Bangladesh’s political future

Published: December 4, 2013
The writer is a syndicated columnist and a former member of India’s Rajya Sabha

The writer is a syndicated columnist and a former member of India’s Rajya Sabha

Within a few minutes of my arrival at Dhaka, I was in the midst of a debate whether the parliamentary elections, to be held on January 5, 2014, would be fair and independent. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has constituted an all-party interim government and has even offered Begum Khalida Zia, who is her main opponent and heads the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to join it. But Sheikh Hasina is ‘the problem’ with Begum Khalida.

I can say after my five-day stay in Bangladesh that the polls would be fair if Khalida Zia boycotts them, which looks very much on the cards. Sheikh Hasina does not want to step down and looks like she will go to any length to retain power. She amended the state’s Constitution, which provided for a caretaker government, headed by the outgoing retired Supreme Court chief justice, to supervise the polls.

What amazes me is the alacrity with which Sheikh Hasina has frittered away her four-fifth majority in parliament. Her mis-governance has increased corruption, contaminating even the government functionaries in villages. Begum Khalida has aggravated the situation by organising a hartal every third day, hitting the common man. Sheikh Hasina, too, had organised hartals when she was in the wilderness.

The two Begums, becoming prime minister alternatively, have talked to each other on the phone probably for the first time. There is no breakthrough, not even via the conciliators, because of personal hostility. There is enough evidence to support the suspicion that Begum Khalida’s close associates were behind the attack on Sheikh Hasina’s meeting when she was out of power.

The Jamaat-e-Islami is the biggest gainer. Methodically and relentlessly, it has created cells in all segments of society, including the intelligentsia. The Jamaat has the advantage of the BNP’s dependence on it. The two were together in the government which Begum Khalida headed. They would be the coalition partners if and when the BNP comes to power.

The worse fallout has been the birth of fundamentalism. It has been increasing because of the poisonous speeches made by clerics. It goes to the credit of Sheikh Hasina that she has kept the fight against fundamentalists on top of her agenda and has harked back on the days of secularism which Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had ushered in.

Such sentiments have brought Sheikh Hasina popularity in India which too has adopted pluralism as the basic structure of its polity. But just as Narendra Modi, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, has cast shadows on its secular credentials, Khalida Zia has done so in Bangladesh. A country which evoked hope when it gained independence on the principle that religion would not be mixed with politics is today exhibiting an entirely different scenario. Poverty is opium for the masses as Karl Marx said.

The need of the Left is felt immensely. Bangladesh had a strong community party. Now it is reduced to a rump and tends to tilt towards the establishment. Tragically, it is the same old story in the entire subcontinent, including India. Had there been hope of the Left’s revival, 70 per cent of the subcontinent’s people might not have listened to the religious appeal as a force to propel progress. The Left could have retrieved the situation.

Over the years, I have found self-confidence and optimism increasing among the people. Despite the internal turmoil, Bangladesh has sustained a six per cent growth for the last decade. Agriculture growth has made the country self-sufficient while the garment industry, although not following labour laws, is thriving.

The future is no doubt unpredictable, but may see large-scale violence, particularly at the time of elections because Begum Khalida is opposed to the polls under Sheikh Hasina. Many people think that the army can come back as it did some years ago. But it withdrew when it found that the people were committed to democracy even if it had been disfigured by the two Begums.

One leading editor has gone to the extent of suggesting intervention by the judiciary. He says, “We have nowhere to turn to but to the custodians of our Constitution of law and citizens’ rights.”

Published in The Express Tribune, December 4th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Facebook Conversations

Reader Comments (9)

  • Parvez
    Dec 4, 2013 - 1:33AM

    Liked the way in ten short paragraphs you sketched a vivid picture of the political situation as it stands in Bangladesh.


  • Zayyad
    Dec 4, 2013 - 2:39AM

    In Bangladesh it is Hasina vs. Khalida Zia and in Pakistan it is Bhutto vs. Sharif….same story.


  • Arindom
    Dec 4, 2013 - 3:52AM

    Why can;t you guys write anything without throwing a few stones at Modi ?
    I am no Modi supporter — but I support the Institution of the Judiciary and Democratic Principle of free and fair election. If the Supreme Court of India has cleared him and Free Democratic elections elect him, you have no business criticizing him. You just betray your own prejudices.


  • Ayush
    Dec 4, 2013 - 7:13AM

    Poverty is not the opiate of the masses Mr Nayyar. Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Would have expected a leftist such as yourself to get this one right at least!


  • Haseeb
    Dec 4, 2013 - 9:28AM

    “Poverty is opium for the masses as Karl Marx said”
    Not correct. As per Karl Marx, religion is the opium for masses.


  • Rakib
    Dec 4, 2013 - 9:54AM

    It’s so obvious an unintended oversight that it was worth overlooking or at most pointed out with some delicacy. More so since the immediately preceding sentence makes it clear that Author specifically meant Religion: (A country which evoked hope when it gained independence on the principle that religion would not be mixed with politics is today exhibiting an entirely different scenario.)


  • Sheheryar
    Dec 4, 2013 - 1:13PM

    I guess Nayyar sb intended to write ‘Religion is the opium of masses’ when he quoted Karl Marx. It’s either a misprinting or written unconsciously. ET guys, where are your editors?


  • Rony
    Dec 4, 2013 - 7:54PM

    It does not cease to amaze me how the two Begums has toyed with the lives of the masses. After 2007, when Sheikh Hasina led opposition fought against the unpopular Khaleda Zia’s improper application of the caretaker government laws. And the people of Bangladesh gave their verdict against Khaleda.

    Go forward, 3 years, Sheikh Hasina in power, gone even more extreme than Khaleda. She abolished the same caretaker government system that she fought for more than once. Even the parliiamentary committee comprised of her own people recommended against keeping the system and some even suggested abolishing a settled issue would make things worse.

    Now the country is paying the price for the decision made by one person. To make matter worse, India has backing for the unpopular government. Backed by neighboring regional power, Sheikh Hasina govt. has gone on to an unprecedented level of opposition crackdown. Most of the opposition leaders are forced to go underground. While some senior, elder leaders are arrested on cases like ‘burning dustbins’.

    No unpopular government was able to hold on to power be in Awami league or the current opposition BNP. But nobody takes any lesson from the history. I am surprised Indian leaders are failing to realize that backing an hugely unpopular government like Sheikh Hasina will make matter worse and will only raise the anti-Indian sentiments in Bangladesh. Its a matter of time before the government will give in to the demand of opposition, in the process increasing the sufferings of the mass people and diminishing their rapidly declining support. The sooner the stakeholders inside and outside the country realize that the better.


  • Arijit Sharma
    Dec 4, 2013 - 10:19PM

    @author: “Poverty is opium for the masses as Karl Marx said.

    No mistake there. The author knows that the Left and Congress in India DO NOT want an end to poverty. It is what keeps these two parties/ideologies “relevant”.

    ET moderators, please ?Recommend

More in Opinion