Lessons from Bangladesh

Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus, as the nominee of the agitating student leaders, is leading the advisory government of Bangladesh after the students uprising of July succeeded in dislodging Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year-old dictatorial government. As per the Army Chief’s advice, as reported, Hasina resigned and fled to India for her safety in the wake of violent protests. The takeover of the country has brought back a semblance of law and order in the country after a spate of revengeful activities targeted against Hasina’s supporters and the minority Hindu community. At this point in time, the Yunus government would do well to draw a roadmap for holding elections at the earliest to restore democracy, as Bangladesh has a history of frequent military interventions.

Per media reports, more than 400 agitators lost their lives since the agitation began. But a question arises: Did the Hasina government direct the army to shoot so many people? The army could have exercised restraint, as the protesters were not its enemy. Had it made its limitations known to the government, the result could have been different. If that had happened, Hasina, in all likelihood, would have been spared the trouble of fleeing the country to save her life.

With Hasina effectively out of national politics, the army has become more relevant, as without its support the interim government cannot function.     

Looking back, Bangladesh is the youngest country of South Asia created in 1972. Hitherto, it was West Pakistan, which was the creation of the partition of India in August 1947 on the ground of Muslim-majority areas. Mujibur Rahman, who achieved independence for Bangladesh with support from India, was not allowed to lead the country, as he was assassinated along with all family members except his two daughters (who were abroad) on 15 Aug 1975, the independence day of India. Ziaur Rahman, who led the military coup against Mujib, ruled the country from 1975 to 1981 after which another military General Hussain Mohammed Ershad held the reins from 1982 to 1990. 

The politics changed gradually, as Khaleda Zia, the widow of Ziaur Rahman, assumed assassinated at the hands of the Ershad group and Sheikh Hasina (in revenge of the assassination of her father and other family members), joine hands against Ershad, who paved the way for the restoration of parliamentary system. In 1991, a caretaker government held general elections through which Khaleda Zia came to power and completed her five-year term. The tradition of caretaker governments holding elections continued in 1996, 2001 and 2008. Hasina formed the government in 1996 after a poll win, only to lose power to her nemesis Khaleda in 2001. Two years after getting elected for the second time in 2009, Hasina abolished the system, sparking a strident opposition from Khaleda and her party. The relations between the two parties (Hasina’s Awami League and Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and the two leaders got so worse that Zia and her party did not contest the 2024 general elections, after which Zia landed behind bars on charges of corruption. 

Hasina’s decision to rule the country single-handedly by ignoring, suppressing and persecuting the opposition on the charges of corruption ultimately brought about her downfall.

As Hasina appeared increasingly partisan, this shade of hers perhaps led people to believe that she was no longer a leader suitable for steering an unstable democracy, which has suffered repeated military coups. Her sudden departure from the political scene was the result of constant and concerted efforts on the part of her opponents to remove her from power. It is quite possible that the powerful elements opposing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not like to see his heir Hasina leading an independent and secular Bangladesh with good relations with India as the demolition of the statue of Rahman and burning of the houses of the Hindus show. 

Hasina’s autocratic rule and a strain of extremism coming from the political force under Khaleda Zia helped the situation to explode. A major reason for the agitation was the legal provision of reserving 30 percent quota for the family members of the veterans of 1971’s war of independence against Pakistan. Though morally justified during the early days of independence, the quota system had lost its relevance. Perhaps oblivious to the atrocities that their parents suffered during the struggle for independence, the new generation is fighting for a better life amid limited opportunities for employment.

What has happened in Bangladesh can happen in any other country with similar conditions. Politicians blinded by absolute power never want to give it up. They want to cling to power by hook or crook. They do not realize that a prolonged stay in positions of power makes them repulsive.  If the frustration among the youth and public despair continue for long and politicians do not take suitable measures to address this volatile situation, public outrage may erupt like a volcano in Nepal also.