Khaleda Zia’s first political interview published in Bichitra

Khaleda Zia stepped in when the party was on the verge of fragmentation. Some leaders of rebellious factions were abroad, and there were rumours that a few were acting as political advisers to the government. She began by re-establishing contact with dormant party leaders.

She entered the public eye by sending greetings on Eid-ul-Fitr and Pahela Baishakh. At the same time, the 15-party alliance was planning protest programmes, and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) opened channels of communication with it. Soon afterwards, the BNP formed a new seven-party alliance.

By the end of January, after announcing protest programmes, leaders of both alliances spread out across districts and upazilas. The municipal elections on 4 January helped offset concerns about the success of the hartal. Khaleda Zia and other alliance leaders expressed confidence in the political situation.

On 20 February, speaking at a public meeting in Mugda, Dhaka, Begum Zia declared that the days of patience were over. News coverage on 24 February focused on the submission of nomination papers for the upazila elections. 

Party leaders believed that halting these elections would give the opposition a strategic advantage. Khaleda Zia emphasised that the programmes to resist the elections had the full support of party organisers and workers and represented a lawful, disciplined form of protest.

This 1984 interview with Bichitra, conducted by journalist Kazi Zawad, captures the early phase of Begum Zia's political career, three months after she was nominated BNP leader. It clearly outlines her political outlook and the party's mission. 

Renowned Indian journalist Kuldip Nayar later advised Benazir Bhutto to follow Khaleda Zia's example in organising a movement against military rule. What, then, was her movement and politics? The following is an excerpt of her extensive interview

Dialogue is a democratic path. Why would you boycott this path?

The government was forced to propose a dialogue in the face of the mass movement based on the five-point national demand. Many precious lives were lost in this movement, and countless political workers were persecuted. When political leaders, workers, and the masses did not back down despite facing warrants and arrests, and when the movement could not be foiled, the government was compelled to announce a dialogue as a tactic.

Under martial law, with political activities banned and strict censorship imposed on newspapers, this call for dialogue was essentially a means of buying time. It was intended to divert the people's attention. We had set preconditions to create a suitable environment for dialogue. The government did not accept them. That is why we did not participate in the dialogue.

Even when democracy is established, democratic governments fall. In such a situation, what is the way to make democracy permanent?

Yes, this has happened in the past, but not through any democratic force. It was done in a completely undemocratic way—at the barrel of a gun. The BNP did not come to power by ousting any democratic government. The only way to make democracy permanent is to allow the democratic process to continue unhindered.

The BNP could not make democracy permanent even while in power. What is your statement on this?

While in power, the BNP ended the one-party system and established multi-party democracy, ensured individual freedoms and freedom of the press, established the rule of law, and played an effective role in consolidating democracy at all levels. But that democratic process was not allowed to continue unhindered.

As a result of the movement for democracy, the possibility of holding elections is being delayed. Is this not harmful to democracy?

The demand for parliamentary elections was made primarily for the restoration of democracy, and the mass movement is for that very election. The government is not interested in establishing true democracy, which is why it has scheduled parliamentary elections last.

In other words, it has delayed the possibility of restoring democracy. This decision by the government is what is harmful to democracy. The mass movement demanding parliamentary elections for the restoration of democracy is not harmful to democracy.

In the movement's programme, you have decided to boycott the Upazila elections. Will this not create a conflict between the central leadership and the rural organisers?

The decision to resist the Upazila elections was taken with the enthusiastic support of organisers and workers at all levels of the party. Therefore, no organiser who is loyal to the party's ideology and decisions can go against the party's decision.

The Upazila election is a local government election. Why are you involving the parliamentary election or the constitution in it?

The Upazila is a new system and represents a fundamental change in administration. There is no provision for such a local government in the national constitution. We believe that the right to take such a fundamental decision, and to determine the structure and power of a new local government, belongs only to a sovereign parliament, not to any interim government.

Local bodies such as the Union Parishad and municipalities existed previously, and elections for these bodies were never held on the basis of party politics. Through these elections, the people have established the authority of their elected representatives in local bodies.

Through elections, the people also want to exercise that right at the highest level of state governance. Because our movement, based on the five-point demand, is consistent with that aspiration, local body elections have not reduced the momentum of the movement; rather, they have strengthened it.

How do you evaluate the postponement of the hartal on 20 December and the hartal of 4 January?

Within just a few days of achieving the democratic right to open politics—even under martial law—the people's spontaneous movement against the military government became vocal. After massive public support for the five-point national demand, the government tried to divert the systematic sit-in strike of 28 November in order to snatch away political rights once again.

They systematically created incidents, shed the blood of movement activists, arrested countless leaders and workers, and imposed strict restrictions on the press so that people at home and abroad were forced to hear only a one-sided narrative.

The 20 December hartal was postponed for strategic reasons, including giving the government time to accept the preconditions for dialogue. When the government failed to respond, a countrywide hartal was called on 4 January.

Despite severe restrictions on the press, the use of state machinery, intimidation through goon squads, and baseless propaganda by government media, the hartal was successful where the programme reached and partially observed elsewhere.

Many believe that any movement now will hamper the stability of the country. What is your comment?

Stability can be ensured only through a democratic system and its continuous practice. There is no democracy in the country today, and we are systematically campaigning for its restoration. Long-term instability arises from the prolonged absence of democracy. Therefore, our movement will not hamper stability; rather, it will ensure it.

The five-point demand does not include the demands of farmers, workers, and the toiling masses. Do you think they will join your movement?

The five-point national demand represents the restoration of the fundamental rights of farmers, workers, students, and the people of this country. The fulfilment of their other demands requires a democratic environment and an elected government. They have not only participated in the struggle for the five points, but have also sacrificed their lives and continue to endure persecution.

President Zia said, 'I shall make politics difficult.' How far does this apply to you?

Shahid President Ziaur Rahman travelled from the dilapidated huts of farmers to the slums of workers, sharing in the joys and sorrows of the people. In doing so, he truly made politics "difficult" for those who practise politics from drawing rooms and newspaper columns, detached from the people's hopes and aspirations.

Politics has not been "difficult" for me or for the BNP, because we practise politics for the people and remain in direct contact with them to fulfil their hopes, aspirations, and beliefs.

Source: Weekly Bichitra, Volume 12, Issue 40, 2 March 1984, 18 Falgun 1390.