A senior lawyer aligned with the pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh has issued what amounts to a death threat against Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Tarique Rahman, only hours after his return to Dhaka following 17 years in exile. The threat, significantly, invoked India — underscoring Jamaat’s deepening unease over Rahman’s political resurgence.

Barrister Shahriar Kabir accused Rahman of “betraying his father’s blood” by allegedly accepting “India’s conditions” for his return. The statement came a day after Rahman, son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, addressed massive crowds in Dhaka, outlining a vision centred on democracy, law and order, and inclusive nationalism.

Kabir’s outburst exposes growing anxiety within Jamaat-e-Islami as Rahman’s return electrifies the political landscape ahead of the February elections. Jamaat, which backed student-led protests during the August 2024 unrest that ousted Sheikh Hasina, is now attempting to consolidate influence through its proxy, the National Citizens’ Party (NCP). However, internal dissent has surfaced, with senior NCP leader Mir Arshadul Haque resigning over seat-sharing talks with Jamaat.

With the Awami League banned by the interim government, the election is shaping into a direct contest between the BNP and an Islamist bloc led by Jamaat. Jamaat’s alleged role in arson, mob violence, attacks on minorities, journalists and Indian missions has drawn scrutiny, particularly as it seeks to delay elections to retain street leverage.

For India, Rahman presents a complex but pragmatic challenge. While firmly nationalist — famously declaring “Not Dilli, not Pindi, Bangladesh first” — he has rejected religious extremism and emphasised minority safety, democratic stability and regional balance. This sharply contrasts with Jamaat’s overtly anti-India, pro-Pakistan agenda.

Rahman’s appeal for calm, rule of law and historical continuity threatens Jamaat’s strategy of sustained chaos. That, more than ideology alone, explains why radical voices have now turned openly hostile — and dangerously so.

A senior lawyer aligned with the pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh has issued what amounts to a death threat against Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) leader Tarique Rahman, only hours after his return to Dhaka following 17 years in exile. The threat, significantly, invoked India — underscoring Jamaat’s deepening unease over Rahman’s political resurgence.

Barrister Shahriar Kabir accused Rahman of “betraying his father’s blood” by allegedly accepting “India’s conditions” for his return. The statement came a day after Rahman, son of former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, addressed massive crowds in Dhaka, outlining a vision centred on democracy, law and order, and inclusive nationalism.

Kabir’s outburst exposes growing anxiety within Jamaat-e-Islami as Rahman’s return electrifies the political landscape ahead of the February elections. Jamaat, which backed student-led protests during the August 2024 unrest that ousted Sheikh Hasina, is now attempting to consolidate influence through its proxy, the National Citizens’ Party (NCP). However, internal dissent has surfaced, with senior NCP leader Mir Arshadul Haque resigning over seat-sharing talks with Jamaat.

With the Awami League banned by the interim government, the election is shaping into a direct contest between the BNP and an Islamist bloc led by Jamaat. Jamaat’s alleged role in arson, mob violence, attacks on minorities, journalists and Indian missions has drawn scrutiny, particularly as it seeks to delay elections to retain street leverage.

For India, Rahman presents a complex but pragmatic challenge. While firmly nationalist — famously declaring “Not Dilli, not Pindi, Bangladesh first” — he has rejected religious extremism and emphasised minority safety, democratic stability and regional balance. This sharply contrasts with Jamaat’s overtly anti-India, pro-Pakistan agenda.

Rahman’s appeal for calm, rule of law and historical continuity threatens Jamaat’s strategy of sustained chaos. That, more than ideology alone, explains why radical voices have now turned openly hostile — and dangerously so.