Michael Kugelman is a distinguished scholar and commentator specializing in South Asian affairs, particularly focusing on security, geopolitics, and socioeconomic issues. He is the Director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center, a prestigious think tank based in Washington, DC.
Dhaka Tribune's Diplomatic Correspondent Nurul Islam Hasib interviewed him via email following his article in Foreign Policy's weekly South Asia Brief on the recent violent protests in Bangladesh surrounding civil service job quota reform.
How would you describe the immediate impact of the recent protests in Bangladesh on the country's political landscape?
It's hard to overstate how profoundly this crisis has impacted the political landscape. While Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's hold on power is not in any immediate danger, she has suffered unprecedented amounts of political damage. I don't recall any other public protests over the last 15 years that were this large, angry, and garnered so much public support. Also, the ferocity of the state's response has sharpened longstanding public grievances about state repression. The prime minister's sense of political invulnerability—one could even call it invincibility—has been shattered.
How might the unrest affect Bangladesh's economy, particularly its growth prospects which PM Sheikh Hasina has touted as a key achievement of her tenure?
It's already impacted the economy, with sectors across the board – from textile factories to e-commerce – impacted deleteriously by the violence and Internet closures. And there's a political tie-in here, and not just because Hasina may have lost support from some of the country's big industrialists and other economic elites. For years, Bangladesh's growth story is one of the achievements on which Hasina has staked her legitimacy. But that narrative has faltered in recent years amid growing economic stress. The current crisis—which intensified after the government responded with force—has worsened the economy and in that sense weakened her legitimacy.
Additionally, the symbolic impact of the Internet shutdown on Bangladesh's economy shouldn't be overlooked. Hasina is keen to usher in a digital transformation in Bangladesh's economy. She wants to attract big tech firms and FDI for digital development. But shutting down the entire country's Internet for nearly a week sends the absolute wrong message to prospective investors in Bangladesh's digital economy.
How are the international community particularly the UN agencies and the US viewing the current political unrest? What might be their concerns or interests in this situation?
Stability is the main concern here. This was some of the worst unrest in Bangladesh in years. The biggest concern for the international community is that their nationals and interests in Bangladesh are safe. It's no small matter that the US elevated its travel advisory for Bangladesh to level 4. This puts Bangladesh in the company of pariah states like Afghanistan and North Korea. The optics are dreadful—including for potential investors—and it's another damaging political blow for a government that goes out of its way to try to shape Bangladesh's global image in a positive way.
Many countries, including the US, will say little publicly, preferring to keep a low profile in what is a very volatile situation. If there's any country that has injected itself into the crisis—albeit not publicly—it would be India, Dhaka's most trusted friend. This may entail providing guidance and support to Hasina. India is not about to abandon Hasina, no matter how bad things may be.
Bangladesh has managed a complex geopolitical balancing act under Sheikh Hasina. How might the current unrest impact Bangladesh’s foreign relations, particularly with India and China?
If there is more unrest that becomes widespread, Bangladesh could see impacts on some of its trade relationships, with problems getting goods in or out of the country. Sustained unrest could also prompt other countries, including its top partners, to scale back diplomacy and recall some diplomatic staff for security reasons.
I don't see a notable impact on Dhaka's relations with India and China. Neither country will sour on Hasina because of the crisis, and Hasina's role in it. These are not countries that would scale back relations with leaders that use repression; unlike the US and some of its Western allies, neither New Delhi nor Beijing let moral considerations guide their foreign policies.
If there is one impact the crisis could have on the Bangladesh-China-India triangle, it's that it would underscore for Dhaka the special relationship it has with New Delhi. Bangladesh's economic and defense ties have grown with China. These relations are marked by material cooperation—infrastructure support, arms, and so on. But Bangladesh's relations with India are rooted in intangibles like deep levels of mutual trust.
The government in Bangladesh knows India will have its back, especially because New Delhi like Dhaka views the opposition as a dangerous Islamist force that must be kept out of power. Beijing is happy with Hasina and the Awami League, but unlike New Delhi it could live with an alternative of the BNP. At a moment of acute political stress for Dhaka, with Hasina and the government more politically vulnerable than ever before, there surely must be a sense of reassurance about the partnership it has with India.
If you were advising Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, what strategies would you recommend for her to navigate through this crisis?
Acknowledge the deaths of dozens of young people and acknowledge that actions by the government led to many of those deaths. An apology wouldn't be a bad idea either.
The government has insisted that the protests were hijacked by violent opposition forces, and that it stepped in only when opposition agitators got involved. This may be true to an extent; it's quite likely some BNP and Jamaat thugs infiltrated the protests and exploited them.
But the challenge for Dhaka, as it seeks to get the Bangladesh public and the international community to listen to its side of the story, is that its past track record gives it little credibility when making its case on such matters. The government has frequently cracked down on peaceful protestors. It has often scapegoated the opposition. This means it faces a trust deficit with many of its own citizens, and with large parts of the international community.
How do you think these protests will impact Sheikh Hasina’s legacy, considering her long tenure and previous achievements?
There are links here between legitimacy and legacy. Hasina has tied her legitimacy to her many achievements: Economic growth, counterterrorism successes, the humane treatment of Rohingya refugees, a non-aligned foreign policy, large contributions to international peacekeeping, and the upholding of Bangladesh's moderate, secular, democratic traditions.
But with so much public anger over her handling of the current crisis, making that case about her achievements will become a harder sell—and that could weaken her legitimacy. And if it gets harder to convince people to appreciate her achievements, then that could undermine her legacy.
