Nahid Islam, convener of the National Citizen Party (NCP), has claimed that BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir’s recent statement regarding the proposal for a national government is not consistent with the truth.In a Facebook post on Thursday, Nahid wrote: “In a recent interview, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul claimed that no proposal for a national government was submitted by students (protesters). Rather, he said they received it through other channels. This statement is false. On the night of August 5, during a press briefing, we clearly stated that we wanted to form an interim national government."He added: "Following that briefing, we had a virtual meeting with BNP acting chairman Tarique Rahman, where representatives of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement formally proposed the idea of a national government and a new constitution. Tarique Rahman did not agree with the proposal and instead suggested forming an interim election-time government composed of civil society members. At that time, we proposed the name of Dr Muhammad Yunus as chief adviser.”
Nahid continued: “In the early morning of August 7, we met with BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul at his residence to discuss the interim government and an advisory council. Before the advisory council took oath, we had another meeting with Tarique Rahman where we discussed and reviewed the proposed names for the advisory council.”
Referring to recent comments made on a television talk show, Nahid said: “Shibir leader Shadik Kayem (Md Abu Shadik
Kayem) falsely claimed that the formation of the Chhatra Shakti platform was conducted under the instructions of Shibir and that we worked under their directives. This is entirely untrue. Chhatra Shakti was formed by members associated with the ‘Gurubar Adda Pathchakra’ and some former members of the Dhaka University wing of Chhatra Odhikar. Additionally, a study circle from Jahangirnagar University also joined the effort."
Nahid added: "The process of establishing this new student platform was the result of prolonged work by Gurubar Adda Pathchakra. We had been involved in campus politics for eight years and were familiar with both visible and underground organisations and leadership. Thus, we did have communication with all sides, including Dhaka University’s Shibir."
"However, having communication, relationships or even occasional cooperation with them does not mean they were part of our political process", he said.
He further noted: “Shadik Kayem was never a coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement. Yet, from August 5 onward, he began identifying himself as one. Due to Shibir’s significant role during the uprising, arrangements were made for Shadik Kayem to appear at the press briefing."
Nahid went on to say: "After the uprising, Shadik and his associates began aggressively promoting the narrative that the Dhaka University chapter of Shibir led the uprising and that we were merely the poster boys. While Shibir’s role in the uprising has not been denied, it was not a Shibir-led event, nor were any instructions or directives issued by Shibir. All our decisions were made after consultation with various sides. As for who is now attempting to claim a share of power or protect factional interests — I will address that another day.”
Nahid said that on the night of August 2, Zulkarnain Saer and his associates allegedly attempted to facilitate a military coup by trying to transfer power to a section of the armed forces.
"As part of this effort, they reportedly pressured and threatened student coordinators staying at a so-called safe house, urging them to make a public declaration on Facebook in support of a one-point demand for regime change and to cut off communication with his group. References to this incident have appeared in multiple writings, including those by Rifat."
Nahid said: "We, however, maintained that the one-point demand must arise from the ground — from the people. We also viewed with suspicion the intentions of those exerting such pressure. From the beginning, our position was unequivocal: under no circumstances should power be handed over to the military or any group backed by them. Doing so would lead to a repeat of the 1/11 scenario, provide an opportunity for the Awami League’s return, and damage our defence forces."
Nahid claimed to have said that the movement must be carried forward as a spontaneous popular uprising, in coordination with political parties — a position his group has consistently upheld since August 5.
He also alleged that following this date, Zulkarnain Saer and his associates made repeated attempts to establish an alternative leadership against their platform, reportedly using individuals like Shadik Kayem in the process.
According to Nahid, these individuals allowed themselves to be exploited for that purpose.
He further claimed that the efforts by Saer’s group are still ongoing, involving tactics such as leaking call recordings, conducting surveillance, engaging in character assassination, spreading disinformation and running propaganda campaigns.
"It is hard to say whether such extensive smear campaigns have ever been directed at sitting ministers in Bangladesh’s history. But lies can never sustain for long. Neither will they.”