Kamal Ahmed recently wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Star titled “The NCP manifesto: Bold on youth, silent on inclusion.” Public scrutiny of any electoral manifesto is both legitimate and essential in a democracy. However, critique must begin with an honest reading of the content in question. Unfortunately, Ahmed’s article suggests that he might not have read the National Citizen Party manifesto, an 84-page document, and more worryingly, may not even have read the 36-point priority pledges carefully.

The column’s headline and concluding paragraph claim that NCP’s manifesto is silent on inclusion, which Ahmed identifies as “the most glaring disappointment.” He makes a particularly bold assertion: “None of the NCP’s 36 pledges address the concerns of religious minorities or ethnic communities, including Adivasis.” This claim is factually incorrect.

The third point of the NCP’s 36-point manifesto proposes the formation of a special cell under the Human Rights Commission authority to conduct independent investigations into incidents of violence, oppression, and persecution against minorities. This is an explicit and actionable pledge, not a vague commitment to “harmony,” as is often the case in political rhetoric. The detailed version of the manifesto includes plans for the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) and its communities (page 19), historically marginalised groups including Dalit, Harijan, and Scheduled Castes (SCs) (page 25), and pledge on access to learning mother tongue in primary education (page 51). Even if we put aside the full version, missing the third point of the 36-point manifesto is not a minor oversight; it seriously undermines the credibility of the entire critique, especially when the author goes on to accuse the party of a “troubling lack of empathy and understanding.”

Ahmed also questions NCP’s commitment to lowering the voting age to 16, suggesting ambiguity about whether it applies only to youth councils or to all elections. NCP clearly states that the voting age will be reduced to 16 for all elections (page 46). The rationale is explained, and comparative references are provided, including examples from the United Kingdom, Austria, Brazil, and Argentina. In fact, this has been NCP’s position for a long time, as reflected in formal proposals to reform commissions and in public speeches by the party leadership.

The article further compares NCP’s pledge to create one crore jobs in five years with BNP’s commitment of creating one crore jobs in 18 months, arguing that the emphasis on “decent jobs” makes NCP’s target more ambitious. However, BNP’s proposal translates to roughly 9.5 percent annual job growth, which has never occurred in modern economic history. Historical instances of high job growth, such as post-war reconstruction or recovery from major crises, typically range from 4 to 6 percent annually. By contrast, NCP’s promise requires approximately 2.7 percent annual job growth, modestly above the average 2.2 percent job growth Bangladesh saw between 2010 and 2023. Yet Ahmed considers NCP’s pledge more ambitious. But ambition is not the issue; clarity and planning are. And this is precisely where his critique seems to fall short again, as the manifesto provides a sector-wise breakdown of job creation, detailing how employment will be generated across industries. Pages 48–50 of the manifesto outline the job-creation plan, its structure, and implementation logic.

Perhaps the most surprising claim in the article is that NCP provides no timeline for reaching a 12 percent tax-to-GDP ratio and that the proposal is “vague and inconsistent” because it lacks interim benchmarks. This is demonstrably untrue. Pages 29–32 of the manifesto address tax-to-GDP reform in detail. The document includes a table specifying which sectors will be reformed, what measures will be taken, and how much revenue is expected to be raised in each year as a result of these reforms. If anything, this section is among the most quantified parts of the manifesto.

All these create an unavoidable impression: the author either did not consult the full document or did so superficially. Such a lack of diligence is especially disappointing when it comes from an experienced journalist who previously led the Media Reform Commission.

A manifesto is ultimately a public pledge that is open to scrutiny, debate, and improvement. NCP welcomes rigorous and fair-minded engagement, including on its pledges about inclusion, youth participation, employment, taxation, and governance reform. However, such engagement must be anchored in an accurate reading of the manifesto. We remain ready to participate in any constructive public discussion in the spirit of strengthening democratic accountability and advancing a more just and inclusive Bangladesh.