Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s departure to India on Monday has historical parallels, such as those of Nicolae Ceaușescu, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. While the flight was tragic for the Romanian leader, the Marcoses and the Shah were granted asylum only after being rejected by many states. Hasina should be grateful to General Waker-uz-Zaman, a relative, for facilitating her immediate departure from Dhaka after her resignation. The fate of her house, the museum dedicated to her father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and other memorials related to him illustrates what could have happened had she and her sister chosen to stay. This incident marks the end of her political career, as conceded by her own son.
Sheikh Hasina has only herself to blame for the current situation in the country. She made history by being elected four times and serving as prime minister for the longest period. While her family’s dynasty helped her attain power, her sole objective once in office was to maintain it, even if it meant using an iron fist against rival political parties such as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). She won the last three elections by compelling the Opposition to boycott the polls and using methods that can only be described as dictatorial. In the elections held on January 7, 2024, when her Awami League won an astounding 74 percent of the seats, the global community condemned the farcical state of democracy. She placed Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, not in the President’s House or Parliament but in a dingy prison.
She skilfully crafted and utilised draconian laws to suppress dissent and maintain firm control over the nation. The absence of the Opposition in Parliament, the Hasinafication of the media, and her tendency to surround herself with cheerleaders insulated her from public criticism. In other words, she lived in a fool’s paradise. Like the Roman queen who suggested her subjects eat cake when they wanted bread, she rhetorically asked if she should create an Opposition party to oppose her. Little did she know that public resentment was solidifying, only to erupt at the right moment.
Hasina herself created the tipping point by reserving 30% of civil service seats for the descendants of those who participated in the freedom struggle that led to Bangladesh’s independence in 1971. People saw this as a way of rewarding her party members and ensuring that the bureaucracy remained a rubber stamp for her and her chosen successors. Students, facing bleak job prospects, especially after the pandemic affected the thriving garment export business, took to the streets to protest. At least 300 students were killed in police action, and 20,000 were arrested. Their families, friends, and acquaintances, numbering in the millions, turned against her. Instead of showing sympathy for the victims of police brutality, Hasina showed only contempt and ridicule. It was no surprise that the Supreme Court’s decision to reduce reservations from 30% to 5% did not satisfy the protestors. She alone failed to see that her ouster had become a fait accompli.
To be fair, Sheikh Hasina has many achievements. Bangladesh was once a basket case but during her tenure it experienced rapid growth, surpassing India on several social indices like women’s literacy, infant and maternal mortality, and spending on education and public health. Unfortunately, she failed to realise that these achievements were no substitute for civil liberties. Her good relations with India were seen as a weakness by parties like the BNP and the Jamaat-e-Islami.
The most worrying development is the radicalisation of politics, with some questioning even the freedom struggle. Needless to say, Sheikh Hasina also pandered to radicals to serve her own interests. Now that Parliament has been dissolved, it remains to be seen how quickly the transition will occur. Yunus now has his tasks cut out for him, from quelling the violence in the short term to bringing back a sense of stability in the following weeks to ensuring that free and fair elections are held in the long term. India has done well to offer her asylum, whether temporary or permanent, as otherwise she might have faced a fate similar to her father’s and many of her relatives’. Peace and stability in Bangladesh are crucial for India, especially with China and Pakistan ready to exploit any instability.