Was only Bangladesh students’ quota protest behind Hasina’s downfall?

There is something very romantic about a students’ protest — more so if it can topple a government, a “despotic” one at that. The Bangladesh students’ protest, which apparently began over an unjustified quota system, caught the imagination of the world. Not only Bangladeshis, but many people with Leftist leanings rejoiced on Monday (August 5), when news came in of Sheikh Hasina hurriedly resigning as the prime minister of Bangladesh and fleeing for her life to India as “Gen Z” protesters prepared to march to Dhaka seeking her ouster.

The night before that, 14 policemen had been lynched. Since Hasina’s flight, chaos and unspeakable violence have gripped the country even though many voices coming out of the country have claimed that “all is well”. Videos show policemen and presumably Awami League activists, hanging upside down from bridges, being beaten to death. A hotel in Jessore owned by an Awami League leader was set on fire, burning 25 people alive. And today (August 7), 20 Awami League leaders and their family members were found dead across the country.

The question is, do these indicate the single-point theory of protesting students “freeing” the country of a “despotic” head of state for its “second liberation” (after 1971)? Or were there other behind-the-scenes players piggybacking the students’ protest that earned sympathy at the grassroots?

Hasina’s journey to her downfall

There is no doubting the fact that Hasina had turned into an increasingly despotic ruler. Her reaction to the students’ protests itself bears testimony to that. She let loose her military, police, and all kinds of state machinery to quell the agitation. They were joined by armed goons of her party Awami League and its students’ and youth organisations. Army tanks rolled down the streets of Dhaka and trigger-happy policemen killed and maimed students with impunity. Hasina’s logic was that the protesters were not students but “terrorists” backed by her principal rivals, the BNP-Jamaat.

Her paranoia of being ousted by her rivals grew so strong that she threw them behind bars with impunity, orchestrated hundreds of enforced disappearances and so of extra-judicial killings in the 15 years of her reign since 2009. Hasina, of course, rubbished all these claims.

The allegations of abuse, torture, and extra-judicial killings against her security forces prompted the US to clamp a sanction on the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in 2021. Human rights activists and journalists were not spared either. They faced arrests and harassment and strict laws were put in place to stifle press freedom.

Hasina’s beef with Md Yunus

Incidentally, one of Hasina’s bitterest targets was Nobel Peace Prize winner Md Yunus, who the student protesters wanted to be given the charge of helming the interim government and who has accepted the responsibility. Hasina dubbed the microfinance banker and social activist as a “bloodsucker” who was looting people and a “US stooge”.

Yunus was in 2011 sacked from the very Grameen Bank that he founded, and slapped with more than 100 legal charges and thrown behind bars in January this year. He was later released on bail. Hasina’s inexplicable tirade against Yunus made her all the more unpopular among the youth.

Hasina’s paranoia against her rivals — real and some possibly imaginary — likely stemmed from her experiences. She lost most of her immediate family — including her father, the founder of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman — to assassins of the army in 1975. Among the reasons behind that coup was the same allegation that caused Hasina’s downfall half a century later — the leaning towards despotism.

Before his assassination, Mujib had virtually imposed an emergency-like situation, suspending all political parties and declaring himself as the head of a one-party state called Baksal. Hasina’s regime was dubbed “Baksal 2.0” by her critics.

Economic story

Hasina herself faced 19 assassination attempts over the years, was thrown behind bars on corruption charges by the army, along with her arch rival Khaleda Zia of the BNP, after a coup in 2007. Later, possibly her paranoia, coupled with increasing arrogance, made her surround herself with sycophants who were accused of corruption and nepotism.

Coupled with these were growing youth unemployment (15.7 per cent) in a country of 160 million, high inflation (9.4 per cent in FY24), and growing inequality. Even before the quota protests, the youth had been battered by question paper leaks in government jobs. It was revealed last month that the question papers of at least 30 government job exams had been leaked over 12 years.

While these made the youth and the poor increasingly furious with her government, her despotic behaviour made it evident for them that there was no escaping her either. She peddled the Bangladesh growth story instead, with improvements in education, 6+ per cent annual growth since 2009 into South Asia’s second largest economy (after India), plummeting poverty, better infrastructure (the 6km Padma Bridge was her pride). Bangladesh’s per-capita income overtook even India’s in 2021 — mostly riding the garment industry.

