If Manmohan-Modi meeting possible, why not that between Hasina and Khaleda?

Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his arch political rival, Narendra Modi recently had a meeting in Ahmedabad in the western Indian state of Gujarat. They discussed different national issues, even when their respective parties are preparing for the next general elections, amidst deep animosity and acrimony.
The prime minister's ruling Congress party and its allies are at daggers-drawn with the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Modi. The letter has been named as the BJP's prime ministerial candidate in the upcoming polls. As the balloting is nearing, two sides are increasingly getting themselves into intense bickerings, often turning the table against one another, in a clear demonstration of their extreme enmity.
The ruling circles are often questioning the secular credentials of Modi. It has been saying that he would divide India, if elected to power and has urged the electorate to maintain distance from him, his party and its allies.
On the other hand, Modi and his supporters are coming down heavily on "dynastic" politics in India - obliquely referring to the two Congress political heavyweights, party chief Sonia Gandhi and her deputy and son Rahul Gandhi, and exhorting the voters to bring about an end to this tradition.
When the relations between the ruling party and the opposition are characterized by so much of hatred, have their leaders stopped talking to each other when common interests of national issues arise? The answer is a simple "No"; this was exemplified in Manmohan-Modi meeting other day. They were present at the same function and met and spoke to each other.
While their political rivalry continues, two leaders did not hesitate to talk to each other on issues that include honouring India's first home minister Sardar Ballav Bhai Patel and also ensuring smooth voting in the elections that are expected in next six months' time.
In this context, how would one like to compare this scenario in India to that of Bangladesh? Even a blind person would not take much time to answer the question; it is a matter of common knowledge that the ruling Awami league (AL) and its allies and main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its partners are in a kind of bitter relationship that is simply unprecedented in any democratic country. Even if they have a semblance of minimum working ties, the relations between their top leaders, are unfortunately so bad that they hardly can tolerate each other - let alone being in talking terms.
May be both of them have political and personal reasons for this abysmally poor level of ties. But the question is; can they really afford such a state of relations, being the leaders of a nation of 160 million people? Two leaders swapped their position as the head of the government and the leader of the opposition during the last more than two decades. When they have such a pathetic state of personal relationship, do the issues, relating to national or people's interest, not suffer owing to their deep disliking for each other? They can not remain oblivious to this fact and must adjust themselves for the sake of the country since their positions are inextricably linked with the state of affairs involving the people.
The glimmer of hope that had arisen recently in the dark political horizon of the nation has sadly disappeared even before it could brighten, to the extent of some clear visibility. The much-hyped and much-expected Hasina-Khaleda telephonic conversation has largely turned out to be a "farce", leaving only despair and frustrations among the people.
Instead of making progress in resolving the political stalemate that alarmingly is increasing in Bangladesh, their 'bitter' conversations seem to have further queered the pitch of a settlement of the imbroglio. What a demonstration of their political sagacity and wisdom! They poured cold water on people's expectations by exacerbating the tensions that have gripped the nation for sometime past.
But, one can ask, while showing enormous respect to the country's politicians, particularly the two lady leaders, the legitimate question: should not they narrow down the differences on and evolve a mechanism as a way out from the current political gridlock? After all, the country belongs to all its citizens, who are passing their time amid a heightened anxiety about the shape of things to come in the future.
"Dialogue" is often seen as a catalyst in resolving national and international  crises and why our two leaders should not begin meaningful talks as the time is fast running out! Nevertheless, it is not too late and a solution to national problems can be found, provided the purpose is honest and aimed at removing the complexities.
It is not the time for stubbornness and intransigence since leadership requires historic roles at the critical juncture. History will not pardon anyone entrusted with great national duties, but failing to perform accordingly, due to any narrowness or selfish ends. All concerned would, at this stage, would only hope that the leaders will not disappoint the nation.
    [email protected]