[🇧🇩] Bangladeshi PM Hasina Flees country amid deadly riots

[Saif]

Jharkhand CM asks BJP why Hasina was given refuge in India

India's Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren on Sunday fired back at BJP over accusing his party, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), of fostering Bangladeshi infiltration in the state

www.thedailystar.net

Jharkhand CM asks BJP why Hasina was given refuge in India

Photo: Collected

India's Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren on Sunday fired back at BJP over accusing his party, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), of fostering Bangladeshi infiltration in the state.

Soren questioned the central government's decision to provide refuge to ousted Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina, pressing for clarity on the BJP's stance on relations with Bangladesh.

He also criticised the supply of electricity from Jharkhand's Godda power plant to Bangladesh "while locals bear the environmental cost", reports our New Delhi correspondent.

Speaking at a rally in Ranka, Garhwa, the CM challenged the BJP's infiltration claims, saying, "I would like to know whether BJP has some sort of internal understanding with Bangladesh," while demanding an explanation for Hasina's landing in India.

"Infiltrators from Bangladesh enter India through BJP-ruled states. They are saying it themselves," he added.

Soren's remarks followed a speech by Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, who accused Jharkhand's government of sheltering Bangladeshi infiltrators for electoral gains.

"You have given shelter to infiltrators. You made infiltrators your vote bank," Shah said, promising to "drive out infiltrators" if BJP is elected.

In response, Soren underscored that border security is the central government's responsibility. "Infiltrators enter India through states ruled by you (BJP). Why don't you check infiltration there?" he said, accusing BJP of divisive tactics and alleging conspiracies against his administration since 2019.

Soren also criticised the Godda power plant agreement, saying, "electricity produced in Jharkhand is being supplied to Bangladesh while the people of the state are left to deal with the pollution."

Elections to the 81-member Jharkhand Assembly will take place in two phases on November 13 and 20, and votes will be counted on November 23.

Ruling JMM will contest elections as a part of the Opposition's INDIA bloc, having fielded candidates in 43 assembly seats. Its ally Congress has been allocated 30 seats.​

 

[Saif]

India considers Hasina as Bangladesh’s former PM

Indian external affairs ministry’s spokesperson said that India considered Sheikh Hasina as a former prime minister of Bangladesh.

www.newagebd.net

India considers Hasina as Bangladesh’s former PM
Staff Correspondent 07 November, 2024, 21:55

Sheikh Hasina | Collected photo

Indian external affairs ministry’s spokesperson said that India considered Sheikh Hasina as a former prime minister of Bangladesh.

During his weekly media briefing, the spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, was asked whether India considers Hasina as a former PM of Bangladesh or a ‘PM in exile’.

‘We have repeatedly said that she [Sheikh Hasina] is a former prime minister, that is where it stands,’ Jaiswal replied at the ministry in New Delhi on Thursday.

He made the statement in response to an Indian journalist, who pointed out that the Awami League in a statement congratulated Donald Trump on his US presidential election win where Sheikh Hasina, also AL president, was described as ‘Bangladesh PM’.

Sheikh Hasina fled to India in the face of student-led mass uprising on August 5 and has continued to stay there.​

 

[Saif]

Loyalists and apologists of fallen regime

The dramatic change in Bangladesh's political landscape during the first week of August this year has yet to be accepted by some at home and abroad. It is a harsh reality that a bloody mass uprising ultimately compelled the authoritarian Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to step down and flee to India.

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Loyalists and apologists of fallen regime
Asjadul Kibria
Published :
Nov 24, 2024 00:11
Updated :
Nov 24, 2024 00:11

A huge gathering in Dhaka city during student-people uprising against Hasina's autocratic regime - FE file photo

The dramatic change in Bangladesh's political landscape during the first week of August this year has yet to be accepted by some at home and abroad. It is a harsh reality that a bloody mass uprising ultimately compelled the authoritarian Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to step down and flee to India. Most of her party men are now on the run, and the party's supporters face people's wrath for obvious reasons. The Hasina loyalists abroad are, however, spreading disinformation about the country.

