FROM PAGE 3

taken oath as an interim government adviser under the same president. The context then was not the same as now, he said. After the July uprising, they had two options: form a national unity government -- which BNP rejected -- or hand power to the army.

He said that had they chosen the latter, it is doubtful the ruling party would be sitting here today. “For the sake of stability, we joined the government at that time.”

He added that now, under an elected government, BNP has the authority to replace the president.

On the referendum, he said after election, BNP took a different stance. They should have clarified beforehand that they did not recognise the referendum, that whether “yes” or “no” won, it had nothing to do with them. “But they did not do so.” He also reiterated that the Constitution Reform Council should be formed without delay.

Nahid said the 1972 constitution was inherently undemocratic. “It was drafted with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman at the forefront. The seeds of authoritarianism were sown in Bangladesh through the ‘72 constitution, which was written in the spirit of Mujibism,” he added.

He said, “Through the Sepoy-People’s Revolution in 1975, there was an opportunity to abolish the ‘72 constitution. We missed that chance. With respect, I say, Ziaur Rahman made that historic mistake. In 2024, another opportunity came, and we are still missing it.”

Accusing BNP of shifting from its position, Nahid said, “If they move away from their stance, then we too must return to our earlier position and demand a rewriting of the constitution. If BNP remains steadfast in support of the ‘72 constitution, then we must respond accordingly.”

Nahid said unnecessary debate is being created over the July uprising. “None of us ever claimed that the uprising was greater than the Liberation War, or greater or lesser than the 1990 movement,” he said.

“The July uprising is a distinct event in Bangladesh’s history. The Liberation War is also a distinct event -- it is the foundation of Bangladesh. On this, we are uncompromising; there is no scope for debate.”