“…That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”—President Franklin D Roosevelt
Following the US imposed limited sanctions on a few law enforcement officials of Bangladesh, many pundits and soothsayers gave its Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina only months, if not weeks, to survive. They ignored the fact that over the past thirteen years, Hasina got herself well entrenched in authority by neutralizing all avenues of challenge. She doesn’t seem to be in the mood for going anywhere anytime soon, not until the end of 2023. For a vicious and determined authoritarian regime, 22 months is a long time to maintain or maneuver equations to its favor.
The political opposition remains hopelessly fragmented and inconsequential, what with the regime’s orchestration to keep it ineffective, and self-destructive timidity. The brutal Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and police, even the military, remain completely loyal to the hands that make them thrive. The sword of the draconian Digital Security Act (DSA) remains hanging to slash the slightest of dissident expression.
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which could make a difference, is rudderless with no effective leadership. Battered well and proper by the regime, it remains in hibernation awaiting some “good news.” Rest of the opposing elements are by name only; they have neither the platform nor the voice. The regime allows them to chatter a little as in a fish market, but ensures that the noise does not cross beyond tolerable limits.
The US sanctions on Bangladesh brought three countries into focus: India, China and the US itself. Some analysts believe the US sanctions were intended to force Bangladesh away from its growing engagements with China. Perhaps. But I doubt that was the whole idea. That the current Bangladesh regime was a serious defaulter with regards to human rights, democracy and election security was not new, and US President Joe Biden made these as the cardinal points in his foreign policy objectives. Punitive actions against Bangladesh on those issues has been on Washington’s plate for some time.
India
The Bangladesh Prime Minister’s deep connection with New Delhi is well known. It dates back to the time of her self-exile in the country following the elimination in 1975 of her father’s dictatorial rule. An Indo-US behind-the scene arrangement brought the Hasina-led Awami League to power through a managed election in 2008. Meanwhile, the Indian Chanakyas, playing the China Card, assumed sole Zamindari (lease) control in the region, particularly in Bangladesh. Obsessed with Beijing’s expansion to the south, Washington appeared to have ignored all the excesses the large nation committed on its smaller neighbors. On the eastern side, India continued to ensure that its protégé Hasina stayed in authority, even by defrauding the election process. The farcical polls of 2014 and 2018 are stark reminders.
Washington could not be unaware that New Delhi’s hegemonic interests were entirely self-serving. Subir Bhaumik, known to be writing for the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s external intelligence agency, gave some hints. “Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has delivered on all major security and connectivity concerns of India,” says Bhaumik in a recent article in the News9. “Delhi has tried convincing Washington in the past that raking up the human rights issue to needle Hasina will only demoralize the Bangladesh security forces and weaken the fight against Islamist terror,” adds Bhaumik.
The Indian writer’s assertions confirm two aspects:
1. The Chanakyas work for Hasina in Washington.
2. India is a partner in the fascism committed in Bangladesh. Bhaumik, who had once confirmed his cordial personal rapport with Hasina, tries to tell the Biden administration that there is no alternative to Hasina in Bangladesh.
China
Lately, Beijing has become the paymaster for Dhaka, which needs the cash for its grossly over-budgeted showcase development projects to impress the donors. Thousands fleeing poverty at home and landing in foreign camps or drawing on the high seas is another story.
(The top diplomat of the country “discovered” the persons of “enforced disappearance” among the dead at sea. What superb diplomacy! Enforced disappearance was one of the charges against the law enforcers of Bangladesh for the US sanctions.)
Beijing’s cash and kind dispensations may appear lucrative for the needy, but they usually carry strangulating taglines. Many Third World countries are learning it the hard way. The beauty is, most such liabilities are transferred to the future generations when the borrowers are not around to answer.
Yet China is unstoppable, it’s questionable human rights records notwithstanding. The whole world, including the US, knows it. All the anti-Chinese strategic alignments– the QUAD, AUKUS et al are political stunts for domestic consumption. The countries in the group know it too. Washington has more than $600 billion trade with the communist giant, and its QUAD partners– Japan, Australia and India– have almost the same figure in business deals with the country they never tire of hating. About 60% of these trade transitions are in China’s favor. Can they forfeit it or get out of it? I don’t think so. Because, in a free market, business follows its own dynamics. So, why create such a fuss over something that will not work? At the same time, in the name of containing China, the people of a small, defenseless country like Bangladesh are subjected to insurmountable suffering from its hegemonic neighbor!
Sanctions Alone Rarely Succeed
The sanctioned seven officials of RAB were thought to head a long list, and the rest would follow in installments. No such thing is visible on the horizon, not yet. Rather, Bangladesh’s ruling coterie was ecstatic when Gregory Meeks, the powerful Chairman of the US House Foreign Relations Committee, dismissed any wholesale sanctions against Bangladesh, even though he later clarified his statement to completely support the imposed targeted sanctions. Some other countries of the west and the United Nations were thought to contemplate similar punitive measures against Dhaka. They remain largely speculative.
