Ishraque Hossain should spend some time reading Bangladesh’s Constitution

Ishraque Hossain is young. That is no excuse for being careless about the Constitution he serves under.

Born in 1987, Hossain is an engineer, a Bangladesh Nationalist Party politician, a lawmaker and the state minister for liberation war affairs. He is also reportedly the youngest person holding ministerial office in Bangladesh. Those distinctions should come with a heightened understanding of democratic rights, not a diminished tolerance for criticism.

Yet Hossain recently led a torchlight march to protest comments made by National Citizen Party leader Nasiruddin Patwary about Prime Minister Tarique Rahman.

Patwary’s offense was political criticism.

He accused Rahman of failing the test of leadership during his first six months in office. He also criticized the government’s silence amid political violence. His language was harsh, but opposition politics is often harsh. Democracy does not exist merely to protect flattering words, ceremonial praise or statements acceptable to those in power.

It exists precisely to protect criticism.

Bangladesh’s Constitution guarantees “freedom of thought and conscience, and of speech.” It also guarantees “the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression.”

Hossain should read those words carefully.

A government minister does not have to agree with Patwary. He is free to rebut him, challenge his claims, defend Rahman’s record and expose any factual inaccuracies. He may organize a political meeting, issue a statement or make his own speech.

But when a minister leads a torchlight procession and warns of “more stringent programs” or “strict action” because an opposition politician criticized the prime minister, the message goes beyond disagreement. It risks becoming intimidation.

That distinction matters.

Hossain’s office gives his words greater weight than those of an ordinary party activist. When a minister speaks of strict action against critics, citizens are entitled to wonder whether he is speaking as a partisan or as a representative of the state. Government power must never become a weapon for shielding political leaders from scrutiny.

Rahman is the prime minister. Criticism comes with the job.

The more powerful a politician becomes, the more criticism he should expect. A democratic leader is not entitled to protection from insults, unfavorable judgments or accusations of failure. His response should be performance, evidence and accountability.

Hossain has said political etiquette should be respected. That is a fair appeal. Bangladesh’s political culture would benefit from greater civility across party lines. But etiquette cannot be enforced through threats, marches or ministerial pressure.

Nor can personal offense be elevated above constitutional freedom.

Hossain’s youth could have been an advantage. A younger minister might have represented a generation that rejects the coercive politics of the past, respects dissent and understands that political legitimacy is strengthened by open debate.

Instead, his response appeared rooted in an older political instinct: treat criticism of the leader as an attack on the nation, then mobilize supporters against the critic.

Bangladesh has seen enough of that politics.

Hossain should return to the Constitution, not merely as a document to quote on ceremonial occasions, but as a restraint on power. He should understand that free speech is most meaningful when it protects speech that those in government find offensive, unfair or politically damaging.

He is young, clearly.

But he is old enough to know that ministers defend democracy by tolerating criticism, not by threatening those who deliver it.