.
Now, with all the excitement around dialogue and meetings, a space is emerging for the public to become a third force. Past experiences with this kind of space were not pleasant. That’s why, before stepping into the uncertain tunnel of “dialogue,” a clear timeline for elections and reform should be declared. All parties should reach a consensus on how the next election will be held. Bangladesh does not want to witness another violent electoral conflict.
*Altaf Parvez is a researcher and writer