Some power brokers, including Meeks, seem to wait until the next election that is due in December 2023. The elections of 2014 and 2018 were 100% fraudulent. (Even the 2008 election was rigged by the India-induced military). Yet, the US and the west did little to punish the Hasina regime. They continued “business as usual,” in effect, giving legitimacy to the illegal entity.
2023 Elections
Now comes the hard question. If the 2023 election is considered fair by about 40-50% and the fascist regime, by virtue of it being in the controlling seat, managed to secure a majority, will it be acceptable to the donors? Maybe. But not to the people of Bangladesh. They have had enough of election fraud under the Awami League at any time in the country’s history. They deserve a free and fair election under a non-partisan neutral authority, whose first task would be to dismantle the fascist tools that were installed over the past more than a decade to help the regime. Keeping those tools intact, elections could never be fair or credible in the country.
Availing the space granted, the regime is engaged in make-belief adjustments in an attempt to fool those who matter. The recent fraudulent exercise behind the composition of the Election Commission with loyal elements should be an eye-opener. “Constitutionality” is a convenient word for such actions, but the fact is, the Constitution itself has been repeatedly ripped to suit its partisan, self-serving interests, without caring for the peoples’ mandate.
Extrajudicial killing may have temporarily stopped, human rights violations perhaps slowed down. And the sponsors of sanctions appear satisfied. But it is somewhat unfathomable why the west fails to see the game plan of the fascist regime in Bangladesh. The moment the dust settles, they are likely to revert to their old habits and practices; like the Bengali saying: “a dog’s tail returns to its circular shape the moment it is released from a 12-yearlong stay inside a straight pipe.”
Political Challenge Eliminated
The political opposition has been destroyed, some parties beyond local repair, a term used in the military to imply total loss. In such a scenario, a true participatory election cannot be ensured. The opposition parties that really matter in Bangladesh are the BNP and the Jamaat-e-Islam. These parties have grassroot level organizations and maintain considerable nationwide support. As such, the fascist regime directs most of its repressive acts against the members of these two parties. With scores of cases against each, the victims keep running from pillar to post, from courts to lawyers with bundles of cash to rid themselves from the scourge of trouble. Prominent or difficult ones are straightway lodged in prisons to languish. The BNP’s Chairperson, Begum Khaleda Zia, a three-time Prime Minister, has been condemned to solitary confinement with a 17-year term on false charges. The aged and terminally sick leader is not even allowed to avail proper treatment. The Jamaat was dealt with in a different way.
In the wake of Hasina’s rock bottom public approval in her first term as Prime Minister, the RAW, Hasina’s politician and ideological guide, advanced the collaboration issue. The Chanakyas also had a score to settle with the Islamist party, which vehemently opposed the Indian designs during the 1971 war.
The Awami League projecting itself as the party for independence, and Mukti Juddher Chetona, the Spirit of the Liberation War, was thought to be a saleable theme to gain public esteem. Accordingly, those who worked against the liberation, meaning the Jamaat, should be punished.
Albeit, the AL gave the leadership during the war, but Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, its patriarch and the father of Sheik Hasina, declined to join the war. Mujib chose to surrender to the military rather than work for the breakup of Pakistan, whose premiership he had been gunning for. Renowned political analyst Zoglul Husain, therefore, thinks Sheikh Mujib and his family were the first collaborators by cooperating with the Pakistan military junta in 1971.
(Mujib refused to declare independence and join the liberation war despite repeated requests by his deputy Tajuddin Ahmad and many others. Mujib thought his declaration of independence would be treasonous. While Mujib went to West Pakistan to enjoy his safety away from the war, his family, including Sheikh Hasina, availed royal treatment in Dhaka under the military, which conducted a genocide of the Bengalis outside its safe haven.)
In a replay of the Aesop’s tale of The Wolf and the Lamb, in which personal desire overtook logic, the collaboration issue was reopened to tackle the Jamaat leaders, even though Mujib had already granted them legal amnesty back in 1973. Four decade-old charges were flimsy and the evidence was mostly false or manufactured. The vindictive “wolf” dismissed all defenses of the “lambs,” and nearly a dozen top Islamic leaders were sent to the gallows.
One Demand: Election Under a Neutral Authority
A lull in the battlefield doesn’t mean the war is over. A resting lioness cannot be taken lightly. She will jump to her hunting trait the moment an opportunity comes. The fascists are no different.
The people of Bangladesh had enough of the destructive rule under the father-daughter Sheikh dynasty. They want to rid themselves of its self-serving viciousness. They no longer want to be subjected to a distorted past. Above all, they want to regain their country, the one they fought for in 1971, the fight the two Sheikhs had shied away from.
The bottom line: The people of Bangladesh want a regime change, for which there is only one option: a free and fair election under a non-partisan, neutral authority. The earlier the opposition realizes this, the better for the country.
*The writer is a human rights activist and has authored a few books. He regularly writes on contemporary issues concerning Bangladesh.
February 21. 2022
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