US “interference”

But the youth were not impressed. One of the major reasons was the lack of space for dissent, which also turned the US against her. The US initially had a lot to be happy about Hasina. She sheltered millions of Rohingya refugees fleeing the neighbouring Myanmar. She was always the “secular” face of Bangladesh compared to the BNP-Jamaat, and is known to have cracked down on hardline Muslim groups — which exiled Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen poohpoohs, arguing otherwise.

But the constant flow of reports on stifled opposition voices and unabated atrocities led to growing US discomfort. Former US president Barack Obama was among the 170 global leaders and Nobel laureates who had penned an open letter urging Hasina to spare Md Yunus of “continuous judicial harassment”. Alongside, the US government continued to pressure the Hasina government to ensure “free and fair election”. Hasina kept denying the charge that her government was blocking that.

On top of that, American diplomat Peter Haas left Bangladesh in a huff last November after allegedly being threatened by an Awami League official because he was apparently supporting the BNP.

Hasina’s claim on US

Hasina, on her part, undeterred by the dependence of the country’s garment industry on the US, hinted in the Bangladesh parliament last year that the US was trying to topple her government. “America can change power in any country it wants. It wants to bring such a government here which will not have any democratic existence,” she reportedly said.

Once again, she claimed in May this year that a “white man” had offered her a hassle-free return to power in the January 7 polls — which she won without any opposition as the BNP-Jamaat boycotted it after claims of state-sponsored violence against them — only if she allowed another country to build an air base in Bangladesh.

Hasina did not name the country that made her the offer. But she also said, “It may appear that it is aimed at only one country, but it is not. I know where else they intend to go,” according to Bangladesh’s The Daily Star. “There will be more trouble. But don’t worry about it,” she reportedly said. “I don’t want to come to power by renting part of the country or handing it over to some other country and I don’t need power,” she was quoted as saying.

Not only that, Hasina had made the same claim in an exclusive interview to BBC last year. Regarding the US ban on her police force RAB, Hasina had said the force “was established in 2004 on their (US) advice. All their training, equipment was provided by the United States. I believe they are working the way they have built the army. So why did they ban this? It’s a big question for me too.”

Upon being asked why the US might have done that, she told the BBC: “I don’t know, maybe they don’t want my work to continue.” Regarding the “extrajudicial killings”, she said the numbers and allegations against her forces had never been proved.

The questions that are being raised

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that questions are now being raised whether the fall of the Hasina government happened only because of a mighty protest by disenchanted youth, or whether a bigger plot was at work.

Media reports have quoted “intelligence sources” to make two kinds of claims. One, that both the US and UK played a role in Hasina’s ouster. The students’ protest was merely a front. Some have seen a “clear CIA hand” in the way things unravelled in Bangladesh.

The other claim has been made by Bangladeshi officials, who reportedly have proof of meetings between Khaleda Zia’s son Tarique Rahman and ISI officials in Saudi Arabia. The plot to topple the government was reportedly hatched in London and a social media campaign was run to fuel the protests on the ground.

A foreign hand?

The question of a possible “foreign hand” has been raised by Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi too, specifically mentioning Pakistan. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar was cautious in his reply on Tuesday, saying the role of foreign governments in the unrest in Bangladesh was not being ruled out, even though he emphasised that the situation was too fluid to come to a conclusion.

The fact that BNP-Jamaat activists joined the protests — at least at a later stage — is a foregone conclusion now. Pankaj Saran, a veteran diplomat who served as the Indian ambassador to Bangladesh from 2012-2015, told news agency PTI, “I think it is clear that there are political forces who are using students’ grievances as an opportunity to settle political scores.”

Veena Sikri, another former envoy, agreed. She pointed out that had it been purely a student movement, it would have “petered out” after the government responded to its demand.

Also, the suddenness of Hasina’s flight — after being rushed into taking an immediate decision by the Bangladeshi Army — caught everyone, including India, off guard. Now, with the doors of both the US and UK bolted shut on Hasina, the longest-serving female head of state stares at a very uncertain future. But it’s unlikely that the smog that surrounds her unceremonious exit will ever be cleared completely, if any deep state was indeed involved.