It is difficult for any autocratic regime and its loyalists to accept the fall, whether in an electoral process or in the face of a mass uprising. So, they used to manufacture elections in various ways. The Hasina regime, which lacked fairness and transparency, did the same to show that it resumed power through election. The process started in 2014 and continued in 2019 and 2024. The lack of fairness and transparency in these national parliamentary elections in Bangladesh was quite evident, and the legitimacy of the polls was seriously questioned. Nevertheless, Hasina did not bother to care about the polls' legitimacy as she successfully retained power, perpetuating an unjust and undemocratic regime.

Despite being authoritarian or autocratic, many such regimes retain some domestic support based on a kind of narrative. Such unconditional support base becomes a strength of the dictatorial regime to continue its deeds and misdeeds. The persistent repression of opposition political parties and critics to uphold the narrative is a fundamental characteristic of any authoritarian regime. The supporters and loyalists actively participate in repression and intimidation besides the government agencies and forces as they become a parallel administration under different banners.

Bangladesh witnessed the same thing during the last one and a half decades. Bangladesh Chattra Legue (BCL), the student wing of Hasina's ruling party, was in forefront in this regard. The leaders and activists of the organisation, now banned in the country, unleashed a reign of terror and intimidation through torture, murder, rape and harassment in various educational institutions across the country.

Authoritarian regimes in different countries are sometimes backed by bigger and stronger countries for their interests, compelling the regimes to compromise the greater interests of the countries. The Hasina regime has set a classic example in this regard. Backed by India, her government could overlook various international pressures, particularly those from Western countries, to ensure good governance, human rights, and democratic values.

Hasina claimed that she and her party, Bangladesh Awami League (BAL), were accountable to the people of Bangladesh. In reality, her loyalty to India has proved again and again. So, after the fall of Hasina, India extended support to her by giving her a safe shelter and indicated that it would continue to do so. The indication is a great relief for Hasina loyalists at home and abroad. There is also an allegation that India, through its proxies, trying to destabilise the country to undermine the interim government.

Bangladesh is now going through a phase of difficult transition, and Hasina loyalists will continue to defame the country using various tools. Many of these loyalists have benefited dramatically from corruption and money laundering during the last one and a half decades. So they have no shortage of finance to invest to reverse the course. It will definitely be a big challenge not only for the interim government but also for the whole country. The ill effort to create instability in the country by these loyalists will be intensified in the coming days. Harassment of an adviser in Geneva airport by a group of Hasina loyalist is an example in this connection.

It is also not surprising that most of these loyalists are unrepentant about the crimes and misdeeds of Hasina that distorted the country's socio-economic balance. To them, killing of more than 1,500 people during the July movement along with wounding more than 10 thousand people is no crime but right thing. To them, money and power at any cost is everything. So, their support to Hasina is understandable.

Among the Hasina loyalists, some are apologists who acknowledged that there were some misdeeds during the last 15 years. They, however, try to justify all these misdeeds as unintentional and part of the governance system.

These apologists also say that some repressive steps taken were necessary to ensure the country's stability and long-term development. The long list of development works reflected in the economic growth of Bangladesh must be credited to the Hasian regime, they further argued.

Similar arguments have also been made by many Indian politicians, intellectuals, journalists and social media activists. To them, the brutal repression and mass killing of students and youths in July-August by Hasina is obscure. Labelling the ousted regime as corrupt and despotic is wrong to them. They also overlooked Hasina's undermining the electoral process and distorting the institutions in Bangladesh. All these are fine to them as long as it helps retain a friendly and loyal regime in to power.

All these loyalists and apologists also argue that it was the Haisna regime that upheld the spirit of independence of Bangladesh. They also back the narrative of the country's war of independence in 1971, initiated by Awami League, only to justify the oppressive regime of Hasina. To them, anyone raising any question about the AL's 1971 narrative is anti-liberation or pro-Pakistani. The mass uprising of 2024, however, successfully challenges the biased, distorted, one-sided narrative of 1971 and breaks the taboo, imposed by Hasina and her loyalists. As these loyalists and apologists will continue to try to spread false, distorted and misleading information, it is necessary to fight against the damaging propaganda and activities with facts and information.​

 

[Saif]

Building a lasting defence against fascism

We may have seen the fall of one fascist regime, but have we truly eradicated fascism itself?

www.thedailystar.net

Building a lasting defence against fascism

It's important to understand that, if we're not careful, fascism can emerge from the inside as well as from the outside. FILE PHOTO: STAR

People often understand democracy and its virtues, but when it comes to the practical side of fighting fascism, there's still much confusion. We might have challenged governments and confronted authoritarianism, but does this mean the problem has been solved? Or are these efforts just temporary fixes, like putting a band-aid on a wound that needs surgery? We may have seen the fall of one fascist regime, but have we truly eradicated fascism itself?

