Diverging views emerge within BNP government over militancy issue

BD Digest Report

Two important policymakers of the current BNP government have given different statements on the existence of militancy and extremism in Bangladesh. While Home Minister Salah Uddin Ahmed claimed that there is no militancy or extremist activity in the country at present, Prime Minister’s Information and Broadcasting Advisor Dr. Zahed Ur Rahman believes that it cannot be completely said that there are no militants in the country.

They made these comments in response to questions from journalists at two separate events on Tuesday (April 28).

In a briefing at the Secretariat on Tuesday, Information Advisor Dr. Zahed Ur Rahman said, “There are two extreme ideas about militancy in the country. One is that the country is full of militants, and the other is that there are no militants in the country. The government believes that both these ideas are wrong.”

He said, “It cannot be completely said that there are no militants in the country. However, the way militancy was exaggerated and presented to achieve political objectives during the time of the fallen Awami League government was basically a strategy to stay in power.” He added that even if there is a tendency towards extremism in a small section of society, the state is capable of controlling it.

On the other hand, on the same day, after the Coast Guard’s founding anniversary ceremony in Agargaon, Home Minister Salah Uddin Ahmed said that there is currently no radical activity or militancy in Bangladesh.

The Home Minister said, “There are some extremist groups or radical forces in every country in the world. However, there is no situation in Bangladesh to use the word ‘militancy’.” He also criticized the previous government, saying that these issues were used as tools for political gain during the previous fascist regime.

The public is curious to see such different statements from two government officials on the same day. Although both agree that the issue of militancy was misused for political gain during the past regime, the differences in the statements of the two mainly concern the ‘definition’ of extremism and the level of ‘current activity’.