It is difficult to say how many years this nation will have to pay the price for the damage Yunus has done, not only to the state of Bangladesh, but also to its society. My very affectionate younger brother, journalist Anis Alamgir, has used words such as “fraudster” and “great fraudster” about Yunus. In reality, in the Bengali language, there are hardly any other words suitable for a person like Yunus. Eminent science writer and friend Nadira Majumdar, in a personal conversation, once said that cheating, swindling, and fraud, like theft and robbery, are also in fact a kind of profession. Even they remain within a certain limit, within a certain measure. But what Yunus has done, especially by creating a “cursed generation,” by placing that language in their mouths, by making them capable of raising their hands against teachers, means that even calling Yunus a “fraudster” or a “swindler” amounts to showing him respect.

In Bengali society, there has always been the language of slum quarrels, the language of village feuds, the language of arguments at the water tap. But that there could be such a family in Bengali society, and that from there someone like Yunus could grow up, someone capable of destroying the language, manners, and social conduct of an entire generation in this way, this Bengalis had never imagined. Therefore, truly, Yunus cannot be expressed through words like fraudster or swindler. For him, the Bengali language needs a separate word. If again a learned writer like Syed Mujtaba Ali or Kazi Abdul Odud is born in Bangladesh, perhaps he will be able to create a word by which Yunus may be properly described. And until that word is created, the word itself is “Yunus.” Just as, when someone becomes something greater than a traitor, he is called “Mir Jafar.”

In any case, Nahid, the young man created by Yunus, is now in Parliament. There are still many questions about this Parliament. There will be questions in the future as well. Already, the chairman of the Jatiya Party, who is not only a politician but also spent a large part of his professional life as an engineer, working in major positions at home and abroad, has made the matter clear in his writing through mathematical calculation. This senior student of science has shown that the number of voters this time was 12 crore 77 lakh 11 thousand 793. Against this, the number of booths for casting votes was 2 lakh 44 thousand 659. The voting time was nine hours. If casting a single vote takes a minimum of four minutes, although entering the booth, voting, and coming out cannot in reality be completed within four minutes, then even if one voter after another cast ballots continuously for nine hours without interruption, the turnout would be 25.86 percent. Since for half of that time the polling centres were empty, the natural conclusion is that the votes cast amounted to 12.93 percent.

In the 2024 election as well, the number of voters was lower than this time, while the number of booths was higher. Even then, the government of that time claimed that more than 44 percent of votes had been cast. At that time, Mr. Kader calculated the matter in the same way and informed the nation through articles in Prothom Alo and The Daily Star that such a turnout was not possible. Therefore, it is not that he is presenting this calculation of votes only now. In every era, he has tried to reveal the truth.

In any case, it may naturally be assumed that those who are in this Parliament represent, at most, 12 to 13 percent of the people. But even after that, this truth must be accepted: the National Parliament is not only important, it is a constitutional place of the state. Whoever enters this constitutional place, and by whatever means, must preserve the dignity of that place. Otherwise, the Constitution of the country is insulted. Not only the parliamentary chamber, but those who cover Parliament, as well as every senior journalist and politician, know that even walking through and entering different parts of the Parliament building are governed by rules and conventions. Not everyone can go everywhere. One cannot simply cross through one area and enter another at will. In this respect, there is some similarity with the rules and conventions of a cricket ground and the game of cricket. That is why, when someone crosses the limit of normal conduct, he is told in polite language: behave like a parliamentarian, or behave like a cricketer.

In reality, a state never means merely a piece of territory. A state is always the collective aspiration of a disciplined people worthy of possessing a state. And a state stands on its institutions and on the character of its citizens. If the character of all citizens in a state becomes like the character of Yunus, that state collapses immediately. And the first task in destroying a state or a country is to destroy the character of the people of that state or country. Yunus has done exactly that through his meticulous design.

Because there was, more or less, a certain courtesy in the Bengali character. But when, in 2024, Bengalis saw that during the looting of Ganabhaban someone publicly celebrated with the undergarments of a senior citizen, a Prime Minister, a mother-like woman; when those terrorists went and sat on the Prime Minister’s sofa, smoked cigarettes there, and crossed their legs; and finally, when, after entering the country’s Parliament, they not only vandalised the parliamentary chamber but a section of young people, in Nadira Majumdar’s words a “cursed generation,” sat on the chairs of Members of Parliament inside the chamber and smoked cigarettes, then it became clear who they were. Whatever else they may be, they do not respect the country or the Constitution of the country.

In any case, as the leader of these young people, no matter what percentage of the people’s votes he received, Nahid Islam has become a Member of Parliament. And he has also become the chief whip of the Jamaat alliance.

The language in which Nahid Islam spoke about the President of the country in Parliament is, in reality, anti-state in nature, and even mentioning those words as a citizen of the country would be an offence. And since a journalist must express his opinion within the bounds of Article 39 of the Constitution, it is not possible to reproduce those words in this writing. Because using such sentences about the President means making derogatory remarks against the state. Even mentioning them here would be an offence for a journalist under Article 39 of the Constitution.

In the same way, the Constitution has also given a Member of Parliament a prescribed framework for speaking about the institutions of the state, both inside and outside Parliament. No one can go beyond that. That is why, if any parliamentarian utters unparliamentary words in Parliament, the Speaker expunges them on his own initiative. Many times, learned parliamentarians demand that the Speaker expunge such unparliamentary words. And the Speaker considers those requests from within the rules.

Even when unparliamentary remarks are made about the highest institutions of honour in the state, such as the President, the judiciary, or the Chief Justice, other learned parliamentarians stop the speaker. They try to restrain him.

The people of the country have heard the actions and language of Nahid Islam and his companions over the last two years. So there is nothing new to say. But anyone may ask how he got the opportunity to say such indecent things about the President inside Parliament. Yet after seeing Bangladesh over the last two years, no decent person anywhere in the world will ask that question anymore.

Even then, BNP Member of Parliament and Home Minister Salauddin deserves thanks, because he at least said that from 5 to 8 August 2024, the President was the guardian of the country.

According to the Constitution, the President is always the guardian of the country. And not only during those four days; for the last two years, he has carried out that responsibility as guardian by risking his life. Again, if at any moment the country falls into any crisis, he is the final institution. The authority to ask the judiciary to provide a solution belongs to him.

For this reason, the alliance with which Nahid Islam is associated, and those who hold the majority in Parliament, should not only have Nahid Islam’s statement expunged according to parliamentary practice. They should also take other measures according to parliamentary practice.

And truly, it is astonishing to think that when children are dying every day in the country, and the government of the last two years is responsible for this, “child” parliamentarians like Nahid Islam have no concern about the matter. The “special children” are still busy with the work they have been doing since August 2024: destroying the highest institutions of the state and the highest identities of the nation. Now they are busy doing the same work while sitting inside Parliament.

Author: Journalist honoured with the highest state award; Editor, Sarakhon, The Present World.