Regarding Bangladesh's recent government shift, five points need to be made. Even if some of them have been spoken previously, they are nevertheless important to say again.
1. For india, this is dreadful news. Despite her flaws, Sheikh Hasina was a secular individual who opposed the spread of Islamism and a great friend to India. Although the shape of bangladesh after Hasina is yet unknown, the signs are not positive. Relations between india and bangladesh are not expected to improve with the decision to free the India-baiting Begum Khaleda Zia from prison and the existence of anti-Indian forces among those who may now hold power.
Neither does the emergence of Islamist groups. Sheikh Mujibur rahman stated in 1971 that a nation could not be held together just by its religion. Although bangladesh was a part of pakistan at the time he was speaking, his remarks still hold true today. It could be premature to draw the conclusion that, in the aftermath of Hasina, all Hindus in bangladesh are in grave danger, and it is reckless of politicians and sections of the indian media to keep repeating it in an effort to incite anti-Muslim feeling in India. It is difficult to dispute, however, that Bangladesh's Hindu population's safety is a serious worry. Hindus were disproportionately affected by the 1971 genocide in what was then eastpakistan by the Pakistani army, with millions of them fleeing as refugees to India.
2. People who celebrate the success of a so-called "peoples movement" and exult over Sheikh Hasina's resignation are naive and ignorant, especially those on the Left (or what's left of the Left). Sheikh Hasina was by no means a bloodthirsty tyrant, even if she had grown more dictatorial in recent years (see below).
To rejoice in Dhaka's anarchy is to commit the same error that countless liberals committed when, in a moment of naive and misguided hope, they joyfully embraced the chaos of the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring brought in a breakdown of law and order, an increase in Islamist sentiment, civil strife, hardship, and military takeovers in several nations. It is the height of foolishness to applaud those who destroy Sheikh Mujib monuments and set historic structures on fire. people are not always heroes just because they revolt and topple a regime. Furthermore, democracy seldom wins out in the end.
3. You can see from all the figures how much bangladesh has progressed economically over the past ten years. Its residents enjoy more prosperity than those of other sub-continental nations in many respects. For this, Sheikh Hasina deserves at least some recognition.
However, in the end, that was insufficient. Too frequently, proponents of autocratic governments assert that as long as there is affluence, the general public is unconcerned with democracy or liberal liberties. This is complete nonsense, as the events in bangladesh have reminded us.
Progress in the economy is insufficient on its own to maintain public happiness. That was a lesson we ought to have taken away from Iran's 1970s experience. people continued to rise up in rebellion against the Shah despite increased wealth and oil income.
4. The opposition boycotted the polls, which is the easiest explanation for why Shaikh Hasina gained an overwhelming majority in the most recent general election in Bangladesh. This appeared at the moment to be a small impediment to her further development. The argument went something like this: who really gave a damn about the pouting Opposition when she'd been in power for so long and the economy was doing so well? Indeed, as the events of last week show, the opposition plays a vital role in any democracy.
5. These days, South Asia is a riskier region, particularly for india and indians living there. It is obvious that bangladesh is far less stable than it was a few months ago, even if you don't buy into the numerous hypotheses suggesting that foreign powers—China, pakistan, or even the US—were responsible for the unrest in Dhaka. And that poses a threat to the entire area.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel