Rayhan Ahmed Tapadar (UK)-Writer, Researcher and columnist : After ruling the country for more than fifteen years, Sheikh Hasina had to leave in the face of student mobs and mass protests. One of the reasons for the downfall of his regime is stubbornness, arrogance and overconfidence. Sheikh Hasina’s government was completely alienated by the rule of single authority. By making the western world an enemy, he was almost alone in geopolitics at the last stage. Finally Sheikh Hasina had to leave the country in the face of mass agitation. Even after the movement of students, which started thirty-six days ago to demand quota reforms in government jobs, turned into a movement to bring down the government, Sheikh Hasina’s government was talking about a strong stand. Even last Sunday, Awami League, Chhatra League, Jubo League and other allied organizations were tried to prevent the movement by showing their strength. But about 100 people lost their lives in conflicts across the country. Even then there was talk of repression with a strong hand. On August 4, Sheikh Hasina held several meetings with some ministers and officials close to her government, sitting in the Ganabhaban from evening till late night. Several leaders close to Sheikh Hasina said that the pressure on the government increased on August 4. However, they thought that the situation would be under their control. But the pressure kept mounting. In the morning they realize that their time is up. After that, Sheikh Hasina had to decide to leave power. Awami League was alone in the country. Sheikh Hasina made everyone angry with her long rule. Corruption, money laundering, and economic stagnation at various levels of his government led to anger among the people.
And from the political point of view, all other parties outside the 14-party alliance led by Hasina moved to the anti-government position. As a result, Sheikh Hasina became alone politically. It became clear in the students’ movement as well. Although East Pakistan was separated from West Pakistan through a bloody war, the independent country of Bengal was born under the leadership of Bangabandhu. After Bangladesh became independent in 1971, Bangabandhu had to face one challenge after another as president. At that time he had to take several economic measures, which were not liked by Western governments. In this situation, by 1974, his popularity started to decrease drastically. Especially when a famine-like situation arose after a drought, his popularity almost reached rock bottom. At that time Bangabandhu’s loyal militia created fear everywhere. In 1975, he banned all opposition parties and turned Bangladesh into a one-party state. A few months later, he was murdered along with most of his family members at his residence in Dhaka in August. At that time, Sheikh Hasina and her younger sister Rehana survived because they were abroad. The post-1975 governments downplayed Bangabandhu’s role and during that period he was a footnote in history. However, Hasina returned to Bangladesh in 1981 and was seen as a champion of democracy at that time. At that time she became very popular as the leader of the opposition and she promised democratic reforms and change. He quite fearlessly challenged the military rule.
Especially in the beginning of the eighties, he was a great challenge in front of General Hussain Muhammad Ershad, who was in power. Sheikh Hasina joined hands with all the opposition leaders, including Khaleda Zia, and launched a fierce movement against Ershad, and at one point, Ershad fell, and democracy returned to Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina became the first prime minister in 1996, lost in 2001 and returned to power in 2009, serving until August 5. He has held three elections since coming to power in 2009. Among them, the opposition parties boycotted the two elections held in 2014 and 2024. Although the opposition participated in 2018, they withdrew their candidates within hours of the polls following widespread allegations of voter intimidation and rigging. Hasina took many steps to improve the position of the poor and empower them during her early years in power. During that time, Bangladesh improved its economic indicators and reduced poverty through garment exports and remittances sent by Bangladeshis working abroad. By 2026, the country is projected to exit LDC status. These are great achievements. But Hasina became a terrible authoritarian towards the end of her reign. Businessmen close to his party flourished, he appointed loyalists to senior positions in the bureaucracy and police force, political opponents were invisible, extrajudicial killings occurred, the press was attacked and newspapers were prosecuted, a draconian digital security law placed significant restrictions on freedom. imposed and corruption increased.
Awami League wanted to keep the quota in government jobs for which the common students protested to cancel, mainly to ensure the jobs of people close to them. The quota reform movement took a different turn when Sheikh Hasina, instead of holding discussions with the agitators, indirectly called them Razakars and the people of the government party attacked them. The agitation intensified as at least 200 people were killed in police firing in addition to attacks by government party people. The students then asked the chief minister to tender an unconditional apology and resign. But the government is tougher without any compromise. As a result, the movement turned violent and eventually Sheikh Hasina was forced to flee. But politicians, especially South Asian politicians, are reluctant to accept it. They think they are invincible. No one can depose them and they can continue in power for generations. This has been the case with Bhutto family in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif family, Nehru family in India, Sheikh Mujib family in Bangladesh and Ziaur Rahman family. Voters need to come out of blind loyalty to these dynasties and scrutinize the running of the country under a new leadership, whose forefathers are like this. There was no experience of being in charge. Hopefully, people are starting to break out of that blind allegiance. The end of Hasina’s rule is significant. Because, it has brought an opportunity and a moment of danger for Bangladesh at the same time. To better understand the issue, the country’s experience has to be judged in the larger context of democratic institutionalization.
And what is important for India is not to see Bangladesh in our own framework. Certainly India has important interests in Bangladesh. Delhi has to pay attention to Bangladesh so that Bangladesh does not become a stage for anti-India groups active in the North-East region of India. Any violence against minorities in Bangladesh, especially against Hindus, will not only have a profound impact on India’s domestic politics, it will also have a profound effect on Bangladeshi politics. In order to prevent this from happening, the army and the student movement in the country are giving positive signals so far. We have to remember that authoritarian repression is only effective up to a point. Then it doesn’t work anymore. In fact, disagreement is like a liquid. This fluid can be retained up to a certain point. Pouring more than the container will cause it to overflow. Likewise, dissent can be suppressed to a certain extent by repression. When that situation passed, the opposition became a fierce rebellion and spread all around. In much the same way, we went beyond normal and people were with Sheikh Hasina to an unusual extent. Not only did people side with a single party in Bangladeshi politics, but they risked becoming staunch supporters of the country’s authoritarianism. Despite the crackdown on dissent in Bangladesh, India gave such biased support to the Hasina government in Bangladesh that the civil society and the media did not acknowledge the deep crisis caused by this repression as a problem.
Sheikh Hasina made the mistake of calling the students of her own country Razakars, but this is the same kind of mistake. Moreover, institutionalization is most important for Bangladesh. The first and foremost task of an interim government in Bangladesh will be to ensure a free and fair election in which all parties can participate. If the Awami League boycotts the next election or if the election has a nominal voter turnout, then the democratic upsurge may once again turn to authoritarianism. The problem is not only that it allows the winning parties in Bangladesh to enjoy a monopoly on power, but that it narrows the promise of free elections. At one stage it left the country virtually without an opposition party. As a result, small circles formed within the ruling party and they became rivals to each other. If the shadows of Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia were removed from the politics of Bangladesh, a real party-based system could emerge. However, a more sustainable team-based system needs to be created to smooth the transition and power-sharing. Otherwise, the rise of this movement may take the form of a democracy for a short time and then disappear into an authoritarian system. Therefore, the responsibility of the interim government will be to organize a free, fair and impartial election in the country as soon as possible so that the country can move forward through the democratic process.