Bangladesh down the fundamentalist drain a la Iran of 1979?
Sukla Sen
Sukla Sen
It's just not one-off.
A Jamaat student leader gloating over the (anticipated final) victory: <https://www.facebook.com/share/r/i3HS2isTnzot2on9/>.
In a sort of a reenactment of what had happened in Iran in 1979.
Sukla Sen
The level of turbulence and violence appears to have somewhat gone down.
Apart from the other points, the author flags the all too obvious fact that the student agitations eventually led to a military coup or takeover. He, however, goes on to underline that this takeover, at least for now, appears to be strikingly different from the earlier two such occasions. It also implies that all military takeovers cannot just be lumped together.]
Countdown to the next stage in Bangladesh
In a repeat of the same political script, the army has stepped in Bangladesh to replace an elected government. The million dollar query is whether the present army chief who has taken over command of the country , General Waker-uz-Zaman will follow in the iron-spiked boot steps of his predecessors Ziaur Rahman, Ershad and other military rulers, who stamped upon democratic rights, or hang up his harsh military boots and replace them with soft civilian shoes to walk down the path of democracy. His decision to allow an interim government headed by the internationally acclaimed Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus to preside over the country, and to promise an early election, makes him appear as a soft-pedalling army man.
Further, soon after assuming charge, he protected Sheikh Hasina from public wrath by arranging her and her sister’s evacuation on August 5, by an air-lift in a Mi-17 helicopter to Agartala in India, where they are now in safe custody. This was a generous gesture, unlike the vindictive behavior of the earlier military rulers who used to put political opponents behind bars. Later, addressing the nation he urged the student protestors to put an end to their violent protests, now that their main target of protests was no longer there, pledging to meet their demands. In that public address he said: “I am taking full responsibility…. We hope to go towards a better situation together. The country has suffered a lot, the economy has been hit, and many people have been killed. It is time to stop the violence.”
Displaying a gesture of equal treatment of all political parties, at the same time the General ordered the release of Sheikh Hasina’s rival Khaleda Zia of the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) who was kept under house arrest all these years by the Awami League prime minister.
Challenges faced by Muhammad Yunus-led interim government
But the present interim government set up with the army’s blessings and popular support at the same time, has been facing one crisis after another. Immediately after Sheikh Hasina’s fall from power, there were wide-spread outbursts of violence. Taking advantage of the political vacuum, the Islamic fundamentalists re-surfaced and targeted Hindu temples and homes. They continue to indulge in such violence. According to the Bangladesh National Hindu Grand Alliance, Hindus faced attacks and intimidation across 48 districts after the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government. Thousands of Hindus have been demonstrating in Dhaka, Chattogram and Barisal among other major cities demanding protection from such attacks. The Islamic forces are also demolishing statues of the late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman – who is respected as `Bangabandhu’ by both the Awami League and its rival BNP – and vandalizing museums dedicated to his memory.
At the same time, the followers of the BNP buoyed by the martial regime’s release of their leader Khaleda Zia from house arrest started a rampage against Awami League leaders and ranks – looting their homes (including that of Hasina’s younger sister in the posh Gulshan area of Dhaka), burning Awami League offices resulting in the death of their cadres. Khaleda Zia had to issue an appeal to her party cadres on August 7 asking them to refrain from violence: “No destruction, no anger and no revenge, we need love and peace to rebuild our country.”
In response to these ominous developments, the Yunus-led government as well as the army are taking measures to suppress the miscreants and alleviate the sufferings of their victims. The government has set up a hotline asking people to provide information about attacks on Hindu temples, Christian churches or any other religious institution, so that it can immediately send its forces to protect them. At the same time, the Bangladesh Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman disclosed that the army had given shelter to victims of persecution irrespective of their party affiliation, opinion and religion “because of threat to their lives.” He assured that the miscreants would be punished. (Re: The Times of India. August 14, 2024).
These voices of sobriety emanating from both the army chief, the newly installed head of the interim government Muhammad Yunus, and the main political party BNP, promise some relief to both the Bangladeshi people and the global community who have been on tenterhooks all these days. There are other signs of reassurance also, when we hear reports of student leaders who headed the anti-Hasina movement, now forming QRT (Quick Reaction Teams) to protect the Hindu minorities. One of their leaders Nahid Islam has given a call: “Bangladesh is for everyone. It is the foremost duty of us, students to ensure nobody is harmed.” (The Times of India. August 9, 2024). It is significant that Nahid Islam, aged 26, a sociology graduate is being included in the cabinet that will run the interim government – a sign of inclusiveness that marks the policies of the present martial regime.
Farcical twists and turns in Sheikh Hasina’s position
Meanwhile, while in exile in India, Sheikh Hasina is getting embroiled in controversies which at times sound farcical. For instance, in a letter to the Economic Times on August 12 she blamed the US for her ouster. She later said that this was because she refused to give away St. Martin’s Island (in Bangladeshi possession) to the US which wanted to set up an army base there. But soon after, her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy, who is based in the US, came out with a statement saying that her statement as reported was “false and fabricated.” He denied that the US played any role in his mother’s ouster (Re: India Today. August 12). It is not surprising, since Sajeeb Wazed runs a thriving business in the US under the patronage of its rulers. Thus, Sheikh Hasina is tying herself up in knots every time she tries to defend herself. From the role of an authoritarian ruler, she has now reduced herself to the ridiculous position of an ex-ruler indulging in idle rhetoric to save her face.
