Bangladesh is in turmoil. It has been a little over a month since Sheikh Hasina fled from her residence, and everything she stood for is in ruins. The result of hubris, some may say. A student-led movement for job quota reforms turned into an uprising. Police firing at unarmed students was the trigger that abruptly ended her fourth term as PM, for it galvanized public opinion and drew the population to the streets in solidarity with students.
Years of frustration and political repression coupled with widespread corruption and economic downturn since Covid times had suffocated a population that wanted change. President Mohammad Shahabuddin who was sworn in April last year, was persuaded to dissolve the Parliament. Immediately afterwards, propelled by students, heads of most institutions including government ministries, universities, banks, etc, were removed and replaced by new persons without following established protocols.
Fresh violence erupted as Awami League offices were set ablaze, AL partymen and minorities attacked. Party stalwarts and ministers were arrested. Many remain on the run. The dismantling of the state apparatus is like the purging of the Baathist administration in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hossain.
I was in Bangladesh when the indiscriminate shooting of students began in July, when the lethally-armed Chhatro League goons began their assault on stick-wielding youthful agitators, when military curfew, and internet blackout were imposed. Stuck in the outskirts of Dhaka without phone, internet, newspaper, TV or reachable contacts, it was a scary experience.
Bits of news filtered through via my driver who ventured out to collect information. I witnessed the shooting of the bare-breasted Abu Sayed of Rangpur on TV and social media as he outstretched wide his arms facing the police. As he fell, I knew that Hasina’s rule was over.
I would have liked a graceful retreat that would have left intact Hasina’s legacy. But that was not to be. Her advisers and ministers must share some of the blame for not keeping her fully informed of the ground reality and massive discontent.
Now the entire history of Bangladesh may be made controversial again by those who hope to gain by it: The War of Liberation, its ideology, the standing of Bangabandhu, the role of different political actors.
Questions arise: Who desecrated the statues of Bangabandhu, the Father of the Nation? Will they be caught and tried? Who destroyed public property such as the metro rail and government offices, for it is the public who will have to bear the cost of repairs? From the camera footage, the defense of outpouring rage against Hasina does not seem credible in all cases.
Back in Europe, I am of course very worried about the myriad challenges faced by the interim government: Continuous street agitation, vandalism, property grabbing, indiscriminate arrests, manhandling of teachers, doctors, arrestees, and of the elderly. It is as if the population is at a constant tipping point, or instigators are at continuous play to create instability and insecurity.
Of concern, therefore, are the many criminals and terrorists who have been set free, many by mobs and some by the home administration. Given the easy access to weapons in this volatile moment, the public needs to know the risks we face.
Every setback creates opportunities
The political parties, which were in oblivion, now have an opportunity to make a comeback. The BNP and the Jamaat-e-Islami are much in the media. Both have skeletons in their cupboards. Will they come clean? Will they own up to their pasts, reform and regenerate themselves?
As a fellow traveler, I have been riveted to any news coming from Bangladesh and abroad. Sifting through what appears to be politically motivated, disingenuous, or propagandist, I decided to give the media platforms The Print and The Wire a try. These appear to be relatively independent and interested in fact finding, though not with equal rigour. Karan Thapar of The Wire is sharp and thorough, The Printjournalists may not call out anomalies in the story line.
I was watching an interview of BNP Standing Committee Member Dr Moyeen Khan on The Print, dated August 29 2024. The journalist Ananya Bhardwaj asked how the BNP would be different from the AL if it came back to power through elections. Moyeen asserted that his party is indeed very different. To quote: “BNP does not believe in politics of retaliation or confrontation. BNP does not believe in politics of vengeance. … You can check the track records. We had been in government between 1979 and 1982, 1991 to 1996 and then of course from 2001 to 2006.We do not believe in retribution or taking revenge.”
He was quick to identify the many shortcomings of the AL of widespread detention of opponents, court cases, disappearances, and of unfair electoral practices. Ironically, he failed to recognize that these were a response to BNP tactics during its own rule. For example, his party's role in the increasing tempo of violence, corruption, and destruction of institutions.
I recall the post-election massacre of minorities in 2001, the August 21, 2004 grenade attack on an opposition AL rally killing 24, mostly members of its leadership. We also witnessed the beginnings of targeting innocent family members to settle political scores.
