Begum Khaleda Zia is unwell. She has been ill for a long time, but this time her health issues are more serious than ever. Her physical condition is critical. She has been ill for long, and her son Tarique Rahman has effectively been leading the party, though she formally remains the party’s chairperson. Khaleda Zia’s present illness has created a rare instance in political culture.
After the fall of Sheikh Hasina, the political parties that had fought against Hasina are now embroiled in disputes with one another. Everyone wants to assert their own political narrative. After operating for so long under an authoritarian government, a kind of authoritarian mindset has also become visible among the leaders and activists of the political parties. As a result, in many cases, the disagreements among parties have gone beyond the bounds of a democratic environment and turned into outright quarrels. At times, they are behaving not like political rivals but like enemies.
Yet even in such a political climate, every political party has shown unambiguous respect toward Begum Khaleda Zia. For someone to attain such a position of national guardianship while still being the head of a political party is an extraordinary phenomenon in a country like Bangladesh. And it is only befitting that this has happened.
The party led by Begum Khaleda Zia fought for years against the autocracy established by Sheikh Hasina. Khaleda Zia herself paid the price for that struggle, just as countless leaders and activists of her party did. Even in extremely poor physical condition, she was kept in jail for a long time, unjustly. There are allegations that the deterioration of the illness that now threatens her life was driven by conspiracies of the Hasina government.
Yet, had she agreed to certain compromises with the government, she could have gone abroad long ago, received proper treatment, and spent the rest of her life peacefully with her only surviving child. But she refused that path and has paid a terrible personal price. Her uncompromising stance now occupies an important place in Bangladesh’s political history.
Against the backdrop of Begum Khaleda Zia’s illness, the question has arisen: why is her only surviving child, Tarique Rahman, not returning to the country? Everything that happens in a state or society is political. And when the issue concerns the largest political party in the country, a party widely expected to win the next election if it is free and fair, it is only natural that the matter of its top leader’s illness, and the questions surrounding her son’s return, would become political.
The problem is that many comments translate into “hate speech,” which will inevitably be harmful for the country’s political environment.
Why is Tarique Rahman not coming back to the country? When will he return? These questions have been making rounds since 5 August 2024 in the country’s political sphere. It was common sense to assume that the time had finally become favourable for someone who had been abroad for so long, to return home and take charge of the party. So, public curiosity about Tarique Rahman’s return is only natural.
Bangladesh’s future democratic progress, BNP has a very important role as a centrist democratic party, counterbalancing the rise of right-wing political forces
During his mother’s severe illness, his not returning to the country has led to outright questioning of his respect for, and duty toward, his mother. The uproar on social media has been so intense that Tarique Rahman has felt compelled to say something about the reasons for not returning at this moment. In a post on social media, he wrote, “…but unlike everyone else, I do not have the entire scope or sole control to make decisions. There is also limited scope to explain this sensitive matter in detail. Our family is hopeful that as soon as the political situation reaches the expected stage, my long anxious wait to return to my homeland will finally come to an end.”
In the past, Tarique Rahman has at various times made statements suggesting that he would “return to the country soon,” but this is the first time he has offered some degree of clarity about why he has not come back. Needless to say, even in this statement there is considerable ambiguity, and it has raised new questions. People are trying to find out who, in fact, is behind a decision that is “nor solely under his control.”
The question has arisen: who are these “other controllers” of his return? Are they domestic or foreign? The chief adviser’s press secretary has already said that there is no obstacle from the government’s side to Tarique Rahman’s return. So does this mean some foreign force is at play, bargaining by preventing his return?
Tarique Rahman certainly has the political wisdom to understand how important it is, ahead of the election, for him to return to the country. He cannot be unaware that the questions surrounding his not returning are politically undermining him. Yet despite all this debate and criticism, his continued absence demonstrates that, unless the underlying problems are resolved, his return could be dangerous.
The question of Tarique Rahman’s return to the country also involves concerns about his security. It is true that the internal security situation in the country is not good. If he returns as the head of a party, will the security provided by the government be sufficient? There are many people, both inside and outside the country, who could pose a security risk to him.
Some argue that in a country like Bangladesh, security risks are inevitable. If one wants to engage in politics here, one must accept these risks.
Beyond this, however, we can say that in Bangladesh’s future democratic progress, BNP has a very important role as a centrist democratic party, counterbalancing the rise of right-wing political forces. If the leader of such a party were to face a major security threat under these circumstances, it would deal a serious blow to the prospects of democratic restoration in Bangladesh. It could even lead the country into a prolonged period of instability, a concern that cannot be dismissed. Therefore, it would be prudent to take such a risk into consideration.
In terms of the country’s democratic progress, BNP has become important not only because of Khaleda Zia’s role as party leader, but also because of her position above the party. On our path toward democratic advancement, whether before or after elections, if any concern arises, or if there is an imbalance among the government, political parties, or other centers of power, Khaleda Zia, as a national guardian, can play a crucial role. She can mediate compromise.
In her political life and in governance, Khaleda Zia has made both minor and major mistakes. But ultimately, she has become a symbol of our struggle for democracy. Her continued survival for some more time is essential in the interests of the nation and the state. I am confident that the prayers of this nation are with her.
* Zahedur Rahman is a teacher and political analyst
The opinions expressed here are the author’s own