Tensions run high in Bangladesh, but New Delhi must engage with Dhaka

Sheikh Hasina’s sudden resignation and flight from Bangladesh illustrates the fickleness of history. The abiding images of a protester astride the shoulders of Bangabandhu’s statue, hammering away at the face, mark the end of an era in which his daughter Hasina sought to preserve his legacy.

The surreal scenes included protestors storming the Prime Minister’s residence, raiding the larder and dining sumptuously, before making off with a range of goods. From chicken and fish to furniture, nothing was spared as the pillagers streamed out with the booty onto the streets of Dhaka in a festive procession. Some individuals even made off with personal vestments from the prime ministerial wardrobe, resembling in the process the haberdasher of Canterbury Tales as they trudged along the streets.

South Asia is witnessing a disturbing trend of popular unrest dictating political terms. The victory lap by opponents of the regime in Dhaka was eerily reminiscent of previous instances involving throngs of people lounging about in the leader’s residence and looting what they could. Whether it was the democratically elected Gotabaya regime in Sri Lanka or President Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan, the scenes are similar. Even in Pakistan, where the Army rules the roost, Tehreek-e-Insaf supporters had brazenly trespassed the corps commanders’ residences.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

In all these cases, the security establishment, at some point, has given in to the outrage on the streets and benevolently countenanced the final denouement.

The political opposition, supported by civil society groups that are ideologically against the establishment, are capitalising on public discontent and joining forces to bring about change. The Jana Aragalaya movement in Sri Lanka was sparked off by leftist opposition groups with others joining the fray. In Bangladesh, the student movement for quota reform was hijacked by the opposition parties, especially the right.

Sheikh Hasina’s ouster had perhaps been in the making. On June 5, the High Court gave a verdict cancelling the circular of 2018 that had done away with the 30 per cent quota for the offspring of freedom fighters, whereby a scheme of the Awami League, widely resented as political patronage, had been reinstated. It is relevant to note that the courts, perhaps acting in the government’s interests, had earlier abolished the quota system as a response to widespread protests against the reservations.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

This time around, after the protests mounted, the Supreme Court ordered on 21 July that the quotas be reduced. However, this was rear guard action at best, and proved to be too little too late in reversing the mounting tide of the quota reform movement.

The involvement of the Chhatra League, the student wing of Hasina’s Awami League, in the violent confrontations with the demonstrating students, in league with the Bangladesh police, brought matters to a feverish pitch. Violence boiled over to engulf the entire capital on an unprecedented scale.

As the body count increased, the opposition, especially the Chhatra Shibir of the Jamaat-e-Islami, associated by their detractors with thuggery, descended upon the streets, destroying public property and engaging in arson. It appears that the movement was well planned. The manner and scale of the riots point a finger to the direct participation of political cadres as well, since students in general have refrained from such vandalism in the past.

In hindsight, it appears that the Hasina government faltered on several counts. The obstinacy in refusing to have a dialogue with the leaders of the “Students Against Discrimination” group, coupled with the initial deployment of the police and Bangladesh Border Guard to maintain order, did not succeed in keeping a lid on the situation. Labelling students as Razakars — a derogatory term often used against the opposition to compare them with quislings who collaborated with the West Pakistani regime during Bangladesh’s liberation struggle in 1971, and as terrorists, only inflamed passions. Even after the death toll had crossed 200 , the government had balked at acknowledging the seriousness of the situation. Another miscalculation was the belief that the Supreme Court verdict reducing the quota to 5 per cent would help assuage feelings.

The unwillingness of the Hasina government to investigate instances of police firing and bring enforce accountability is being cited as the spark that lit the prairie fire. By the time her government freed a few leaders, the movement had snowballed into a larger political phenomenon. The protestors pushed for a single uncompromising demand — the resignation of Sheikh Hasina. By then, she was contending with the agitated teachers and parents of the students killed in police action as well as the Jamaat and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The latter were quick to seize the opportunity to twist the knife further.

As the circumstances evolved, a social media campaign had urged the army to stand by the people. On 4 August, one day before Hasina had to flee, 48 retired Army officers had appealed to the government to refrain from using the army to crack down on protestors. Eventually, the army made it clear that it would stand by the nation and not the government. The finale was precipitated by the army giving 45 minutes to Sheikh Hasina to resign and leave the country.

The takeover by the army is tempered by the fact that its Chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, is a distant relative of Sheikh Hasina who has served her government in various positions. Besides, he has already announced his intention to work to put in place a civilian interim government, though the outcomes and timeframe are far from clear. Before making the announcement, General Waker met the Amir of the Jamaat and some of the BNP and Jatiya party leaders. For now though, it seems that the army may be prepared, even constrained, to steer the country and restore stability.

In the aftermath of the 1990 democratic transition, this is the second instance of the army taking charge. This could not have transpired without the tacit concurrence of certain Western powers, which have a major say in UN peacekeeping operations — a key source of revenue for Bangladeshi officers and soldiers.

That the US spokesperson Miller regarded the protestors as “lawful” and appreciated the fact that the army “resisted calls to crackdown” on them, is a clear indication of the US having its chestnuts in the fire. Notably, there was no censure of the military takeover.

In underlining the need to ensure an “orderly and peaceful transition towards a democratically elected government in full respect of human rights and democratic principles” the EU seems to be implying that Sheikh Hasina’s government had failed to meet the standard.

Neither China nor Pakistan have commented on the developments. China has close links with all the opposition parties as well as the army. Reports hint at Pakistan’s long-standing links with right-wing forces.

Hasina’s downfall is attributed by observers to alleged corruption, suppression of the media, enforced disappearances and the stringent application of the Digital Security Act.

Bangladesh, the youngest nation in South Asia, is now moving on to the next phase of its chequered history. Bangladeshi youth appear far removed from the realities that shaped the liberation struggle. Nostalgia about the Awami League’s contribution, or the cardinal role played by Hasina’s father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in the formation of Bangladesh, has gradually faded.

From India’s perspective, stability in Bangladesh is of paramount importance in relation to security in the Northeast. India will have to be prepared for a possible influx of Hindu refugees caught in the violence as well as beleaguered Awami League cadres fleeing for their lives.

Over the past decade, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has been proactive and successful in building friendly and cooperative ties with its neighbour. India must continue to engage all political forces in Dhaka and nurture its excellent ties with the Bangladeshi army. Going forward, India could well strengthen its considerable developmental partnership and enhance people-to-people linkages. Such a policy should serve India well, regardless of the composition of the new government in Bangladesh.

The author is the Director General of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.