Abu Jakir :
As Bangladesh edges closer to its national parliamentary elections, a single phrase — “safe exit” — has set off a storm in the country’s already turbulent political climate.
What began as an offhand remark by a dissident politician has spiraled into a nationwide debate, revealing the undercurrents of mistrust, shifting loyalties, and anxiety gripping the interim administration.
The controversy first erupted when Nahid Islam, convener of the National Citizens’ Party (NCP) and a former adviser to the interim government, alleged that several current advisers were maintaining contacts with political parties and contemplating their own “safe exits.”
His claim — made in a television interview — spread like wildfire, sparking speculation across political circles.
Soon after, another NCP leader, Sarjis Alam, accused some advisers of “half-hearted service” and warned that “for those who think like this, there is no safe exit except death.”
Their comments unleashed a political tempest. While the NCP has not clarified who, exactly, might be seeking an exit or why, the implications were enough to unsettle the corridors of power.
Advisers, meanwhile, have publicly denied any such intent, calling the discussion baseless. But as the debate has deepened, so too has public curiosity: who stands to benefit from leaving — and from staying?
In the latest twist, NCP’s senior joint convener, Samantha Sharmin, accused the interim government of betraying the nation’s educators and intellectuals.
Speaking in solidarity with protesting MPO-registered teachers at Dhaka’s Shaheed Minar, she alleged that advisers had “looked after their own interests” while neglecting the causes of ordinary citizens.
“We installed this interim government through the sacrifices of students, teachers, and professionals,” she said.
“But now I hear they are spending Tk 300 crore on cars for ministries, while saying there’s no money to raise teachers’ salaries.”
Analysts say the “safe exit” debate is symptomatic of a deeper fracture within the interim administration — a government that rose from a mass uprising promising reform and accountability, but is now struggling to maintain unity and direction.
Political scientist Dr. Mosharraf Hossain told the media that such allegations reflect “strategic signalling within a fragile power structure.”
Raising the idea of a “safe exit,” he said, “suggests the contest for future influence has already begun.”
For Nahid Islam, however, the controversy is about betrayal. In his interview, he said the interim leadership had misplaced its trust in establishment figures.
“We should have strengthened student leadership,” he lamented. “Instead, we relied on political and civil society leaders who have now betrayed the mass uprising.”
Nahid claimed that several advisers had either “secured their positions” or “betrayed the revolution” — promising to reveal names when “the time comes.”
The rhetoric intensified when Sarjis Alam followed up with even harsher words, accusing advisers of “standing on the blood of martyrs” while seeking personal advantage.
He later clarified that “safe exit” did not necessarily mean leaving the country, but that some advisers appeared eager to “breathe easily through elections” instead of pursuing justice and reform.
Other NCP figures echoed those concerns. Joint convener Sarwar Tushar said some advisers were “surrendering” to political forces they saw as potential future rulers.
“Where the mass movement should have been leading, we now see compromises and negligence,” he said. “That’s why Nahid Islam raised this issue.”
The controversy has since spilled into the broader political arena. BNP leaders, too, have weighed in — some with sardonic humour.
Barrister Rumin Farhana, BNP’s assistant secretary for international affairs, quipped during a talk show that advisers “won’t need to try hard for a safe exit — most already have dual citizenship.”
Her party colleague, vice chairman Shamsuzzaman Dudu, added that while it was “natural” for advisers to consider such an exit, “there has been no discussion with BNP on the matter.”
Inside the interim government, discomfort is palpable. Several advisers have spoken publicly to reject the allegations.
Environment adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan told reporters, “I am not seeking any safe exit. I will live in this country for my whole life.”
Road and bridges adviser Mohammad Fauzul Kabir Khan, 72, said flatly, “At my age, the question of a safe exit doesn’t arise.”
Local government adviser Asif Mahmud, however, took a more combative stance.
In a fiery Facebook post, he lashed out at critics: “Those with multiple passports are the ones making lists of others’ safe exits. The fascists will always flee — we were born here, and we will die here.”
Even law adviser Dr. Asif Nazrul — known for his outspoken views — weighed in, arguing that it was not the advisers who needed a safe exit, but “the nation itself” from the current political structure.
Home affairs adviser Lt. Gen. (retd.) Jahangir Alam Chowdhury dismissed the issue altogether: “My sons and daughters are all in the country. What would I do alone with a safe exit? Go abroad to whom?”
