The New Nation - Internet Edition

Pulack Ghatack

The prospect of the much talked about meeting between Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina looks bleak, as Awami Leugue (AL) is interested to set highly conflicting agendas before it.

While BNP leaders view such a meeting on an optimistic note and say their chairperson is prepared to discuss anything, AL leaders say the meeting without finalising its agenda would be meaningless.

The enthusiasm for the meeting has been seriously dampened by a stark remark by acting AL general secretary Syed Ashraful Islam at its main mediator Barrister Rafiq-ul Haq asking to mind his own business instead of meddling in politics.

Barrister Rafique, who had earlier taken active interest in the proposed meeting, told the New Nation Saturday night that he would be able to speak on it after the return of Sheikh Hasina from abroad.

He said that he knew nothing about the possible agenda about the meeting and added, "I have no personal agenda."

Barrister Rafiq earlier told journalists that both leaders agreed to sit together for a dialogue and neither of them put any conditions.

Quoting Sheikh Hasina he said since she is currently outside the country, she would give a final decision after talking to her party colleagues on her return home.

Asked about the government's interest to bring the two leaders to a dialogue, he said it might be because its 'minus two' policy failed.

About the possible agenda for dialogue he said "For example, they might decide that they will not boycott the parliament from now on, and bring new faces into politics."

But Awami League leaders are saying that they want to talk about trial of war criminals, banning religion in politics, August 21 carnage, emergence of religious extremism etc.

AL presidium member Amir Hosain Amu on Saturday told The New Nation over phone that their party was not aware of any proposed dialogue.

Another presidium member Suranjit Sen Gupta said any dialogue without agenda was meaningless. "As the agenda is unknown we cannot say that any dialogue will take place," he added.

"Certainly Awami League will want to discuss to resolve some conflicting issues to build a democratic secular Bangladesh," he replied to a query.

Acting AL General Secretary Syed Ashraful Islam earlier told reporters "If the talks are held on certain national issues, the two leaders can sit together after finalising the agendas and issues by the experts of the two parties."

Adviser of BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia Brig Gen (Retd) Hannan Shah on the other hand said, "Our leader is ready to talk on any issue in the interest of the nation."

Asked about conflicting issues set forward by AL leaders he said, "They may have their political agenda. I also have ours. We will not leave our politics and they will also not leave their politics."

However, some in the political circle believe that the there is a little possibility of a dialogue between two top leaders and hence the prospect of the future election may be on uncertainty.

Khaleda has agreed for talks, but the close associates of Hasina are insisting that Khaleda must first apologise for "trying to kill her" and also to the nation for years of misrule.

They were referring to a 2004 grenade attack on Hasina's rally in Dhaka which killed 23 people and wounded over 150. Khaleda was prime minister at the time. This is a tricky condition.

Now they are demanding action against the war criminals. Awami League Presidium Member Abdur Razzak stated that BNP should first make its position clear about militancy, anti-liberation war forces, war criminals and fundamentalist forces before a meeting with Hasina.

The demand of Awami League for action against war criminals is bound to result in political hostility with the BNP.

TIB chairman Prof Muzaffer Ahmed said, "Any agenda imposed by the Government will not be effective to resolve the crisis if followers of the leaders are not interested in it."

Political analysts believe the country's decades of never-ending unrest can be blamed in a large part on their refusal to compromise on any national issue.

Analysts also say the differences between the two most important leaders, who represent opposing political legacies, are too deep-rooted to be resolved in a meeting or two.