Bangladesh’s Unfinished Revolution

Sudanshu

To understand the present day Bangladesh crisis, there are various ways. It is not only a political issue, rather it has various dynamics and aspect, largely social and economic aspect cannot be ignored. If we see the entire episode from the marginalized section perspective, the series of event is neither pro people nor revolutionary. Sheikh Hasina government was a liberal government printing capitalism which increased the GDP and per capita income, at the same time, the government did not pay any heed to fulfill the escalating disparity and increasing poverty.

The marginalised section of society, was never in the centre of economic policy as well as there was no plan for uplifting of marginalized people. In the name of fighting with conservatives and radical, Sheikh Hasina government violates the fundamental democratic rights of Bangladeshi people and oppressed any genuine protest too in the period of time. The present crisis which began with the opposition of reservation of dependent of freedom fighter of 1971 Bangladesh liberation movement.

Initially the agitation was led by the student, those who believe that because of this reservation their chances to secure government job is decreasing, however over the period of time they received support from various section of society as well as from different organization. Various international reports indicates that they got support from radical outfits and also get the external support from Pakistan and America. This shows the movement led by the youth misguided in the hand of radicals and external players. Sheikh Hasina initially tried to suppress this movement forcefully, several people died, largely youth lost their life and that was the turning point of this movement. Radicals and communal forces step into this movement and hijacked the moment. The military rejected to take action on their own people, and that resulted into the peoples coup, and Sheikh Hasina had to flee India.

The change in the regime of Bangladesh cannot be seen as progressive development or positive change. However, the responsibility lies more on Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League. She had been democratically elected and governed Bangladesh for almost two decades. However, in these two decades of governance, she rampantly violated the ethos of democracy and oppressed opposition leaders, intellectuals, as well as activists, grossly violating human rights. In other words, she ran an authoritarian regime in the last fifteen years. On the economic front, she was opening the market for India as well as for the West, which also fueled resentment among small and medium businessmen. Ground proximity to India, and more precisely with the Modi government, generated resentment in a larger section of society who believe the Modi government has an anti-Muslim and communal agenda.

On the one hand, Sheikh Hasina was relying on economic growth and GDP; on the other hand, she was suppressing opposition and other democratic voices. Precisely, she thought that she would rule Bangladesh for a long time. However, after COVID-19, the bubble of economic growth was burst, and on the ground, there was resentment.

The issue of CAA and NRC further increased their belief and created an apprehension that, in the name of CAA and NRC, the Indian government is going to exclude Bengali Muslims. Radicals got the opportunity to discredit Sheikh Hasina's narrative that India is a good friend of Bangladesh.

From the point of view of the marginalized section of society, the Sheikh Hasina government never proposed a significant solution to poverty, hunger, and unemployment. However, she managed to achieve significant growth in GDP, while poverty eradication was on paper or nominal poverty eradication, which was, however, praised by several liberal agencies like the World Bank, IMF, ADB, and others. However, still there is a lack of job creation, better education, better health facilities, and the upliftment of the poor will not sustain in the long term. Bangladesh largely relied on the garment business and jute business but never introduced diversification in its industry and never focused on innovative and productive ideas.

However, the new interim government led by Nobel laureate Md Yunus is trying to stabilize Bangladesh, but initial action against Awami League leaders shows his vendetta politics. His government revoked the legal cases against him as well as Begum Khaleda Zia's cases. He has also appointed bureaucrats for governance in place of elected members. He also opened the financial issues and said that he will bring back the illegal money that was laundered during Sheikh Hasina's regime. However, until the policies are made in favor of the downtrodden and in favor of sustainable agriculture, the concentration of wealth and increasing disparity between the rich and poor is a serious problem in Bangladesh's neoliberal model of development.

It is the responsibility of left, progressive, and democratic forces to address the issues of labor, farmers, the middle class, women, and minorities and to apply pressure on the interim government to protect the workers' rights, social justice, secularism, and land reforms. At the same time, the progressives of Bangladesh, as well as outside Bangladesh, should provide a socialist model of inclusive economic development. Lastly, a secular, progressive, democratic Bangladesh is the need of not only Bangladesh's people but also the entire Asian region. A stable, democratic, and progressive Bangladesh will bring peace, progress, and prosperity to the Asian region.