Sadeq Khan
Motions of dramatic events of political and geopolitical engagement have of late been staged in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. All of them appear to be either misdirected or misleading. In Indian media analyses and diplomatic innuendoes, an impression was created that a Delhi-Washington-Dhaka triangle of crisis management had been invoked to try break the disastrous stalemate over election-time transitional government in Bangladesh.
The end-result of the recent Dhaka visit of Nisha Deshai Biswal, new US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia and Central Asian Affairs advocating, amongst other issues of bilateral import she attended to, that the Awami League and the BNP should engage urgently in a dialogue to resolve their differences over the election-time transitional government, belie that impression.
She said the USA has no preference as to who wins the popular mandate in a “free, fair and commonly acceptable” general election in Bangladesh, posing the question whether a general election in Bangladesh without the participation of the BNP-led opposition alliance would be acceptable to the people of Bangladesh.
The Indian High Commission in Dhaka, on the other hand, told newsmen that Delhi was in touch with Washington (and other powers interested in regional security) over the transitional impasse in Bangladesh, and the Indian media, quoting Indian government sources, openly advocated that “Bangladesh is in a violent phase”, and India in its own extended security interests “must do all it can” to help the proven India-friendly government of Sheikh Hasina to return to power. Notably, Nisha Biswal went back to Washington from Dhaka instead of going to Delhi on her way back as had been publicised in the Indian-influenced local media.
Cost of disagreement
Before coming to Bangladesh, Nisha Desai Biswal had written about Bangladesh in a press statement to Reuters on “Fighting for democracy in South Asia” on November 15 as follows: “In Bangladesh, as the ruling Awami League Party and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party dispute how to hold constitutionally mandated elections this winter, there has been increasing political instability with rallies and general strikes that have at times turned violent. The longer the two sides cannot agree on a framework for an interim government to oversee the next election, the more likely Bangladeshi citizens will take to the streets to express their frustrations.”
Indeed she saw even during her visit, when “political agitation” was put on hold in her honour by the Opposition 14-party alliance that people had already come out on the streets. In Sitakundo, bloody confrontation between supporters of a detained local Islamist leader (whose tortured body the local people discovered dead and abandoned by the police after the departure of Ms Biswal) had lead to violent siege of Dhaka-Chittagong highway, cutting off Chittagong, the principal sea-port of Bangladesh from the rest of the country for days together. She also saw continuing violent strikes and labour unrest around Dhaka in Asulia-Gazipur-Tongi belt and in Kanchpur-Narayanganj pockets garments-manufacture. A Congressional hearing on Bangladesh over both labour rights and human rights violations has begun after her return to Washington.
Last year on June 13, 2012, in its Asia report No 226, the International Crisis Group made an assessment on the Bangladesh situation as follows: “Bangladesh could face a protracted political crisis in the lead-up to the 2013 elections unless Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government changes course and takes a more conciliatory approach towards the political opposition and the military.
Dangers of 15th amendment
“Instead of changing the old pattern of politics, the AL government has systematically used parliament, the executive and the courts to reinforce it, including by filing corruption cases against Khaleda Zia, the BNP chairperson, and employing security agencies to curb opposition activities. Most worrying, however, is the AL-dominated parliament’s adoption of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution, which scraps a provision mandating the formation of a neutral caretaker administration to oversee general elections.
“The fifteenth amendment carries other dangers as well. For example, anyone who criticises the constitution may now be prosecuted for sedition; new procedures have rendered further amendments virtually impossible; and the death penalty is prescribed for plotting to overthrow an elected government – a thinly veiled warning to the military, which has done so four times in as many decades.
“On 19 January, (2012) it the military announced it had foiled a coup by mid-level and retired officers who sought to install an Islamist government. This followed an assassination attempt on an AL member of parliament in October 2009 by mid-level officers seething over the deaths of 57 officers in a mutiny by their subordinate paramilitary border guards the previous February. Large-scale dismissals, forced retirements, deepening politicisation and a heavy-handed approach to curb dissent and root out militants have created an unstable and undisciplined force. While a top-level coup is unlikely, the prospect of mid-level officers resorting to violence to express their suppressed anger is increasingly high.
“Should the situation deteriorate to the point that the army again decides to intervene, it is unlikely to be content to prop up civilian caretakers and map a course to fresh elections as it did in 2007. This time the generals could be expected to have more staying power, not to mention less reluctance to carry out ‘minus two’ – their previous plan to remove Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia from politics.”
The govt. blamed
That situation has hardly changed. Widespread civil unrest, lawlessness and “winner take all” conduct of the ruling coterie has only aggravated the intensity of simmering discontent of the people as well as the righteous members of state institutions.
On November 20, on the Opinion Pages of the New York Times, the editorial comments of the newspaper, squarely blamed the incumbent administration in Bangladesh for the brewing political crisis that has reached explosive proportions by now from the beginning of the year 2013. The editorial reads: “Responsibility for this crisis sits squarely with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the Awami League party. Ms. Hasina seems determined to hang on to power in advance of general elections scheduled for January and to neutralize her opponents by any means necessary. In 2011, she scrapped a constitutional provision for the governing party to cede power to a neutral caretaker government three months before elections take place. Instead, Ms. Hasina set up an ‘all-party’ government over which she presides. This is not acceptable to Khaleda Zia, a former prime minister who is the leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, or B.N.P. The two are locked in a potentially explosive impasse.
“Meanwhile, the Jamaat-e-Islami party, an ally of the B.N.P., has been banned from participating in the upcoming elections. Many Bangladeshis who support the Awami League fear that Islamist parties are threatening the foundation of a country that fought bitterly to separate from Pakistan in 1971. But banning Jamaat-e-Islami from participating in the electoral process is only forcing frustrated supporters into the streets.
Meanwhile, trials held by the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh, which was set up in 2009 to try people accused of committing atrocities during the 1971 war with Pakistan, have targeted opposition leaders. The tribunal appears to be yet another tool to stifle political opponents. If violations of rights continue, Bangladesh could face pressure, including perhaps sanctions, from the international community. Prime Minister Hasina needs to restore autonomy to Bangladesh’s judiciary, stop persecuting human rights activists and work with the political opposition to find an acceptable transitional government ahead of next year’s election.”
One wonders whether Sheikh Hasina will at all heed the warning and seek a safe exit for herself from the impassable imbroglio, sparing the people of Bangladesh the ordeal of a possible economic sanctions imposed by its major western clientele of garments exports.
Source: Weekly Holiday
