Unrest presages more trouble for PM Hasina
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's fifth term as Prime Minister – and her fourth successive term – has run into early trouble. Students surmised from a court verdict in June that the government was planning to bring back a quota scheme under which descendants of freedom fighters– those who fought for the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh-- got 30% of government jobs, with an additional 26% being reserved for various other categories. With unemployment rampant and the economy running out of steam, the freedom fighter quota was a finger in the eye of lakhs of students who had to compete for the crumbs. Worse, Hasina's characterisation of the protesters as ‘razakars’, or traitors who collaborated with the Pakistan Army in 1971, was insult upon injury. Their protests and the ensuing deaths of over 100 people, mostly killed in police shootings, does not project the prime minister in a flattering light, nor does it bode well for the rest of her term. In a way out for Hasina for now, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has cut the total quotas to seven per cent, of which the freedom fighters’ families will get five. An uneasy calm now prevails on the streets. The real test will come after the curfew and Internet suspension are lifted.
This episode of violence is no aberration but part of a recurrent pattern of protests against Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League's total capture of Bangladesh's political space over more than a decade. The protests are put down brutally each time, after being characterised as a plot by Islamist extremists, or the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Her insecurity is justified to some extent, as she has survived direct attempts to kill her. But her regression into an authoritarian leader who brooks no dissent and is paranoid about political rivals is setting back all of Bangladesh's gains, including its deservedly praised economic and social progress, which too happened under her watch. Some experts would go as far as to link the country's present economic woes to Hasina's unaccountability and her dependence on a clique that takes decisions in its own interests rather than the country's.
Delhi has offered unstinting support for Hasina all these years, taking the line that how she runs her country is purely her business, so long as she safeguards Indian interests. Hasina's crackdown against Islamist militant groups has served India well. She has also been a quick responder against violence targeting the country's minority Hindus. But the more Delhi is seen as supportive of Hasina for its own interests, particularly without progress on the Teesta river sharing pact, the more contempt there is on the Bangladesh street for both Hasina and her Indian patrons. If Delhi has any influence over Hasina, it must warn her of the dangers of her style of functioning.