Dialogue is now the buzz word in Bangladesh politics. People of different professions especially a section of intellectuals think that a dialogue between the two leaders of the two main parties is the only panacea for our present political crisis. The present crisis and the violence almost everyday are affecting mostly the professionals and the working class.

Naturally they are agitated and they want a settlement between the two warring parties by peaceful dialogue. Those intellectuals who are now demanding this political dialogue for a compromise between the two opposing camps are of two kinds.

One section is sincere about a dialogue and genuinely wants a peaceful solution of the present dilemma. The other section of intellectuals who are under the disguise of neutrality, want that the governing party should surrender to the opposition under the name of dialogue and compromise.
If Awami league government accepts the real two demands of the opposition i.e. not to proceed with the trial of the war criminals of 71 and announce the acceptance of forming a caretaker government as BNP suggested then this so called neutral intellectuals will say that this is a successful dialogue with meaningful compromise.

Actually this will be a surrender to a power axis whose policy is neither pro democracy nor for the greater interest of the country and the people. If the government wants to surrender to the opposition on this term then there is no need of a dialogue.

They could only declare that though they are an elected government with a clear mandate from the people to try the war criminals, they are now abandoning the trial and ignoring the mandate of the people for the sake of restraining BNP and Jamaat from violence against the state and the people.

If this happens this will be an example in the democratic world that a government has compromised with the enemies of the people against the will of the masses which has no precedent. There can be a dialogue between Awami League and BNP on the question of forming a caretaker government to supervise the next election. Caretaker government is no more a constitutional obligation for the present government.

But to satisfy opposition there can be a discussion on how to form a neutral interim government to make sure that election is not interfered. BNP should go to parliament to place their suggestion about that interim government and sit with the government's representatives to evolve a formula to satisfy both the parties. If AL government does not accommodate their legitimate demands then they will call the people to join in a peaceful and democratic movement to force the government to accept their proposal.

I understand and agree that a dialogue between government and opposition on creating an interim government for the next election is desirable but no government which is the guardian and custodian of people's right and the country's sovereignty can go for any dialogue, discussion or compromise on the trial of the enemies of humanity.

If any government goes for that compromise only for their love of power, they will be resisted by the people and overthrown from power by people's wrath. So those intellectuals who are propagating vigorously for a dialogue cannot specify what will be the agenda of the discussion between the two camps.

AL government cannot go for a dialogue which will include the trial for 71 criminals and if they go they will face the real people's opposition in the country. BNP also for this fear could not demand the stoppage of this trial in the country publicly. After her Singapore visit Begum Khaleda Zia openly associated herself with Jamaat's agitation and violence and everybody knows that the real reason for Jamaat's destructive agitation is to stop the trial of the war criminals.

The method that Jamaat has adopted in the name of protest is neither democratic nor peaceful. We have seen a great mass movement on the demand of state language in the early period of 50's. But there was no violence, no burning of private cars and buses, no killing and arsons.

Now Jamaat has started a movement without mass support but their method is anti state and anti people. It is a war against the state otherwise how can they burn the national flag and destroy the Shaheed Minars of the language movement and BNP the second largest democratic party in the country can associate itself with these anti state violence?

To start a movement to establish a caretaker or interim government and start street violence to force the government to abandon the trial of the traitors are two different things. Now, it is evident that this is not a movement for caretaker government but a war against the state and the government to stop the trial.
Now those intellectuals who cry for a dialogue should answer only one question : can this violence for the release of war criminals be included in the two party dialogues? Without this issue could BNP start a dialogue with the government on other issues including caretaker government?

Of course this is a day dream. Now Jamaat has so much power over BNP it will be impossible for BNP to negotiate with the government on any other national issues and BNP is doing the same thing. Even18 party alliance led by BNP has announced their support for Dhaka blockade on 6th April by Islamist forces.

I do not know how there can be a dialogue between two camps whose politics are totally polar opposites. The history of the modern world shows this type of dialogue never succeeded. Before the Second World War the Prime Minister of the conservative party in Britain Mr. Chamberlain thought there could be coexistence between fascism and democracy. He went to Munich to have a dialogue with the Nazi leader Hitler.

After a meeting with Hitler he came back to London and declared, 'I signed Munich pact with Hitler which would ensure peace in Europe for the next 20 years'. Before the year ended, the Second World War started.
I can cite another example from our undivided India. The politics of All India Congress and All India Muslim League were poles apart. Congress wanted an undivided India and Muslim League wanted its division. To overcome this deadlock there was huge demand for Gandhi-Jinnah meeting and a dialogue between two parties.

The net result- the great Calcutta killing in 1946, communal disturbances throughout India and ultimately India was divided by the knife of Mr. Radcliffe, a British mediator. What was the result of the dialogue between Ayub and Sheikh Mujib in their round table conference in the late sixties? That was followed by another military rule under General Yahya. Then after 70s election there were prolonged and a series of meetings between Sheikh Mujib and General Yahya culminating in genocide and liberation war.

So what can we expect from Hasina -Khaleda meeting or a dialogue between Awami League and BNP? Perhaps it will bring more agony, more mud slinging, more violence and bloodshed. Then how and when people of Bangladesh can free themselves from this deadly impasse and what could be the alternative to a dialogue? This is a billion dollar question.

In my humble opinion present government should go for a dialogue with the opposition for all other national issues including interim government but not for abandoning the trial of war criminals of 71. If Hasina government goes for a policy of appeasement regarding this issue they will commit the blunders of Chamberlain government of pre-second world war of Britain.

Hasina government needs Churchillean courage and determination to resist the fascist violence and to combat the anti liberation forces mobilising the entire masses of the country. Sheikh Hasina knows the entire country is behind her on the issue of the trial of the war criminals. Her government and party should mobilise the people in a peaceful resistance.

Otherwise their wavering and appeasing policy may bring disaster for the government and the country. The present violence will not come to an end but will have the opportunity to get a bigger shape. We must take lessons from the situation in Pakistan.