We saw politically-motivated arson attacks, looting, and killing of ordinary people to enforce hartal at election times. According to my research findings, the first instance of rape as a political weapon against electoral adversary occurred under its rule in 2001.
In response to another question, Moyeen noted that the BNP is not responsible for the current mass arrests of people for murder whose real offense may have been corruption. “The interim government is doing this. The people in this government have no experience in politics. They will be accountable for what they do.”
And about the Jamaat-e-Islami, he observed that the current hullabaloo about the JI is from the Yunus government and the “backup armed forces, from the army chief.”
He acknowledged that JI and BNP were in an alliance in 2001 for reasons of “arithmetic” to get a majority of seats in Parliament, but that it has since seceded from JI. Given the relatively equal electoral appeal of the AL and BNP, JI alliance often tilted the balance in determining the winner.
He pointed out that it was the AL that first entered an electoral alliance with the JI in 1996. Notably he does not mention that, it was Ziaur Rahman who paved the way for religion-based politics in Bangladesh by omitting Article 38 of the Constitution in 1976, in order to build his support base and civilianize military rule, which also led to the rise of JI and other Islamist parties.
JI has remained controversial for its role in 1971: The formation of auxiliary military forces such as Al Shams, Al Badr, and Razakar to aid Pakistan’s war in Bangladesh and the execution of Bengali intellectuals on December 14, 1971. People are also wary of its declared aim to establish an Islamic state based on shariah laws, which have been violence-ridden and discriminatory to women and minorities, as in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The question we need to ask is, have these parties come clean and really changed? What is the proof? Mirza Fakhrul of BNP is calling for restraint and lawful behaviour. But information abounds of rampant seizure of properties, grabbing of land and roads for extortion purposes, and violence against opponents. A case in point is the account of witnesses that “pro-BNP lawyers reached over the significant police escort to lend blows on both the accused AL ministers, Dipu Moni and Arif Khan Joy, who were shown arrested in a murder case which had accused Shiekh Hasina and six others.” New Bangladesh cannot countenance such behaviour in anyone, let alone its wannabe political leadership.
The interim government must also take note that it is being held responsible by the BNP for the blanket arrests that are occurring, many without scrutiny and due process. While the public understands that full procedural control is not in the hands of the interim government yet, many will pretend not to know. Although it has come to power through a popular uprising, it remains accountable to the people of Bangladesh.
The formation of an inclusive society with political participation of all is desirable. Fifty plus years on, we need to reconcile with left- and right-wing parties, while agreeing to respect our differences where these exist. However, while inclusion of religion-based parties may not be ideal, it may be necessary for purposes of reconciliation, provided religion is not politicized, and force is not applied to subjugate adherents of other philosophies.
The release of arrestees and jail inmates must follow thorough investigation of their past roles and potential for future civil unrest, no matter which party they belong to. Let us remember the colour revolutions and take lessons from these.
Moreover, it is important to set ground rules and define red lines that no party, individual, or institution may cross. These include the name of our country, our national anthem, and the Constitution; the war of liberation and the birth of Bangladesh; and the sanctity and position of the founding fathers of our country. Our ideals are enshrined in the constitution. Our history and identity are not available for redefining every 10 years.
However, we understand that occasionally amendments are enacted in good faith., Note that in most countries the Constitution is held sacrosanct. Rules, emergency decrees, protocols, or policies are invoked to deal with specific situations not envisaged in the constitution.
I was watching another video of the fall of Libya and the return of Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, a DW documentary released on Aug 25, 2024. France and Western foreign powers took advantage of internal dissent and the Gaddafi regime's harsh treatment of dissidents to foment resistance. The very Islamists set free by Saif al Islam, [Gaddafi's son who wanted an inclusive society] were the first to turn against the regime armed with foreign support and weapons. It ended badly for Gaddafi, because of a full Western military invasion. It was not because of his character, but because the foreigners wanted to control their assets of oil and keep Africa from rising. Are there lessons for us here?
We do not think we are important globally. But suddenly, geo-strategic interests have led the US, China, and India to cast their eyes on us. They will all want something from us and will thus target our weakest links. Can we be vigilant? And remain united in our own self-interest?
There must be regular fact checks and sharing discussions in each ministry, and in civil society. Alerts and highlights should be researched, shared discreetly, and steps taken. Society should be inclusive, but not suicidal.
