This is not a revolution; it is evolution. Bangladesh is evolving, and why shouldn’t it?
South Asian political observers are attempting to uncover the real reasons behind the end of an era in Bangladesh. Prime Minister Hasina Wajid’s sudden departure after fifteen years in power is being attributed to a civil disobedience movement, seemingly conceived, orchestrated, managed, and still controlled by a Gen-Z-inspired group of students. Conspiracy theories and speculative stories are to be expected. However, the grey mourning clouds hovering over New Delhi and the emotional outbursts on Pakistani television screens tell a different story. It is as if, having lost a fifteen-year ally, India has lost an entire colony. As if Mujibur Rahman has been posthumously humiliated, and is writhing in his grave for having invited India to intervene in 1971. Or as if Bangladesh is on the brink of rejoining Pakistan as its erstwhile eastern wing.
Fortunately, the emotional fervour subsided quickly, particularly after New Delhi and Islamabad issued official statements expressing concern and solidarity respectively. In the age of Artificial Intelligence, things are moving so fast that in just two days, the overwhelming enthusiasm about a regime change in the neighbourhood fizzled out almost completely. Thus began the unending spate of fake posts and news items on social media, further convoluting the saga. As a result, social media did not afford the world’s largest democracy enough time to express its indignation or, shall we say, helplessness over the most ‘undesirable’ turn of events and the subsequent hosting of an unwanted guest. An otherwise confident-looking Jaishankar appeared utterly lost and grasping for words, a situation unfair to the Indian Minister for External Affairs, who had to describe the guest’s ‘for the moment’ stay in India as a simple request for flight clearance.
The snowball effect even caught the local intelligence agencies by surprise. Otherwise, Hasina might have followed in Kenyan President Ruto’s footsteps, stepping back while agreeing to some of the students’ demands. Absolute power not only corrupts absolutely but also blinds rulers completely. Hasina and her cronies, including her intelligence chief, had some inkling of what was coming. However, as history of such unceremonious exits teaches us, rulers often cling to hope for a turnaround until the last moment.
The way events have unfolded in Dhaka, it is evident that democracy will be allowed to pave the way for a people-centric elected government. The question of what will happen to the country’s economy and foreign policy should be left to the people of Bangladesh to decide. Nonetheless, the fact remains that more than three hundred students did not need to lose their lives, and a better course of action might have been taken to prevent the transformation of certain demonstrations into a nightmarish regime change.
Why did India not attempt to save Hasina’s autocratic yet friendly regime? It was neither 1971, nor was there an enemy to confront. Fearing the inevitable, New Delhi could only wish Hasina well, and that too in private. Many reports suggest an emerging anti-India sentiment, particularly among Bengali youth. Indeed, for India, direct involvement was too risky in the broader regional and international context.
Why was there not a single voice in Pakistan disapproving of the change? The answer is simple. Hasina’s openly pro-India policies consistently led to anti-Pakistan rhetoric. A friend’s enemy is an enemy, and Hasina repeatedly brought that maxim to life. The same analogy applies to India whenever BNP’s Khaleda Zia is in power.
Are there lessons to be learned for countries in the region, particularly regarding repressive and anti-people policies? Certainly, several lessons could be drawn from such a coup d’état. However, history tells us that such lessons are often archived as rulers believe in the permanence of their rule. Political humiliation rarely embarrasses ambitious leaders. Hence, it is pointless to draw any lessons; it would merely be a repetition of established facts.
Will Hasina return to Bangladesh ever again? Age is not the issue here; she is four years younger than President Biden. However, no one in their right mind, including members of the Awami League, would take this question seriously. All those envisioning her return may wish to know the whereabouts of recently overthrown political leaders such as Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa, Burkina Faso’s Damiba, Afghanistan’s Ashraf Ghani, Peru’s Pedro Castillo, and Gabon’s Ali Bongo. Any idea where these once-powerful figures are now?
Will Bangladesh still be under India’s influence? To the dismay of many in Pakistan, the answer is yes. Geography and economic interests will compel Dhaka to neither defy nor antagonise New Delhi. However, the intensity and warmth in the bilateral relationship are unlikely to be the same. India may need to prove its credentials to Bangladesh from scratch.
None of these student leaders were even born in 1971 when their elders claimed to have achieved ‘independence’. However, the interim leader, Dr Muhammad Yunus, was thirty-four years old when, after the secession of East Pakistan, Bangladesh emerged on the world map as an independent state. Hence, his statement that Bangladesh has been ‘liberated’ must be taken seriously. In other words, for octogenarian Bengalis, Hasina’s ouster has provided the people of Bangladesh a second chance to claim freedom or liberation.
Najm us Saqib
The writer is a former Ambassador of Pakistan and author of eight books in three languages. He can be reached at najmussaqib1960@msn.com