Think of fascism like cancer. Imagine you have a cancerous tumour—it's painful, causing the most immediate problems, and you might decide to have a bloody surgery to remove it. Removing the tumour is essential, but does it cure the cancer? Not necessarily. If the cancerous cells remain, there's always a risk that it could come back. It might not be the same tumour or in the same place—it could reappear in your brain, your lungs, or somewhere else in your body.

Fascism is similar to a sickness in society. Fascist "germs" can still be found today, deeply ingrained in societal norms and myths. These stories continue to be told in many social circles, frequently with the backing of those who gain from them. Similar to cancer, fascism can be subtle. It silently spreads across society's shadowy nooks and crannies, feasting on greed and misinformation, fear, and power struggles.

What steps can we take to truly eradicate fascism? We need to focus on three key points. While these are not exhaustive, they can still serve as a foundation upon which to build.

The first step is achieving independence from any external interference in our political structure. Foreign policy and international relations will always have economic and diplomatic influences, that's a given. But the core of our political system—the building blocks of our democracy—must be free from external control. Influence is acceptable in measured stances, but control is not. When external forces interfere, they often validate or create narratives that serve their interests, not ours.

This outside influence may pose a threat. Because it depends more on outside assistance than on the mandate of its own constituents, it might strengthen a political party or government that is exempt from public scrutiny. Because these regimes are more accountable to foreign forces than to their constituents, such situations frequently result in authoritarianism eventually turning to fascism. An example of this is our previous regime's democratic beginning in 2009, which became more authoritarian as the government's external support increased.

We might think of the nations that supported the Soviet Union vigorously during the Cold War. An authoritarian regime ultimately emerged in many of these countries as a result of foreign influence creating a dependency, whereby the local government lost interest in answering to the people.

Our cultural mindset is the subject of the second point. Many conquered nations throughout history have fostered a culture of deference to authority. Long after we gained our independence, this submissiveness persisted and permeated our national consciousness. Because individuals are more likely to accept authority than to question it, it impedes democratic progress.

Instead of focusing on any one political party, we need to invest time and resources to find out the remaining germs of fascism. As the mechanism for fascism still persists, it won't take long for a different party or entity to replace the old one.

In many post-colonial societies, there is a tendency to respect and obey authority figures unquestioningly. This mindset is a hangover from the colonial era when people were taught to see themselves as subjects rather than citizens. Even today, in Bangladesh, when a senior official or politician enters a room, people stand up out of respect—a practice rooted in colonial traditions. In Bangladesh, every leader is looked at through a lens of kingship. Whether they come to power through an election or in some other manner, it seems like an ascension. We all seem to forget that they are there to serve the people and the nation, not the other way around.

This is why we have corrupt institutions filled with corrupt individuals. It's due to the lack of accountability and the superior feeling that people in power gain, which allows them to normalise selfish and corrupt behaviour. When these sorts of individuals fill an institution or organisation, the whole entity becomes like a kingdom. You cannot question it. We are merely subjects of it. It doesn't belong to us but rather to the individuals who run it.

In contrast, in many democratic societies, there isn't the same level of deference to authority. People see themselves as equal participants in governance, not subjects. They speak to their leaders by name and aren't afraid to express their concerns, and an attitude of accountability prevails. Authoritarianism and fascism can flourish when people fail to see that they are the real owners of their nation and that the government should work for them, not the other way around.

The third argument, related to the first two, concerns Bangladesh's idea of nationalism. Our political discourse has been influenced by outmoded colonial-era ideas or outside forces for far too long. We need a narrative developed by our own people, for our own people—one that is rooted in our unique cultural, social, and political context.

