Whoever expected that the Awami league headed by Sheikh Hasina Awami’s League would be discarded by a popular student and peoples movement in such a short span of time. After all, it was barely only months before she was re-elected with a landslide following three consecutive National elections. Her opponents were, for most, languishing in prison or under house arrest.
Sheikh Hasina had turned from being a democrat-to-dictator, and a hard nosed one at that. It is common political logic to presuppose that an autocratic regime has a shelf life that lasts a decade or a bit more.
By then it becomes predictable and callous. It concedes gaps in the governance space, takes things for granted, and is out-of-step with the people. History is replete with examples with instances of how ostensibly strong regimes collapse with little or no notice.
In the case of Sheikh Hasina, she banked on her economic successes and could boast that Bangladesh had actually moved ahead in its economic dictators. Her problem was that she had taken democracy for granted and brushed aside potential mass movements that could alter the political distance autocratic rulers tend to keep from their people.
Unable to gauge the disposition of the people, and having far removed herself from the realities and aspirations, she tended to rule by conjecture. You cannot surmise people’s aspirations by surmising what they want.
Democracy is not something that just happens just at election time, and it's not something that happens just with one event.
Sheikh Hasina has been openly accused of jailing thousands of her rivals and critics ahead of elections that were scheduled last January. Under Sheikh Hasina’s command there were far too many extrajudicial abductions and killings.
Anyone who challenged her authority had visa restrictions imposed on them. Earlier, in a seven-year rule, General Ershad’s regime used the military to take command of the country. After an impressive development-oriented launch, he began to wave his military flags and imposed tyranny.
Ershad’s rule assumed dictatorial fascist-like facets. Ershad was also pushed out by a popular pro-democracy mass uprising led by Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina.
Soon after Sheikh Hasina was overthrown and had to flee Bangladesh for India, the inevitable economic collapse followed. To the credit of the Bangladeshi people, the turn-around has been stunning.
Indian FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) companies with operations in violence-hit Bangladesh claim they are turning the corner and that their businesses are making a full turn around creeping back to normalcy.
Leading Indian FMCG companies including Marico, Dabur, Emami, Pidilite Industries, Britannia, and Godrej Consumer Products with their reach, have noteworthy operations in Bangladesh and are now progressively making a comeback.
Marico, a major establishment in Bangladesh among these firms, was decidedly optimistic. It had restarted its manufacturing operations at unrestricted levels by August 11. The markets have seemingly taken cautious steps only to return with unforeseen alacrity.
Today, it can be claimed, Bangladesh is not on the brink by any stretch of imagination. Marico, which operates in segments like personal care, baby care, edible oil, and food, contributes 44% of its international sales from Bangladesh.
The company has two factories in Gazipur, Dhaka, and five depots across the country. It may not be back-in business as usual. Stability has been achieved at the political front by the shrewd decision to appoint Mohammed Yunis as the virtual Head of government.
Sheikh Hasina has fled to India as a temporary place of refuge and asylum. She is now looking for a permanent place where she can live under the protection of a friendly government.
The truth for now is there is no appetite for any of the major powers to grant her asylum. The United Kingdom and United States have turned down her probe for options. Several names of countries have come up. But nothing tangible has come up. She will be the guest of India until she can move.
India cannot be a final solution for geo-political reasons. India would not want its relations with Bangladesh impacted by her presence given the voluminous trade ties between Bangladesh and India which are of greater benefit to India than Bangladesh. Besides, there is a history of significance. It was India that enabled the liberation of Bangladesh, not out of altruistic reasons. India now had one border less to feud over.
There have been skirmishes of a political nature. Good sense has prevailed. For India needs more friends in the neighbourhood than it has now. China has become the dominant influence and with its economic power, political tactics commands far more clout than does India.
There were occasions when Bangladesh sought to give the situation a broader geo-political- twist by invoking the claim that the US had a veiled presence behind her ouster. She asserted that she had rejected the US’s call for handing over St. Martin’s Island to it and the Bay of Bengal.
This has been refuted since the time the statement was made. The charge remains. At the same time, Sheikh Hasina had stated that had she handed over St Martin’s and the Bay of Bengal, she would have enjoyed US patronage and there would have been no coup.
This was neither accurate nor a remote possibility, because Bangladesh has a rapport with China. Most of the small countries trust China as a better ally, as their political and economic safeguard.
While Bangladesh Nationalist Party leader Khaleda Zia has justified Islamist murderous fury against minority Hindus and Indian establishments as anger against India for giving refuge to Sheikh Hasina, the fact remains that the ousted PM's leanings towards China and antipathy towards the West contributory one way or the other towards her political downfall.
The US has taken the official stand that they want peace. If one were to hazard a guess, the next regime will be more militant in Islamic intent and anti-India. One concern is that the US would seek to make the region a backyard to consolidate their interests.
Until now, Joe Biden has not spoken. Silence is the worst thing in politics. It can ultimately lead to predatory intent.
Liberty is a precious part of any country’s well being. Any dissidence against peace and co-existence will only contribute to disharmony and conflict. For now, instability has not quite shrunk. The army is keeping a low profile.
Bangladesh’s short history has gained notoriety for its violence indulgences among protesters and political dissidents. In point of fact, the army Chief rebuffed Sheikh Hasina’s call to enforce a curfew. Quite clearly, the message was she had to make it all on her own.
It is still an edgy situation. The NGO HinduACTion has urged Mohamad Yunus to intervene with a firm hand and create a dialogue-based framework out of which Hindus will be safe – never mind that they are minorities.
If the Bangladeshis flee, where will they go? India is an obvious and the most reachable place of refuge. But how will India react? Or even cope with the humanitarian crisis given the sensitive nature of acute tensions on the frontline of Bangladesh and India.
There is no roadmap in situations like this. Refugees will have to trudge through thick and thin, jungles, and hills, rivers, and dangerous terrain.
India has a record of protecting refugees during the Bangladesh War. India then had its vested interests. Almost immediately after the war was declared in India’s favour, Indira Gandhi’s government issued strict instructions that the refugees must be repatriated in quick time. The UNHCR and other relief bodies must pay attention to the plight of the displaced and persecuted.
Muhammad Yunus after visiting a temple and meeting Hindu Leaders announced: "Bangladesh Belongs to Everyone," he declared. This ideal remains to be seen in the here and now of Bangladesh’s history.
It will not be ‘Quite Easily Done’ (QED). India must be hands on as far as support goes, and hands off when it comes to political matters.
Ranjan Solomon is a writer and human rights activist. Views expressed are the writer’s own.