By Ashish Singh
Nearly a month ago, students in Bangladesh started protesting against the order to implement quotas/ reservations for the families of those who fought in the 1971 war. While the trigger was a High Court decision last month to reintroduce the old quota system—56% of government jobs for different categories, including 30% for the descendants of freedom fighters—the government did not deal with it well. As a result, hundreds are already dead, and armoured tanks were seen to be entering college campuses. Questions are being posed about the political culture and culture of violence in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the protests also raised a valid question facing many developing countries about meritocracy versus hereditary preference in jobs.
It is a known fact that the idea of Bangladesh came into existence when Western Pakistani elites comprising the Punjabi and Mujahir duo refused to accommodate the demands of the Eastern Pakistani Bengali population. It led to protests and armed struggle, resulting in the formation of a new country in 1971, namely Bangladesh. The question of identity played a key role in this struggle. Bengalis who fought against the dominance of Western Pakistani rulers were both Hindus and Muslims.
Similar to other Asian countries surrounding Bangladesh, politics is a game of muscle and money. Currently, all major political parties in Bangladesh have strong cadres who focus on strengthening the political base of the party and opposing the cadres of other parties. The culture has been established since the time of Hussain Mohammad Ershad in the 1980s, and the new leadership of political parties is carrying this legacy instead of taking an alternative approach, many argue.
The question of co-existence of identities, which led to the creation of the country, divided the country into two groups: the independent Bangladesh policy of the Awami League and the anti-independence policy of the pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami. Fueled further by the spread of religious fundamentalism, Bangladesh started to witness targeted attacks on the non-Muslim populations, at times based on the rumours spread on social media.
A brief historical check shows that different ruling factions have adapted and continued the culture of violence in some form or another, ignoring demands or apprehensions of one or several identity groups. Although Sheikh Mujib, the father of the nation, came as the liberator of the country, when faced with opposition and challenges, he used political violence to suppress political parties and activities between the periods of 1972 and 1975. During the phase of the state emergency, it is documented that the police and paramilitary forces were involved in murdering opponents, forced disappearances, rapes, and torture.
General Ziaur Rahman, founder of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), also used suppression and violence against the opposition. Zia also used Islam as an instrument to consolidate his power, which changed the political and social dynamics of secular Bangladesh.
Lt General Husain Muhammad Ershad got control of the country in a bloodless coup. During his rule from 1982 to 1990, Ershad’s actions made him known as a cruel dictator. His government brutally crushed the student movement in February 1983. Many scholars assert that his campaign of repression soon expanded into a campaign of cold-blooded murder. Corruption also became state-sponsored, while Ershad strategically injected religious elements to strengthen his power. Reports of detention and arrest of political opposition also came.
In the later years of BNP rule, especially in 1996, punitive measures were taken against those who challenged the governmental authority in any way. The BNP-Jamaat alliance, from 2001 to 2006, not only acted against its political opposition but also started targeting Hindu minority populations.
Sheikh Hasina’s tenure as the leader of the country is also filled with evidence of suppressive and punitive actions against the opposition. Despite the fact that on several indicators of human and economic development, Bangladesh’s performance seems to have improved, the Awami League’s tactics have resulted in the opposition boycotting elections.
The past and present of Bangladesh reflect the trend of ignoring opposition by any kind of identity group, followed by strong and mostly violent actions perpetrated by the ruling elites. While the current debate is about meritorious youths, one should be careful in thinking that it is just a uni-dimensional event.
(Ashish Singh is a social and political scientist.)