Our current idea of nationalism needs a lot more work to reach the state where it can truly serve our people. For the moment, the nationalistic ideas or practices that we have all seem self-serving to a large extent. We are only observing national holidays that the ruling government of the time aligns with, declaring them unimportant when the government changes. This tradition has gone on too long. We are only appreciating our sports teams when they manage a win. We don't pay heed when the women's football team hasn't received their salary in months. We only try to get Geographical Indicators for products that draw interest from nations other than ours. We impose our own conservative or liberal views with nationalism to get an edge on our arguments.

We can look at alternative examples like Japan. It simultaneously embraces its cultural heritage and history while regularly setting the stage for one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. The preservation of their traditional practices, such as tea ceremonies and martial arts, doesn't hold them back from also having the reputation of precision manufacturing in the global arena.

On the other hand, the US has "The American Dream." The idea is that regardless of background, anyone can be successful through hard work. This narrative of independent identity, freedom, and economic prospects shapes the national idea of the US.

Bangladesh today, more than ever, needs a unified idea of Bangladeshi nationalism. For us, our national identity could potentially accommodate the love for language, as even today we remain the only nation to have shed blood fighting for it. Next could be our fight for democracy. In the 1971 Liberation War, the 90's anti-Ershad movement, and the 2024 July uprising, every time the countrymen came to the streets to fight the suppression of democracy in one way or another. Lastly, our moderate Muslim majority identity, similar to Indonesia and Malaysia, can also play a role.

What does all of this signify for our efforts to combat fascism? It implies that winning elections and overthrowing dictators are not the only goals of the struggle. It involves constructing robust institutions, altering people's perspectives, and promoting an accountable and democratic culture. It's important to understand that, if we're not careful, fascism can emerge from the inside as well as from the outside.

Instead of focusing on any one political party, we need to invest time and resources to find out the remaining germs of fascism. As the mechanism for fascism still persists, it won't take long for a different party or entity to replace the old one.

So, while we have made some progress, we need to remain vigilant, build stronger democratic institutions, foster a culture of accountability, and, most importantly, empower ourselves as citizens to take ownership of our country. Before that, we also have to figure out what we, as individuals, want to do for our country to create our own inception of Bangladeshi nationalism. Only then can we ensure that our victories against fascism are not just temporary, but permanent.

Ashfaq Zaman is the founder of Dhaka Forum and a strategic international affairs expert.​

 

[Saif]

Assad’s ouster and the ever-changing world for Bangladesh

Do we have the expertise to tackle the crises and exploit the opportunities in the evolving geopolitical scenario?

www.thedailystar.net

Assad’s ouster and the ever-changing world for Bangladesh
Do we have the expertise to tackle the crises and exploit the opportunities?

FILE VISUAL: STAR

No two regime-toppling events are similar, yet there are some uncanny resemblances between the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and Sheikh Hasina. Both seemed invincible but fell like a house of cards, clung to power for long yet disappeared within days, claimed popularity yet had little knowledge of how unpopular they had become. Both felt they stood on sturdy daises, but they were moth-eaten ones to the core. Both convinced themselves that they controlled the narrative yet were unaware that nobody trusted them. Both felt they were irreplaceable figures of history, but were replaced within days of their defeat without their people batting an eye. Both believed that ruling their people was their God-given right, hence they didn't need to take their people's mandate. So brutal, atrocious and heartless were their reigns that both had to flee and seek asylum abroad. They had no place in their countries, which they both thought they owned.

The Syrian revolution is the latest piece in the ever-changing world that Bangladesh will have to deal with as it forges ahead. The big question is: do we have the requisite expertise for it?

Foreign policy is among the least discussed subjects in Bangladesh. It is always shrouded in the mist of bureaucratic maze. In the 33 years of my experience with this daily, I cannot recall a single instance where foreign policy was discussed by the government in any public forum. Our parliament failed itself and the voters by never bringing it up in the House. Discussions by private think tanks or newspapers could go only so far.

None of the reform commissions is on foreign policy. This is indicative of our own sense of priority—or the lack of it. If not a commission, we could at least have officially brought some of our former foreign secretaries, senior bureaucrats, former ambassadors, academicians and security experts together to discuss how to navigate through the ever-changing geopolitical reality.

