Khaleda Zia’s Illness and the Debate Over Tarique Rahman’s Return

 

Khaleda Zia’s Illness and the Debate Over Tarique Rahman’s Return

Begum Khaleda Zia has been ill for a long time, but her current condition is more critical than ever before. She is now in a life-threatening state. Although Tarique Rahman has been effectively leading the party due to her prolonged illness, she still remains the official chairperson. Her deteriorating condition has revealed a rare display of political culture in Bangladesh.

After the fall of Sheikh Hasina, the political parties that opposed her have become embroiled in disputes among themselves. Years of authoritarian rule have instilled an authoritarian mindset even among political activists, causing many debates to escalate beyond democratic norms into open hostility. Instead of treating one another as political rivals, some parties are behaving like bitter enemies.

Yet, despite this environment, all political parties have shown unanimous respect to Begum Khaleda Zia. In a country like Bangladesh, it is remarkable for a party leader to attain such a status that transcends party lines and elevates her to the position of a national guardian.

For years, Khaleda Zia and her party fought against the authoritarian rule established by Sheikh Hasina. She personally paid a heavy price in this struggle, much like countless other activists. Even in extremely fragile health, she was kept in prison for a long time. Many believe that negligence or deliberate actions by the Hasina government contributed to the worsening of her condition.

She could have chosen to compromise with the government, gone abroad for treatment long ago, and lived peacefully with her only son. But she refused that path. The uncompromising stance she maintained has now earned a significant place in Bangladesh’s political history.

Her critical illness has brought renewed attention to the question: Why is her only son, Tarique Rahman, not returning to Bangladesh? When the head of the country’s largest political party is gravely ill, it is natural for such issues to gain political relevance—especially for a party widely expected to win the next national election.

However, the problem is that many discussions surrounding this issue have turned into hate speech, which is detrimental to the political environment.

Ever since the events of August 5, the question of Tarique Rahman’s return has dominated political discourse. Many believed that, after spending so long abroad, he would return home now that circumstances have become favorable. Public curiosity about his possible return is therefore understandable.

But his decision not to return even when his mother is critically ill has prompted intense criticism. Social media has been flooded with attacks questioning his sense of duty and respect toward his mother. In response, Tarique Rahman issued a statement saying that the decision to return is not solely his; sensitive political realities are involved. He expressed hope that once circumstances become favorable, he will finally be able to return home.

His statement, however, raised new questions. Who exactly controls this decision? Are the obstacles to his return internal or international? The government has already stated that it is not blocking him. So, is a foreign power exerting pressure?

Tarique Rahman certainly understands the political importance of returning to Bangladesh before the election. Yet despite the criticism, his continued absence suggests that returning without resolving certain issues could be dangerous.

The question of his security has long been a concern. Many doubt whether the government could provide him with adequate protection if he returns. There are forces both inside and outside the country that might pose threats to his safety.

Some argue that political risks are inevitable in a country like Bangladesh and must be accepted. But the matter is far more complex. As a centrist democratic force, the BNP plays a crucial role in Bangladesh’s future democratic trajectory. If its top leader were to face a serious security threat, the country's democratic revival could suffer a heavy blow, pushing Bangladesh into prolonged instability.

In Bangladesh’s democratic journey, Khaleda Zia holds significant importance not only as a party leader but beyond party politics as well. If political tension arises—before or after the election—between the government, political parties, or centers of power, she could serve as a mediator due to her stature as a national guardian.

Khaleda Zia, like any political figure, has made mistakes. But ultimately, she has become a symbol of the country’s struggle for democracy. Her survival and continued presence are vitally important for the nation. Undoubtedly, the prayers of the people are with her.