***By and large, the arithmetic of 'for and against" hartal would, possibly, suggest that hartal is considered as "harmful" rather than "helpful". But so long as electronic media is going to be under government's strict control (whoever may be in the government), so long the parliament is not made the focus of discussions, so long opposition parties are not taken with due respect, this "harmful" instrument is going to be there, and possibly for ever.***

OF late. Prime Minister (PM) Sheikh Hasina declared that her party would never call hartals or use hartal as a weapon of protest in future. Following the unexpected but historic announcement. sordidly, sharp reactions sparked off and heavy shells of attack began to pour in. The critics — mostly the main opposition party and its supporters — outrightly rejected her positive position and at the same breath, negated any chance of staging a come back from the on-going hartal culture that they are pursuing through thick and thin. However, Awami League (AL) supporters, trade bodies and international community hailed the decision heartily.

Before I pass any judgement on this particular issue related to hartal, let me clarify my position first. When BNP was in power and AL resorted to hartal as a weapon of protest. I wrote a piece in this column (December 10.1993) to bring to the fore (a) the monetary and non-mone-tary costs of hartals, (b) the ways through which uses of the weapon called hartal could be waned, and (c) some concluding observation. Finance Minister (FM) SAMS Kibria's recent estimate of losses due to hartals, possibly, calculates yearly GDP of Bangladesh and then divided the total by 365 days to arrive at the dally output of the economy. However, I made some strict assumptions on different sectoral output per day even on hartal

day to reach the conclusion that during an eight-hour hartal day. the nation is deprived of 41 per cent of daily total production. In 1993. that loss equalled the cost of a Meghna bridge. Besides these monetary losses, the nation faces massive "nonmonetary" losses on account of which, unfortunately, it fails to occupy a respectable position in discussion. These are. for example. mental pressures built up during the hartal drama, creeping frustrations among people and business community that frequencies of hartals tend to bring in and (the last but not the least) the impalpable loss of image outside. The last factor. tells upon investment, tourism and otner developments. If one could monetize the above mentioned "ordinal" effects, the dally loss due to hartal could be few folds more than what FM or I have calculated.

So. I continue to be an antihartal element, especially, since the fall of the autocratic regime and during the development of nascent democratic institutions. On that score alone. I congratulate the PM for having made that clarion call.

Mainly three arguments are put forth by her critics to undermine the call. First, at the

moment, it is being said that it is her optimal political strategy to secure sympathy from concerned corners and subdue the opposition. I personally thank one of my student M Akhtar for highlighting this aspect in a recent write-up in this paper. Second, since Sheikh Hasina and her party called hartals for 173 days during BNP’s time, the argument runs — she should also reap as she sowed. And

third, hartal is a constitutional right and hence should be allowed to be in operation.

There is no doubt that her "no hartal" call is the most matured and well manoeuvred political strategy that she seems to have pursued so far. Just look at the difference: once upon a time. Sheikh Hasina wore the shoe without knowing whether, where or to what extent it pinched (because she was in opposition). Now that she is in power, she quite well realises

what kind of shoes would pinch the economy — where and how — and declared unequivocally to give up wearing that shoe. So, it is a movement on her part from the bad to the good. On the other hand. BNP was in power for five years and surely it knew where and how the shoe called hartal pinched the economy. Quite vocally — and possibly logically too — they termed these activities as "anti-state".

"anti-people" and sometimes al-leged them to have been fuelled by foreign powers. Now being in opposition, they began to "love" hartal — the thing they "hated" once. Knowing folly well the costs of hartals — while they were in power — they have dragged themselves into this kina of "anti state", "anti-people" business. So. seemingly, they moved from a good to a had situation as far as their political strategy is concerned. Second. if a "no hartal" declaration

is an optimal political strategy while in power, then why did not BNP or for that matter the then PM. Khaleda Zia. stepped into to bag the medal? Faced with this kind of facile hartal, she or her party could also sell the same argument. Unfortunately. that did not seem to have happened.

The second argument relates to 173 days of hartals — allegedly — called by AL during BNP's tenure. The figure seems to be fat but could also be fictitious. In calculating the number of days one should exclude those that followed Magura bielection or 15th February election since those two elections upset the whole calculus of a electioneering process and thus left no other window to ventilate the rots. However, for the last two and a half years rule of AL. BNP and her allies have already — locally and nationally — come close to the 173 mark. The constitutional question is not clear to me. As far as 1 can understand, the constitution provides the right to freedom to pursue one's, own protest but does that allow the freedom to impinge on others' freedom? I don't mind calling hartal by any party but I should be given the chance to move freely, talk

freely and do whatever I like without encroaching upon others’ rights or state secrecy

By and large, the arithmetic of "for and against" hartal would, possibly, suggest that hartal is considered as "harmful" rather than "helpful". But so long as electronic media is going to be under government's strict control (whoever may be in the government), so long the parliament is not made the focus of discussions, so long opposition parties are not taken with due respect, this "harmful” instrument is going to be there, andpossibiy for ever.

The solution lies in seeking those effective alternatives to hartals. The optimal political strategy of the opposition would be, I suppose, to accept PM's call on principle and then sit to set certain preconditions so that government is bound to follow. Even if for the sakq of argument we assume that the present government can be unseated through hartals — as opposition leaders tend to harp on this line of reasoning — the spectre of hartal could do the same to them also. We do not expect that BNP would say — what PM said — after regaining its lost seat of power. In fact, both the leaders of position and opposition should say something at the same time and in the same manner. Let chime of time narrow the existing gap. not widen it. Time is too short to allow politics of hartals. Let good wishes be dawned on politics.