THE National Citizen Party (NCP) was born with a claim that it would not practise politics as usual. Emerging from the July uprising, it asked people to see it as a break from Bangladesh’s old habits of convenience and compromise. It promised to distinguish itself with its own political language and its own sense of responsibility. Two developments have turned speculation into a moment of reckoning. Tasnim Jara, a senior and one of the more visible leaders, in her own right, resigned from the party. She announced she would contest the Dhaka-9 constituency as an independent. At the same time, 30 members of the party’s central committee have formally written to Convener Nahid Islam, opposing any political alliance or seat-sharing arrangement with Jamaat-i-Islami. It has now become a question of credibility for the NCP. Seat-sharing is not unusual in Bangladesh. Elections are fought one constituency at a time and depend on organisation, polling agents and the ability to protect votes. New parties struggle because these structures take years to build. Seat sharing arrangements or alliance might make sense for electoral politics. But the NCP did not enter politics asking to be judged by that standard alone. From the outset, it framed itself as the political expression of a movement that rejected the logic of a deal that “works”. Its leaders, shaped by the July uprising, spoke against shortcuts, against recycling old alignments, and against moral ambiguity. They spoke of a new arrangement, ‘Naya Bondobosto’ as they kept harping. That positioning mattered. It is why many young people, first-time participants and politically unaffiliated citizens placed their trust in the party. What has changed since then? If the NCP has reassessed its strength and concluded that contesting independently is not viable in this election cycle, it should say so plainly. Admitting organisational limits would not weaken the party. It would demonstrate seriousness. Any understanding with Jamaat-i-Islami also carries a weight far beyond seat numbers. Jamaat’s opposition to independence in 1971 and its role during the Liberation War are not fringe allegations. They are part of Bangladesh’s mainstream political history. That history has shaped alliances, exclusions and public trust for decades. It cannot be set aside through electoral arithmetic. Tasnim Jara’s decision brings this tension into sharp focus. In announcing her independent candidacy on Facebook, she openly acknowledged the disadvantages of running without party infrastructure, an organised worker base, or institutional access to security and administration. Yet she chose that path, citing her commitment to a new political culture and the promise she had made to voters. The central committee letter makes the issue impossible to dismiss as personal dissent. The 30 signatories invoke the NCP’s declared ideology, the historical responsibility of the July uprising and democratic ethics. They explicitly cite Jamaat’s political history, particularly its role in 1971, as incompatible with the party’s values. They also warn of immediate consequences, saying that even reports of a possible alliance have already led supporters and organisers to reconsider their backing. Money adds another layer of accountability. The NCP presented itself as a citizen-funded alternative to patronage politics. Crowdfunding is not merely a financial tool. It is a political contract. Many of those contributors are uncomfortable with Jamaat’s history and politics. If the party now moves in a direction that contradicts the assumptions under which that money was raised, the cost will extend beyond this election. Warnings have also come from within the wider July movement. Abdul Kader, a former coordinator associated with the uprising, has cautioned publicly that an NCP–Jamaat understanding risks damaging the future of youth politics. That concern reflects a fear that a rare moment of political clarity is being traded for short-term opportunism. If the NCP believes reform is impossible without parliamentary seats, it should say so. If it believes contesting independently is not viable this time, it should explain why. If it believes seat-sharing with Jamaat does not dilute its core commitments, it must articulate those commitments clearly and draw its red lines. Published in Dawn, December 29th, 2025