THE blood of the innocent bore fruit and Sheikh Hasina fled from Bangladesh to India. Now the question arises, what will be the outcome of Bangladesh’s revolution and Sheikh Hasina Wajid? A memory comes to mind. It must have been around 1991-92 when the martyred Benazir Bhutto established the SAARC Opposition Forum, inviting opposition leaders from all member countries to Karachi. Among them was V P Singh, who wore a Jinnah cap, came from India. A guest from Nepal was a member of the Communist Party. Mr. Anuradha came from Sri Lanka. There were a few other guests as well. Press Club invited them a day before the SAARC Opposition Conference. All the leaders mingled freely with journalists, chatting informally and enjoying tea here and there.
Except for one guest, whose face was painted with displeasure and whatever she said was dipped in venom. This was Sheikh Hasina Wajid. It seemed as if these neighbouring countries’ leaders had come for a friendly match, so they could engage in informal diplomacy for themselves and their countries. But Sheikh Hasina’s case was different. When Secretary of the Press Club invited her to speak with a pleasant smile, she got up from her chair with a sudden jerk and spoke in an unpleasant tone, saying, “I just want to say why Pakistan doesn’t return our assets.” The next day at the SAARC Opposition Conference, she said the same thing in the same tone. Benazir Bhutto must have thought that if this lady had come here just to do this, it would have been better if she hadn’t come at all. This incident was before Sheikh Hasina came to power.
During her prime ministership, when the Asia Cup was held in Dhaka, she was the special guest. Final match was between Pakistan and Bangladesh, and within a few hours, it became clear that the trophy was going to Pakistan. Seeing this, she left the stadium before the match ended to avoid handing the trophy to Pakistani players herself. During the general election after her first term as Prime Minister, I met a Bangladeshi citizen through a friend. I found out that he belonged to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and was an office-bearer of the Rangpur branch. I was surprised that a political worker was away from his constituency during election days. He said that two things cannot happen simultaneously in Bangladesh. ‘What are those?’ To my question, he said that in Hasina’s government, one cannot be in opposition and live in the country. This is not possible, and you people sitting in Pakistan cannot understand it.
He was right. This was the time when Abdul Quader Molla, Matiur Rahman Nizami, Abu Saleh Muhammad Sadeq and many other leaders were being judicially murdered. Ninety-year-old Professor Ghulam Azam was being tortured in prison. It is true that we did not taste the torment as the BNP leader did, but from what we could see and understand sitting here, or learn from the media, it was clear that the golden land, which was separated from its own people (Pakistan) with the slogans of making it Sonar Desh (Golden Country), had now become hell for its own people. The outcome of narrow nationalism has always been seen like this.
A wooden pot cannot be put on fire repeatedly and the storm of oppression cannot last forever. The sun that rises must set in the evening. Sheikh Hasina Wajid considered herself a princess being the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and only used violence in a country created through violence. How did this business of oppression last for 15 years? The answer is not too difficult. The first answer is that the effects of oppression are generally of two kinds. At first, there is fear. People go underground, remain silent for a while and wait for the right time. The second reason for their prolonged rule could be better economic strategy, which brought prosperity to a poverty-stricken country like Bangladesh. When prosperity became a habit, oppression and coercion started to trouble people. Gradually, people began to raise their voices. This echo grew so loud that it became impossible for Sheikh Hasina Wajid to sit comfortably in her secure fortress.
Another interesting aspect of the Bangladesh episode is that we also had a person here who had a habit of seeking support from power. After gaining the desired power, he destroyed his own game with his own hands. Now he sits dreaming of his beloved (Power), sometimes attacking the establishment and sometimes hastily repeating the habit of taking U-turns. Sheikh Hasina Wajid did the same. She made her relative army chief, but this very relative exiled her within 45 minutes’ notice. May God grant our political players the understanding of this secret. This could be the biggest lesson for us from this incident.
Anyway, let’s leave this matter. The real question is what will be the future of Bangladesh now? Will the army conduct elections and then leave, or will it remain in power for a long time? It is true that the army has given Sheikh Hasina a safe passage. It cannot be said yet whether she will be able to return or not. Closed roads in politics are often seen opening. For now, her end appears to be like that of the Shah of Iran, who couldn’t even find two yards of land in the alley of his beloved land. Sheikh Hasina has fled to India, but history also teaches that tissue paper is never kept close to the heart forever. What is going to happen in Bangladesh now? A lot will become clear in the next few days.
—This writer is former advisor to the president of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
