Today is the third day of BNJ*»hartal. What it .has. gained from keeping the nation -hostagrfor sixty hours is something the BNP will have to answer to the people. We are sad that the historic day of the verdict in the Bangabandhu Murder Case should be followed by 60 hours of hartal. In our view we should have been celebrating the occasion for the sheer fact that after 23 years our nation was able to establish the supremacy of law and correct, however belatedly and inadequately. a mighty wrong against a mighty man.

However, the sad fact is that today, instead of rejoicing at the moral vindication of us as a people, we are in the midst of a destructive hartal.

Why? Is it all BNP's fault? What was the role of the ruling

Awami League in all this? Did th? government behave respond j sibly with the opposition as it should in parliamentary democracy?

Awami League has repeatedly claimed that BNP's activities, especially the hartal, were to protect Bangabandhu's killers. How could street agitation or even strikes protect them? The judge's verdict would be just as valid and as final whether it is given on a normal or a hartal day. If BNP wanted to protect the killers would it not have made more sense doing something during the trial, rather than during days before announcement of the judgement?

Throughout the trial and even after the verdict. BNP maintained, in our view, an un-

fortunate, disdainful silence. JjMtpad of welcoming, this, judi-process that brought Bangabandhu’s killers — some of whom were self-confessed --to justice. BNP took a holier than thou', but essentially bankrupt, position by saying "we are in favour of trial of all killers".

We would have preferred our foremost opposition, and former ruling, party, to have come out clearly and unequivocally in favour of this trial. Having said that, we wonder on what ground and on what evidence can it be claimed that BNP was opposed to the trial?

If the above claim is based on BNP's past - the late President Ziaur Rahman phase of BNP — then there is sufficient

From Page 1 justification. Yes. by incorporating the infamous and shameful Indemnity Ordinance into our Constitution in 1979, General Zia definitely protected tiie killers. His action made ours perhaps the only Constitution in the world that gave unqualified. permanent and blanket protection to murderers. and for all time to come. Whatever President Zia's other achievements may be. he will be very harshly judged for this unconscionable compromise with killers. To this act. his providing them with diplomatic assignments further spoilt his image and created a suspicion in the public mind about unknown and undiscovered links. What could he have owed them that he did them so many favours and for so long? This he did. being fully aware, that his actions not only maligned our diplomatic service but also greatly damaged the image of the country. Just imagine, our country being represented by killers.

In the past. BNP did protect the killers. But post-Khaleda Zia BNP has a different track record. To the extent that Khaleda Zia's government did not repeal the Indemnity Bill, did nrtt discontinue I he diplomatic assignments of the killers. It can be said to be guilty of allowing them to continue to benefit from their crimes. But after Awami League government came to power and started the trial. BNP did nothing to obstruct the legal process. Over the last 18 months — the duration of the trial — there was not a single BNP action or demand that can be construed as helping or protecting Banga-bandhu's killers. In fact the time to help' them was during the trial itself - during evidence gathering, during witness examining -- and not at the time of judgement, which is when the hartals have been called.

It is our view that the judgement in Bangabandhu's murder trial is not the cause of BNP's current hartal. It has to do with the aggressive and confrontational manner with which the ruling AL has been dealing with the main opposition party.

Let us analyse the recent events objectively. It started from the government's refusal to allow BNP to hold its token "Mass Hunger Strike" at the .Paltan Maidan. Why was our biggest opposition party refused the use of Paltan? Ostensibly to carry on undisturbed the preparations for the Wills Cup cricket. We say ostensibly, because we have talked with the organisers and have been told that BNP's use of the Paltan on that specific day would have, in no way. disturbed the preparations. Even if the crowd had become unruly, what could it have done? The main stadium and all the essential pi^paratlons vi——tft protected.

Then came the first week of November. The date of judgement was declared to be the 8th. The first question is why the 8th. Did we not know that 7th November is a big day for the BNP. a day they have been observing since its birth. Whether we like it or not is irrelevant. It is their day and they have right to observe it in a befitting manner. This right is tremendously reinforced by the fact that they received 34 per cent of votes in the last election, compared to the ruling AL's 37 per cent. It became even more crucial for BNP to observe It after AL came to power, and after the PM termed it Army killing Day' or something to this effect.

We would like to argue that if the Judgement day was a few days after the 7th. it could have been easily arranged, then much of the confrontation of the previous several days could have been prevented and the political situation would not

have deteriorated to the level that it did. The onus for this squarely rests with the government. as ultimately it Is the government which is responsible for ensuring that the opposition can function properly.

This was followed by the events Just prior to November 7th. The ruling Awami League declared that it would maintain its continuous presence on the streets up to the dellveiy of the judgement, which is the 8th. This was a sure recipe for confrontation. which the ruling party knew very well. For days on end AL workers carried out firocessions and rallies. If the JNP had carried out its usual preparatory public rallies for the 7th there would have more clashes, i

Then tomes the event of the 7th itself Throughout the day there wqre stray clashes between AL and BNP activists. Just before the grand rally, workers of the two parties clashed as.clo^e to BNP meeting venue as the zero point Top” khana Road and Bangabandhu Avenue. What were the AL workers doing In these places? Why were they there? The common political courtesy is that when a major party is holding its rally the rival party, at least on that very day. stays away from the meeting venue and its vicinity. If not for courtesy. then at least to avoid clashes; AL should have asked its workers to leave the streets alone on that day. If not. at least It should have left the Paltan area alone for the duration of BNP's meeting. That is if AL wanted to avoid any clash.

Then comes the event of the meeting on the 7th itself. First the bursting of crackers, followed by a rain of tear gas shells completely broke up the BNP meeting at Paltan. AL has tried to indirectly imply that BNP disrupted its own meeting to justify its subsequent mayhem and the hartal call. This would have been even remotely credible if it were not for the clashes nearby. The shelling of tear gas just when Khaleda Zia started to speak, and aiming many of them at the centre of the meeting and at the dais itself strongly suggest police complicity in the breaking up the meeting. Now if the suggestion is that even the police conspired with the BNP to disrupt the meeting then we really have nothing to say. except that in that case government can be said to have lost control of its own law enforcing bodies. The truth, we think, is far less dramatic and the answer is obvious.

The Prime Minister repeatedly asked during the speech in the Parliament on Monday "What is the issue" for this strike? In our view, it is clearly the oppression of the opposition.

We have decided to say this today because we believe that it is not only enough to speak the truth, but it has to be spoken at the right time. We think that the time has come to tell this government unreservedly that re way it has been treating the opposition is far beyond acceptable limits of democracy. Democracy means the rights to govern with the WILL of the people. We want to remind the ruling party that it gained the right to rule with a mere 3 (three) percent majority, itself getting 37 per cent of the vote anti the opposition BNP getting 34 per cent. If peoples' WILL gives AL the right to govern, then that same peoples' WILL give the BNP the right to carry out its activities, regardless of whether we like it or not. The BNP. while in power forgot that AL had slightly higher percentage of popular votes than its own 30-plus per cent, and made the mistake of underestimating the electoral mandate of the opposition Awami League.

AL in power is repeating the same mistake.