“Who are you? Who am I? Razakar, Razakar”—a slogan that echoed across Bangladesh, bringing down Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed’s 15-year rule on August 5, 2024. What began as a massive student movement against the unjust civil service quota system soon expanded into a significant socio-political upheaval across the nation. According to recent updates from Reuters and BBC, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has fled Bangladesh and is reportedly seeking refuge somewhere in India.

The political turmoil began when the Supreme Court of Bangladesh reinstated a 30% quota for freedom fighters’ descendants in civil services and other government jobs, overturning the government’s earlier decision to reform the quota system in response to the 2018 Bangladesh quota reform movement. This decision sparked widespread protests and boycotts from students across the country who felt that the 30% quota would further restrict their job opportunities in an already strained economy.

Unsurprisingly, Sheikh Hasina’s government responded brutally, using police, border forces, paramilitary units, and even the army to suppress the unarmed protesters. She inflamed tensions by labeling the protesters as “Razakars,” a term loaded with historical connotations. During the 1971 Liberation War, “Razakars” were collaborators who sided with Pakistan, and in modern Bangladeshi politics, the term is synonymous with traitor.

Students argued that the quota system was rooted in patronage, benefiting loyalists of Sheikh Hasina and her party, thereby allowing her to maintain a tight grip on domestic politics. High-ranking government positions were often filled by her loyalists, ensuring control over the civil services, judiciary, media, and military. However, her gamble of calling the protesters “Razakars” backfired, as the movement quickly expanded beyond the quota issue to challenge her increasingly authoritarian rule.

Sheikh Hasina has been in power since 2009, turning Bangladesh into a virtual one-party state by crushing opposition and dissent. Her fourth consecutive term, beginning in January, was marred by controversy, with the main opposition party, the BNP, boycotting the elections due to the government’s authoritarian tactics. The Election Commission of Bangladesh, widely perceived as biased, disqualified opposition parties, leaders, and workers, prompting concerns from foreign governments, including the USA and EU, about human rights and democratic legitimacy.

Sheikh Hasina’s rule was characterized by tight control over the country’s political landscape while promoting anti-Pakistan and pro-Indian sentiments, which failed to resonate with the general Bengali population, who often feel a closer cultural connection to Pakistan than India.

The student movement reached a tragic climax as clashes between protesters and government forces—police and paramilitary units—led to massive casualties, with over 100 deaths reported in a single day, including children. These events galvanized other segments of Bangladeshi society, including the business community, opposition parties, digital activists, and ordinary citizens, all rallying against Sheikh Hasina’s rule. Despite imposing curfews and an internet blockade, she could not regain control.

Interestingly, Sheikh Hasina’s two main allies were unable to save her. Internally, the Bangladeshi army, long considered an ally, ultimately sided with the protesters. At the time of writing this op-ed, Bangladesh Army Chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman appeared on national television, announcing an interim government that included opposition parties, following Sheikh Hasina’s flight from the country. Externally, India, a significant supporter of Sheikh Hasina due to her pro-Indian policies, was unable to quell the protests. Her ouster marks a significant loss for Indian foreign policy, as India had wielded considerable influence over Bangladesh through Sheikh Hasina.

Beyond the Indian equation, the last decade also witnessed increasing USA-China rivalry in Bangladesh. As a strategic and economically viable country, both powers sought to align Bangladesh with their respective camps. Sheikh Hasina skillfully balanced these relationships, securing grants and investments from both countries. However, her removal may lead to a recalibration of Bangladesh’s foreign policy, potentially shifting towards a more balanced stance between the USA and China.

For Pakistan, Sheikh Hasina’s departure is seen as a positive development, potentially leading to improved relations between Bangladesh and Pakistan. Her regime was notoriously anti-Pakistan, consistently rejecting initiatives to enhance bilateral relations.

Although Bangladesh experienced significant economic growth under Sheikh Hasina, becoming a model for development in South Asia, her repressive tactics overshadowed these achievements. Exports—mainly garments, jute, and fish—reached $60 billion, double the size of Pakistan’s exports, and foreign reserves grew to $27 billion. International financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank forecasted 7-8% economic growth for Bangladesh, crediting consistent fiscal policy, political continuity, and improved socio-economic indicators, particularly in human development and women’s empowerment. However, economic success alone cannot justify the authoritarianism that marked her rule.

The student and civil society movement, which successfully ousted a long-standing autocrat, deserves immense respect for restoring democracy in Bangladesh. It is now up to Bangladeshi institutions to uphold democratic rights and values as enshrined in the Constitution. Hail to every participant in this democratic movement and to the martyrs—a significant triumph for democracy in Bangladesh.

Sher Ali Bukhari
The writer is a UET alumni with keen interest in Pakistan’s foreign policy.