By H. Srikanth
Following the political upheaval in Bangladesh, which culminated with Sheikh Hasina’s resignation and exit, there has been an intense debate in India about the students’ protest and its consequences. The virtual breakdown of law and order on August 5 leading to the looting of Hasina’s residence and the sporadic attacks on the Hindu communities in certain districts received considerable media and public attention in India. Some national TV channels and social media have been carrying vigorous propaganda as if the political movement against the Hasina government was provoked by external forces. There was hardly any discussion in the mainstream media about the authoritarianism, nepotism and misrule of the Sheikh Hasina government, which killed over hundred students. The intense media propaganda has made the Indian masses look at the upheaval in Bangladesh as a communally motivated movement against the Indian state and the Hindu community. But there is little truth in such a narrative.
Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation state in 1917 after several years of popular struggle against Pakistan, which overlooked the linguistic and cultural aspirations of the Bengalese in East Pakistan. The Muslims and the Hindus in East Pakistan fought shoulder to shoulder against the Pakistani army and won independence with the help of India. Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, attained power with the promise of democracy, secularism and pluralism. However, within a couple of years, Mujibur Rahman became authoritarian and unpopular. He was assassinated in 1975 by ultranationalist elements with the help of a section of disgruntled Bangladesh army. After the military rule of over 15 years under Ziaur Rahman and Ershad, the semblance of democracy was restored in the 1990s with the rise of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led by Khaleda Zia. Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, emerged as the opposition party. Since then, the politics of Bangladesh revolved around the two Begums–Khaleda and Hasina. When the BNP was in power, Khaleda Zia did all that was possible to throttle Hasina and her party. When Sheikh Hasina came to power, first in 1996, and then continuously for four terms from 2009, she did the same thing to BNP and other opposition parties. Although political stability under the Sheikh Hasina government helped Bangladesh develop its economy, democracy became a casualty. Sheikh Hasina exercised full control over the army, police, election commission, bureaucracy and media, and put behind the bar all politicians, journalists and civil liberty activists opposed to her regime.
As most politicians were under arrest and political parties boycotted the elections, the general elections 2024 became farce and the election of Hasina for the fourth continuous term lacked legitimacy. Hasina’s close relations with Narendra Modi also created the public impression that Bangladesh was acting as a stooge of India. Added to it, despite economic growth, Bangladesh experienced inflation and unemployment–especially the unemployment among the educated youth. It was in this background that we need to see the students’ agitation against the Hasina government’s decision to introduce 30 percent reservation for the so-called wards of the martyrs. The move was viewed by the students and youth as an attempt to fill in the government jobs by the supports of Awami League. In the absence of effective political leadership and guidance, the students formed the coordination committee and organized the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement. Instead of sensitively handling the student protest, Hasina’s government used police to quell the agitation and called the agitators opposing the quota as Razakars or anti-nationals. That further agitated the students turning the anti-reservation movement into a political movement demanding the ouster of Hasina’s government, release of all political prisoners and formation of a new government. Moved by the death of over 100 agitating students, different sections of the people and different political parties in Bangladesh supported the student’s demands. With the decision to march to her residence with the demands, there was little time for Hasina to maneuver the political situation and was forced to resign and flee.
With Hasina’s exit, the state virtually disappeared on August 5 and the situation was taken as an advantage by hooligans and Jamaat elements. Although most people in Bangladesh were Muslims, all political regimes that ruled Bangladesh accepted, in principle, the idea of secularism. However, there were pro-Pakistan organizations like Jamaat-e-Islam, which were communal and wanted the country to become an Islamic state. But after the formation of Bangladesh, the hold of Jamaat has considerably reduced. They did not gain over 10 percent votes at any time in the elections. Although there were sporadic attacks on the Hindus and other minorities, there is a consensus in Bangladesh about preserving secular and pluralist traditions. Even the student leaders who led the agitation against Hasina clarified it was the movement of all Bangladeshis against the dictatorial regime and is not directed against any religious community. However, the political anarchy that ensued led to sporadic attacks on the Hindu places of worship and created a panic among the Hindus who were attacked and their property destroyed in some places. But, upholding the secular traditions, the students and even the Muslim clerics in different places formed committees to protect the places of worship. Muhammad Yunus, who took over as the caretaker PM, appealed to the people to end the attacks on religious minorities. The student leaders projected the attacks as conspiracy to defame the agitation and legitimize Hasina’s misrule. Army is deployed in Dhaka and other places to deal with the communal tensions. They need to reach out to the interior places in Bangladesh. Let us hope the situation becomes normal soon.
The political upheaval in Bangladesh came as a rude shock to Narendra Modi’s government in India. Hindutva elements in India are using the events in Bangladesh to rouse the Hindu sentiments to further their political interest. The public sympathy for the affected Hindus in Bangladesh will be used by Modi’s regime to legitimize the controversial CAA. But India has to tread cautiously in dealing with the new dispensation in Bangladesh, where anti-Indian sentiments are growing. There is nothing wrong with giving temporary shelter to Sheikh Hasina. But it is in the long-term interest of India to disassociate itself from Hasina’s regime. Smooth political transition in Bangladesh is good for India. Instability in the neighboring state will increase the threats of illegal migration, refugee problem and Islamic insurgency. On its part, the new regime in Bangladesh should also prove to the world that the political change would further the cause of democracy and secularism. The student leaders prove their secular credentials by coming out openly against those elements attacking the religious minorities. As caretaker government, Muhammad Yunus should act swiftly to stop the hooligans and the communal organizations from spreading passions among the people. The Army should take immediate action to restore law and order, and ensure justice to the religious minorities in Bangladesh. The Hindus in Bangladesh have every right to organize themselves against the communal attacks. But in their own interest, they should avoid reposing faith in the much maligned Hasina government. They should join hands with the secular Muslims and become an integral part of the movement for political change for restoration of democracy. It is in everyone’s interest to see that the transition does not prolong the anarchy.