Take our relationship with India. One look at the map will tell you how vital, complex, multi-faceted and intricate our geolocation is, and the high-quality multidisciplinary expertise we need to get the best deal for ourselves. I have often wondered why we don't have specialised institutes to study our foreign relations, especially with our big neighbour. Do we really know what our only other neighbour is all about? The Rohingya issue should have driven home the point that we need geopolitics to solve it a long time ago.

Every university of repute should have courses that could produce specialists on these issues. The rise of the Arakan Army, which now controls our border with Myanmar, has suddenly brought home a new reality. Do we have the expertise to handle it, or even understand it?

In my long years as the editor of The Daily Star, I realised that when we talk about relations with India, we most often think of New Delhi and Kolkata and at best Mumbai. We have very little idea of South India where India's IT hub is located, and from where our startups and IT entrepreneurs could have learnt. How do we forge a new, win-win, non-hegemonistic and mutually beneficial and respectful relationship with India? The answer is clearly knowledge, competence and belief in ourselves. While we have the latter, we need significant work on the first two. We need coolheaded experts to sit together, do all the calculations, make the facts public, and make a stable and mutually beneficial relationship that benefits us both. Any one-sided agreement is bound to fail.

The just concluded trip by the Indian foreign secretary, we ardently hope, will mark some progress in our relationship that has shown some disturbing signs lately. Honestly, we have been totally outraged and deeply disappointed at the depiction of Bangladesh by the Indian media.

Take the case of the repercussions of the Syrian regime change. What was Russia's role in the sudden collapse of its long term ally—Assad—to maintain whom Putin invested hundreds of billions? The common wisdom is, the Ukraine war drained too much resources from Russia. He needed to make a choice about allocating additional resources, and he chose Ukraine. So what will be Russia's new strategy? Will it abandon Syria?

What is the story of Iran? It did extend all its support to Assad and for a while felt comfortable being on the winning side. The destruction of Hamas in Gaza and subsequent diminishing of Hezbollah in Lebanon—both being integral parts of the forces that helped Assad stay in power—created the opening for the rebels to make their breakthrough. The impact on Iran is still not clear, but it definitely stands weakened.

Israel's bombing of Syrian military assets—480 airstrikes in 48 hours—is the clearest indication of how this war-mongering country is taking advantage of the situation. It has been more than a year since it started carrying out the most cruel and destructive bombing and killing of the Gazans.

Then it invaded Lebanon and killed thousands of ordinary citizens in the name of destroying Hezbollah. Israeli soldiers were spotted way into the Syrian territories around the Golan Heights, which President Donald Trump allowed Israel to annex during his first term. Israel is indiscriminately attacking some of its neighbours with complete impunity—without the UN Security Council condemning it for such a blatant violation of international law.

What its policy will be vis-à-vis Iran is the big question. When a country's foray inside other countries goes unchallenged, in fact encouraged, how far it will take its aggression remains unclear. History has very dangerous lessons in this regard.

Türkiye has definitely emerged as a more active player with its president now holding more cards than before.

Relations with the US under President Trump will be quite a challenge for Bangladesh. The former prime minister's offensive and unexplained comments on the US has left a bad taste in the mouth of the State Department officials. Trump's message on X before the election clearly shows the nature of our future challenge.

Our only counterbalancing factor is the respect that Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus enjoys in the US, being one of the very few recipients in US history of the two highest civilian medals: the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010. Both were bipartisan honours.

It is this uncertain world that Bangladesh's foreign policy will have to navigate. The first and the most important thing we have to understand is that whatever emotion and feelings that may drive us in domestic affairs, when dealing with foreign policy, we need pragmatism. There is, of course, our own idealism and world view, but the only way forward is being a realist. While flexing muscle can be an option for the big powers, for us, making our case logically, factually and convincingly and gathering global opinion to back it is the only answer.

The new Bangladesh must persuasively tell its story to the world. It must be able to convince others that we want to build a free, just, inclusive, tolerant, equal and democratic society internally, and a peaceful and just international order globally. For that, words and speeches are not sufficient. We need performance that produces powerful facts, and for that we need all-round expertise.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.​