Amid ongoing debates about the formation of the transitional government following last year’s August uprising, Nahid Islam, convenor of the National Citizens’ Party and a coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, has released a statement revealing new details regarding key political negotiations and accusations.

On Thursday, in a verified Facebook post, Nahid addressed three key points, including a recent claim made by BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, as well as issues concerning student groups and an alleged attempted military intervention.

Nahid directly challenged Mirza Fakhrul’s recent interview, where the BNP leader claimed that student groups never proposed a national unity government and that such a proposal had come through other channels.

“That statement is simply untrue,” Nahid asserted.

He explained that on the night of August 5, during a press conference, student leaders publicly stated their intention to support the formation of a transitional national government. Following the press briefing, they held a virtual meeting with BNP’s acting chairperson Tarique Rahman, during which student representatives proposed both the formation of a national government and drafting a new constitution.

Tarique Rahman reportedly rejected this proposal, suggesting instead that members of civil society should lead an interim administration. In that meeting, the student group suggested Dr. Muhammad Yunus as a possible chief advisor.

Two days later, on August 7, student representatives met Fakhrul at his residence to discuss the structure of the interim government and advisory council. A second meeting with Tarique Rahman followed to review the proposed names for the council.

Nahid also addressed comments made by Shibir leader Sadik Kayem, who recently claimed in a talk show that the student platform “ChhatroShokti” had been formed under Shibir’s guidance.

 “That is a distortion of the truth,” Nahid stated.

He clarified that the ChhatroShokti platform was created through collaboration between:

Members of the “Thursday Circle” reading group,

Former Dhaka University student activists who had resigned from earlier student movements,

A study circle from Jahangirnagar University.

This formation was based on long-term campus organizing and political experience. According to Nahid, their extensive background in campus politics meant they had connections with various formal and informal organizations, including Shibir, but that such connections did not imply political alignment or control.

Nahid also noted:

Sadik was never an official coordinator of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement.

Due to Shibir’s participation in the uprising, Sadik was allowed to sit at the August 5 press briefing.

However, following the uprising, Sadik and others began falsely portraying the event as being entirely orchestrated by Shibir, diminishing the broader coalition involved.

 “No one denied Shibir’s participation, but it was not their operation alone, nor did they direct it. We made decisions through wide consultation with all groups,” Nahid emphasized.

Nahid also revealed previously undisclosed details of an alleged attempted military coup on the night of August 2, 2024.

According to his post:

A group led by Zulkarneyn Sayer attempted to pressure student coordinators staying in a so-called “safe house” to issue a one-point demand on Facebook calling for regime change and to cut ties with the main student leadership.

Students were reportedly threatened if they didn’t comply.

The leadership rejected the move, stating that any public declaration must come from the people on the ground, not under coercion.

They feared that handing over power to a military-aligned faction would echo the 2007 caretaker government scenario, ultimately risking a return of the former regime and damaging the integrity of the armed forces.

“From August 5 onward, we made it clear: the uprising must remain people-driven, not manipulated by military interests,” Nahid wrote.

Nahid concluded his post by accusing the Sayer group of repeated attempts to discredit the movement’s leadership:

Using Sadik Kayem and others to set up an alternate leadership structure.

Engaging in propaganda campaigns, surveillance, character assassination, and the release of private phone calls.

Nahid warned that such smear tactics are being used not only against them but also against sitting ministers in unprecedented ways.

“Structures built on lies do not last,” he wrote. “They won’t either.”