But Sheikh Hasina faces a dilemma. She cannot stay for ever in India. A murder case has been filed against her by Amir Hamza, a businessman, in the court of Dhaka metropolitan magistrate, holding her responsible for a police shooting of a grocery store owner Abu Sayeed on July 19. If the magistrate takes cognizance of the allegation, although it is far-fetched, the present interim government will have to ask for Sheikh Hasina’s extradition from India. Her other option of escaping to some other country, seeking asylum there is also limited. She has alienated the US by her utterances – although her son is trying to salvage the situation by dissociating her from her press statements and trying to persuade Washington to allow her to come, so that he can look after her. The UK does not seem to be keen on providing her with asylum. The Islamic Gulf countries also are not likely to host her, because of her past record as a secular prime minister who cracked down on Islamic fundamentalists. Let us see how she disentangles from the dilemma.
A recapitulation of the past
But coming down to the present situation in Bangladesh, one wonders how long will the present phase of tolerance of Opposition voices and their incorporation in the administration last ? The long turbulent history of post-1971 Bangladesh, had been marked by the frequent emergence of elected democratic regimes soon to be overthrown by military coups, which again were defeated by mass upsurges that forced the army generals to step down, and led to the restoration of parliamentary democracy. But almost every time, the elected political leaders (whether belonging to the Awami League or its rival the BNP) once having come to power, betrayed their people by pursuing their own self-serving interests and indulging in corrupt and criminal practices. This led to wide-spread popular discontent, and in the absence of any credible and trust-worthy political alternative leadership, the disheartened people remained passive witness to the successive returns of army generals who captured power. The martial regimes kept the people docile through the dual tactics of suppression of political opposition on the one hand, and populist promises to assuage the grievances of the people on the other. But very soon, the people got disenchanted, rose in mass revolt forcing the army generals to concede, and thus paved the way for the restoration of parliamentary democracy.
This has been the regular pattern of ups and downs in the fate of the rulers of Bangladesh – whether military or civilian. I remember in March 1982, I happened to visit Dhaka in the course of an assignment by the journal Deccan Herald to report on the developments following the elections which had brought the eminent judge Abdus Sattar to the post of the President. All of a sudden, on March 24, the then army general Hussain Muhammad Ershad seized power in a bloodless coup. Let me recount my experiences. On hearing the news, I ventured out to gauge popular reactions. I took a cycle rickshaw – the usual mode of transport for the commoners. I asked the middle-aged driver how he felt about the change. He came out with a cryptic comment: “Kato gandrel ailo, jailo/Amago ki hoibo ?/ Ageo za, pare-o tai” (So many army generals came and went away/ But what is our future ?/ The present is the same as the past).
My next visit to Bangladesh was in 1986, this time as a researcher on behalf of the UNFPA (United Nations Fund For Population Activities), being assigned to prepare a report on the family planning programme there undertaken by the government aimed at reducing the fast growing annual rate of population growth from 2.9% to about 1% by the next four years. Incidentally, this was the time when General Ershad was still running the country. After visiting various villages and interviewing both men and women, I had to concede that under his regime, civil society groups and social activists were allowed to carry out a family planning campaign through a long patient process of convincing and persuading them to voluntarily adopt contraceptives – unlike the coercive measures of sterilization by the Sanjay-Gandhi-led family planning programme in India during the 1975-76 Emergency days. (Re: UNFPA. Population Profile 19).
This is not to justify Ershad’s martial rule which suppressed political opposition and protests by civil society dissenters in Bangladesh. What I am trying to point out is that military dictators may often allow space for certain political and social activities that do not threaten their power. Such concessions endear them to the public. In fact, Ershad in a populist gesture supported the Land Reforms Ordinance of 1984 that guaranteed rights to tenants for the first time. He also held elections at the Zila and Upa-zila rural administrative bodies that allowed the villagers to choose their representatives. At the same time, in order to appease the religious Islamic fundamentalists, he amended the Constitution of Bangladesh by declaring Islam as the state religion.
Further, in a clever move, in order to legitimize his rule in terms of democratic norms, Ershad created his own Jatiyo Party. It contested the 1986 elections – held under martial law – and won it. But it was a pyrrhic victory. Once the floodgates of democracy were opened (unwittingly by Ershad) they led to his end. On December 4, 1990, Ershad had to step down in the face of massive demonstrations by the Opposition parties. Elections were held the next year which led to the victory of the BNP and the installation of its leader Khaleda Zia as the prime minister. Being the widow of the late General Zia, she gained support from the army.
From the past to the present
Since then, Bangladesh politics had fluctuated between phases of parliamentary democracy and martial rule. It had followed a monotonous pattern. The elected civilian rulers fail to meet the socio-economic needs of the people, and get enmeshed in corruption and criminal activities further antagonizing the people, who pave the way for a non-violent coup by the army generals who are assured of no resistance from a people who are disenchanted with the previous regime. The army then props up a civilian government, that keeps the people contented with a few populist gestures, and keeps itself also in good humour.
Will the present Yunus-led interim government deviate from this pattern ? Will it be able to keep itself free from the ever looming and overpowering shadow of the army – which, it must be stressed, remains a major influencer in Bangladesh politics ? Will the army co-operate with him in his efforts to solve the complex problems that are engulfing the country ? Will he come up with a solution to satisfy the query of that cycle-rickshaw driver of Dhaka, who some forty years ago posed to me the question: “Amago ki hoibo” ? ( What is our future ?)
Sumanta Banerjee is a political commentator and writer, is the author of In The Wake of Naxalbari’ (1980 and 2008); The Parlour and the Streets: Elite and Popular Culture in Nineteenth Century Calcutta (1989) and ‘Memoirs of Roads: Calcutta from Colonial Urbanization to Global Modernization.’ (2016).