When Islamist militants began to bomb the shrines of Muslim saints, the ruling coalition turned a blind eye to this. Ministers and coalition leaders propagated that it was an act of the opposition in liaison with a neighbouring country to destabilize the government. But it was clear to all that Islamist militants bombed the shrines to scare people from visiting them because they present a real secular space where people from all religions go.

The media replaced the opposition party as the scapegoat when the mainstream newspapers including the Daily Star began reporting the vigilantism of a group led by a man called "Bangla Bhai" (a pro-Taliban outlaw) trained in Afghanistan. Siddiqur Rahman, alias Bangla Bhai, a follower of the Taliban, tested a Taliban model of administration in Rajshahi's Bagmara village. He tortured and killed people for not following the Taliban lifestyle recommended by him. Local law enforcement agencies and a couple of junior ministers, who represent the area, condoned him. When media reports about his illegal activities became abundant, the ruling coalition refuted them. It said there was nobody called Bangla bhai and he was a "creation of the media." The media created him to demonstrate the government's failure in maintaining law and order. The media was serving the interest of the opposition. However, eventually the government failed to cover it up. It had to recognize Bangla Bhai's presence and issue a warrant for his arrest. The police are yet to make any headway with this.

The government also faced difficulty in getting a scapegoat immediately when an Awami League rally was attacked with grenades killing a top leader like Ivy Rahman and many activists in August 2004. Although some elements of the ruling coalition tried to blame the opposition by saying that the party did it itself to earn public sympathy, it was difficult to sell this to people. Therefore, the focus was shifted to pick a scapegoat from somewhere else. This time it was from a religious minority group. A young man -- Partha Shaha -- was detained and tortured by law enforcement officers for allegedly threatening Sheikh Hasina over e-mail. His stay and education in India was presented as a suspicious thing although it is not a crime for the Bangladeshis to study there. At the moment thousands of Bangladeshi students study in various Indian universities. The law enforcement agencies could not produce any credible evidence proving Partha's role in threatening Hasina.

The ruling coalition, mainly the BNP, became perplexed when Islamist militants began dispatching suicide bombers to kill judges and lawyers to paralyze the judiciary. The militants intend to establish Taliban style courts Bangladesh, unsettling the BNP. Some BNP MPs began to speak out against the militants and point the finger at a coalition partner -- Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh -- for harbouring militants.

The pro-militant players within the ruling coalition devised a three-pronged strategy to handle the situation. First, they prepared the ground for BNP chairperson, the prime minister, to take punitive actions against the party members who voiced opposition to Islamist militants. Second, they made attempts to find out scapegoats to blame for suicide bombings. Third, they persuaded the prime minister to make a call for a national dialogue to deal with the rise of Islamist militancy in the country.

The first strategy seems to be a success. Abu Hena MP who spoke against militants was expelled from the BNP and a few others were censured. Disciplinary actions against party dissidents apparently silenced people inside the BNP from taking explicit positions against the militants.

The second strategy of finding suitable scapegoats was a flop. An attempt to find out suicide bombers from a religious minority group did not succeed. After the suicide bombing in Netrokona, the unfortunate Yadav Biswas who died in the bombing because of his excessive curiosity was initially identified as a suicide bomber. It was done to discover the hands of foreign conspirators in suicide bombings. But circumstantial evidences and eyewitnesses made it impossible to indict Yadav as a suicide bomber and the poor man was absolved of this curse.

The third strategy of having a national dialogue to eliminate Islamist militancy is now in play. This has given some dividend to the coalition government. I appreciate the brilliance of the people in the ruling coalition who floated the idea of the dialogue. It turns out to be a master stroke in many respects.

Suicide bombings have exposed the government's lenience to Islamist militants and the involvement of coalition partners in harbouring militants. People are not willing to buy into the old strategies of vilifying the media, the opposition, or a particular religious minority group for suicide bombings. They have been terrified like hell. In such a context, the ruling coalition has needed something to salvage its image to people and the foreigners, including diplomats, living in the country. The proposal of a national dialogue gave the government a chance to hold some ground and simultaneously vilify the opposition.

The people who floated the idea of holding the dialogue were prescient to know that the main opposition would not join because of its animosity to the ruling coalition, creating some opportunities to castigate it. They were not wrong. As expected, the main opposition party declined to join the dialogue, giving the ruling coalition an opportunity to question their integrity in eliminating militancy. Sensible people stood up to the opposition for its unwillingness to cooperate with the government during a national crisis.

However, the question remains: is it necessary to hold a dialogue among political parties to eliminate Islamist militancy? Any assessment of this question requires an understanding of dialogue. Dialogue is a democratic way of solving conflicts which usually takes place between conflicting parties. For many decades western governments and UN organizations emphasized dialogue as a means of solving regional and international conflicts. From time to time, western diplomats in our country also called for dialogues between our political parties to solve political problems. There is no doubt that dialogue is a good technique for resolving conflicts, but holding dialogues to eliminate Islamist militancy seems odd. None of the opposition parties support the militants. Everyone demanded of the government to take punitive actions against the militants. There has already been an implicit consensus on this issue. Therefore, the need to have any dialogue between political parties for this does not arise.

So, why are we having a dialogue? If you have been following it you know the reason. You have seen how the PMO influenced Ershad's Jatiya Party against pointing the finger at a component of the ruling coalition for harbouring the militants. The "dialogue" seems to be an attempt to persuade the people and the foreign diplomats that the government is doing something to stop suicide bombings. I am not sure how successful this tactic will be at the end of the day. It seems clear that the patrons of Islamist militants are in the ruling coalition. The government needs to do housecleaning, rather than spending time and energy for dialogues. Only punitive action against the militants and their patrons can allay the fear of the common citizens.

The writer is a faculty (on leave) at the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism, University of Dhaka and is pursuing a Ph.D. in Communication at Simon Fraser University in Canada.