Sheikh Hasina’s ouster from her own country is a warning to all the authoritarian leaders and regimes who think and believe that they have unlimited power to run the government for eternity. Hasina was no ordinary leader. A few weeks back, she was hailed as a strong leader who had taken millions of her countrymen out of poverty and improved Bangladesh’s economy tremendously. Under her leadership, Bangladesh was seen as a miracle economy, which made the country one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. There was a time when Bangladesh’s GDP grew faster than India's. In the ready-made garment export, Bangladesh had emerged as a global powerhouse that used to contribute more than 70% of the country’s economic growth. Still, she had to leave her own country and take refuge in India.
Since taking charge of the country in 2009, Hasina committed two blunders. One, like any authoritarian leader, she convinced herself that the enormous power that she had accumulated over a period of time was a guarantee for her continuance as prime minister. Secondly, she also convinced herself that if the country’s economy kept growing, she could do whatever she wanted. In her own make-believe world, she failed to understand that people’s memory is short, and with the passage of time, people’s expectations also grow. And what at one point of time looks great and brilliant, at another point of time might fall sort of the people’s expectations. Because as the country grows, people’s aspirations also grow, and so do their wants. Therefore, every passing day is a test, even for the best of the rulers and governments in a democracy. Hasina became the victim of her own designs.
Her biggest failure was her credentials as a democratic leader. In Bangladesh, there was more than 50% reservation in Government institutions for a section of the society, which was greatly resented. However, the anger against her government did not subside even after the Supreme Court had minimised the resection to below 10%. Instead, the movement grew more violent, and finally, she had to flee her own country. Conspiracy theorists have been blaming foreign powers for instability in Bangladesh. These experts are of the opinion that Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI was majorly instrumental in fanning people’s anger against her regime. Pakistan, to this day, has not reconciled to the fact that once Bangladesh was part of Pakistan; in 1971, the people of East Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh, rebelled against West Pakistan, and India helped them gain independence. Therefore, it’s Pakistan’s way of seeking revenge. And since Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujib, was the architect of that liberation movement, she had to be taught a lesson.
Secondly, there has also been speculation that China was upset at how Bangladesh had tilted towards India since Hasina became the prime minister. Sheikh Hasina undoubtedly had reasons to believe and trust India more than any other country on earth. It was India that sent its army to save Bangladesh's people from the bloodthirsty hounds of the Pakistan army. It was India that had warned Sheikh Mujib in advance about an impending coup that ultimately killed him and his entire family in 1975. India had offered help to Sheikh Mujib to get out of Bangladesh and save his life, which he refused. And after the perpetrators of the coup killed him, it was India who had given asylum to Sheikh Hasina. She lived in Delhi’s Pandara Park with her sister Rehana before she went to Bangladesh to take over the reins of her father’s party, Awami League, and, later, the country in her hands.
.jpeg)
China, which sees India as a competitor in Asia, wants to encircle India in our neighbourhood. China has successfully won over Pakistan after America’s dalliance with it. China has been aggressively using its economic muscle power to penetrate deep into Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and Myanmar. Bangladesh was the only country not succumbing to China’s economic seduction. China desperately wanted to have a government in Bangladesh that was soft towards China.
Thirdly, Western countries, including the USA, were not inclined towards Sheikh Hasina of late as, under her leadership, democracy was constantly backsliding. Even during the national elections in January this year, the West had warned Hasina and her party to have free and fair elections. She did not heed their advice. She, however, went ahead with the elections without the main Opposition party, the BNP or the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
It is argued that all three issues, combined together, if not literally, but notionally because all three had a vested interest in Hasina’s ouster. It was in India’s interest to save Hasina, but it failed miserably. It is a matter for investigation as to why the Indian intelligence agencies could not fathom the depth of anger amongst the people. Why was it in no position to scuttle the evil designs of all three foreign hands? Why did it not warn Hasina to mend her ways in advance, for it could prove disastrous for her in future? And lastly, why did it put all its eggs in one basket, ie, going all out for Hasina? I am sure Indian agencies must have had some idea about the desperation in people vis a vis Hasina’s government, and if they had, then why did not try to reach out to other powerful forces like the Army, the BNP and its leader Khaleda Zia, and influential civil society leaders like Muhammad Yunus?
The grammar of diplomacy says that a country should be ready to deal with any exigency, and it should not only have its assets in the ruling party but should also have its tentacles in every sphere of society, even amongst the opposition parties. It seems India was so confident about Hasina’s longevity that it did not make any decisive effort to have friends in the opposition camp. And now, when she has gone, India is in a hopeless situation in Bangladesh. However, I am confident that India is such a big country that no government in Bangladesh will be in a position to ignore India. Nonetheless, it always pays in diplomacy if one has good and reliable friends in the government of the day, irrespective of the regime's ideology.
It is tragic to see anti-India feelings growing in Bangladesh. This is happening in a country that should be indebted to India for its creation. If India had not decisively intervened under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, Bangladesh would have remained a colony of Pakistan. Today, if Pakistan has succeeded, as is believed, in Bangladesh, then the Indian government should introspect why India lost its goodwill with the people of Bangladesh. Hasina’s ouster is bad news for India. If, as is expected, Islamist forces control the levers of power in Bangladesh in future, then it will be a disaster for India’s national interest. Once again, India’s Northeast border will be vulnerable to anti-India forces.
I am of the firm opinion that if Hasina had been more accommodating, if she had not imprisoned her opponents like Khaleda Zia and foisted cases against the government’s critics like Muhammad Yunus if she had been more patient with the voice of dissent and had she been more inclined to listen to saner voices within her own party, she would not have had to face the ignominy of fleeing her own country. Democracy has its own logic, and people have a short memory. Constant dialogue with the people and talent to accommodate the worst critics and opponents always helps a democratic leader to remain relevant. Today, Sheikh Hasina can blame anyone, but the script of her downfall was written the day the legitimacy of the election, which made her the prime minister, became suspect.
The writer is Co-Founder, SatyaHindi.com, and author of Hindu Rashtra. He tweets at @ashutosh83B
.jpg)
