.png)
by Crisis Watch | Commentary by Abhinav S Nambeesan
Research & Publications Division
(6th August 2024) Update | The government falls: How Bangladesh forced out its Prime Minister
Having served more than twenty combined years as Prime Minister, it had seemed like Bangladesh’s leader Sheikh Hasina was too powerful to ever be ousted, despite her unpopularity. But in just a couple of months, her hold on power crumbled, and on 5th August, she resigned and fled the country.
The ruling party, the Awami League, had been the one to lead the fight for independence, which was why the reservation for the families of freedom fighters had been so controversial—not only were young people struggling to find employment, but they saw this as a way for the Prime Minister to give favours to her political allies. The anger against the government had been growing for years before the High Court decision that triggered the protests in the first place, and the anti-quota protests and the government’s extreme response had resulted in Sheikh Hasina coming under heavy pressure to end her rule.
The government had responded in a very heavy-handed way to the protests¹, by having police use tear gas and rubber bullets, imposing curfews, and cutting off internet access in the capital of Dhaka, which have reportedly caused more than forty deaths and hundreds of injuries², as per the AP. Protesters didn’t back down, though, and many even stormed the residence of the PM. While the violence was extreme, what seems to have ultimately convinced the PM to resign is pressure from the military.
The Bangladeshi Armed Forces have been involved in politics since the country’s independence and have led various coups that overthrew the civilian government, including Sheikh Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the first President of the country. After weeks of protests, Hasina seems to have been pressured by the military to resign in order to prevent the situation from going out of control. In the aftermath of her resignation, Waker-uz-Zaman, the Chief of Army Staff, announced that the military would be forming an interim government³, supposedly consulting “all parties.”
It is really impossible to predict what might happen now, with the military in control—whether temporarily or permanently, it is not known. Two options are likely: either the military decides to permanently take power, or another civilian government is established after elections are held. If elections are held, it will be very interesting to see if the Awami League will somehow be able to maintain its position in the “Sangsad” despite the widespread protests against its government, or if the opposition Jatiya Party will take power. As of now, the Sangsad has been dissolved by the President, with the date for elections not having been set yet as the military leads an interim government.
Meanwhile, the resignation of the government has not ended the protests, and there have been various reports of violence against minorities⁴, including Hindu temples and houses, with the ruling government accusing the protests of having been led by the pro-Pakistan Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami. The attacks on Hindus might affect relations with India in particular, which has a strong interest in the fate of Bangladesh.
For India, the situation in Bangladesh is extremely tenuous, as Sheikh Hasina was a big ally for Modi’s government, with her tenure seeing immense progress in India-Bangladesh relations. While the Indian government branded the protests as an “internal matter,” it is clear that it is very interesting in the outcome of this episode. Sheikh Hasina is reported to have fled to Delhi, but External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said at an all-party meeting that there was no need to evacuate the Indian population in Bangladesh, though this might change. The future for India-Bangladesh relations lies in the result of the elections—if the military allows it.
Bangladesh has been engulfed in days of intense rioting,¹ as young people, in particular, have come out in droves against the quota that exists for government jobs for families of those who fought in the 1971 war for independence against Pakistan, but can also be understood as having been fuelled by a general feeling of unease and insecurity in employment that Bangladeshi youths have been facing for years.
The ruling government, led by Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League Party, announced that to restore law and order, it would be imposing a nationwide curfew and deploying the army, banning public gatherings and cutting internet connections. Already, security forces have responded with heavy repression, and clashes between police and student protesters have led to the deaths of many.
What is the controversial job quota and why has it sparked protests?
In Bangladesh, like in many other countries, a certain percentage of seats in government jobs had been reserved for certain underprivileged sections of society, such as women, the disabled and those from poor districts, but 30% of seats had also been reserved for the children and grandchildren of the freedom fighters who had fought for independence from Pakistan in 1971. This has been quite controversial for a long time, as it is perceived to be used by the Awami League and Sheikh Hasina, who is the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh, to benefit her political allies and families of loyalists. The Awami League, being the party that led the fight for independence, is well-connected with the families of freedom fighters, which is why this closeness is perceived.
In a country where youth unemployment is high² and government jobs are seen as a reliable source of employment for the youth, this quota had become very controversial. In 2018, widespread student protests demanded an end to the quota, which was successful in forcing the government to scrap it³.
However, last month, the High Court of Bangladesh ruled that the government did not have the legal authority to suspend the quota via circular in the manner that it did, citing a 2012 decision by the court that told the government to strictly abide by the quota, and therefore reinstating the 30% quota for freedom fighters.
This, and the government’s refusal to take constitutional measures to overturn the quota, has sparked violent protests led primarily by college students, who see it as unfair to their futures when jobs are already hard to get by and see it as a corrupt system for the government to abuse for its own gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment