Sufi Sagar Psalms:
Bangladesh’s political transitions have rarely emerged from quiet introspection. Power here has more often shifted through confrontation, violence and retribution.
It is against this backdrop that Tarique Rahman’s first public engagement as Chairman of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) merits close attention. What he delivered was not simply a speech, but a carefully calibrated political signal—addressed simultaneously to the public, the state apparatus and international observers.
Speaking before senior editors and leading journalists in Dhaka, Rahman called for an end to what he described as the country’s entrenched “politics of vengeance”. He warned that political rivalry must not be allowed to harden into national division. The tone was conciliatory; the implications, however, were far-reaching.
Symbolism and a Cautionary Message
Rahman structured his argument around three symbolic moments: a funeral in 1981, the violence of 5 August 2024, and another funeral on 31 December 2025. These references were not appeals to sentiment. Together, they formed a pointed argument—that Bangladesh can no longer continue to recycle its familiar political playbook without risking deeper institutional decay.
His reference to 5 August, widely regarded as a moment when political violence crossed a critical threshold, was particularly notable. It marked a departure from the BNP’s traditionally confrontational rhetoric. Implicitly, Rahman appeared to acknowledge that power sustained primarily through coercion is ultimately self-defeating.
Conviction or Calculation?
This inevitably raises the central question: Does Rahman’s rejection of vengeance politics reflect an ideological shift, or is it a matter of political survival?
After more than a decade and a half in exile, a bruised international image, and a public increasingly weary of perpetual political conflict, the BNP faces a strategic crossroads. It can either revive the rhetoric of resistance or attempt to recast itself as a viable governing alternative. Rahman’s choice was clear.
His delivery was less that of a populist mobiliser and more that of a leader seeking to project readiness for office—deliberately distancing himself from the cycles of retribution that have long defined Bangladesh’s ruling elite.
Media Engagement and Political Repositioning
Rahman’s appeal to journalists for “constructive criticism” was more than a polite gesture. In a media environment that has endured sustained pressure, it amounted to a calculated invitation for recalibration. His decision to briefly allow open questions from journalists carried symbolic significance. Power, he suggested, should not fear scrutiny; it should be prepared to engage with it.
From Slogans to State Capacity
Perhaps the most striking element of Rahman’s address was its emphasis on governance rather than mobilisation. Proposals such as an “Agri Card” for farmers, a “Family Card” aimed at women’s economic participation, preventive healthcare initiatives and a nationwide ambulance service were presented not as populist handouts, but as structural interventions.
His warning on water security was unusually direct. Dhaka, he argued, could face an existential water crisis within two decades as rivers such as the Buriganga and Shitalakkhya become irreversibly polluted. Few Bangladeshi politicians speak so openly about long-term environmental risks, largely because they offer little immediate political reward. Rahman did so nonetheless.
Youth, Employment and Political Legitimacy
Bangladesh’s demographic pressures featured prominently in his remarks. With a population approaching 200 million, many of them young, Rahman framed employment not merely as an economic objective, but as the foundation of political legitimacy itself.
Failure to generate jobs, he warned, would render the sacrifices of 1971, the mass uprising of 1990 and the more recent unrest increasingly hollow. This was less a rhetorical flourish than a stark admission: political movements that fail to deliver livelihoods eventually lose meaning.
Road Deaths as Structural Failure
Rahman’s comments on road fatalities—estimated at around 7,000 deaths annually—went beyond conventional road safety discourse. He recast traffic deaths as a form of structural violence that disproportionately affects the poor, often claiming the lives of families’ sole earners.
It was a rare instance of class-focused analysis in mainstream Bangladeshi politics, and an implicit critique of persistent state neglect.
Signals to the International Community
Equally significant were Rahman’s meetings with foreign diplomats, including India’s High Commissioner, Pakistan’s envoy and senior representatives of the European Union’s election observation mission. These engagements signalled the BNP’s intention to re-enter the international political conversation.
Outreach to EU observers, in particular, suggested a bid for electoral credibility and external validation—an implicit challenge to incumbents accustomed to managing political narratives with minimal external scrutiny.
Reinvention or Reckoning?
Tarique Rahman’s re-emergence poses an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: is Bangladesh witnessing the genuine abandonment of vengeance politics, or its tactical reinvention in more measured language?
The answer remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that this was not the address of a figure merely reclaiming party leadership. It was the performance of a politician testing the language of governance.
If Bangladesh continues to repeat its familiar political cycles, it will do so by choice rather than ignorance. And should a new political chapter eventually take shape, its opening lines may well be traced to this carefully choreographed moment—when confrontation, at least rhetorically, gave way to the promise of restraint.
The writer is the Acting Chairman, Bangladesh Humanist Party-BHP
