Bangladesh not turning into a fundamentalist country: Veteran journalist

Interview/Mahfuz Anam, editor and publisher, The Daily Star

Bangladesh added yet another chapter to its turbulent political history on August 5 with the overthrow of the Sheikh Hasina government. Most reports suggest that it was triggered by a popular uprising led by students against the 30 per cent reservation in government jobs for relatives of veterans who fought in the 1971 independence war against Pakistan. The opposition, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamaat-e-Islami also seem to have played a role in overthrowing Hasina, who was in power for the past 15 years. The army, meanwhile, stayed neutral, refusing to come to the aid of the government. With the prime minister ousted and the parliament dissolved, Bangladesh will be led by an interim government headed by Nobel winning social entrepreneur and banker Muhammad Yunus.

Describing the evolving situation, Mahfuz Anam, editor and publisher of The Daily Star, one of the leading newspapers in Bangladesh, told THE WEEK that despite Hasina’s ouster, Bangladesh would not transform into a fundamentalist country. He said Hasina became unpopular as she started manipulating elections and stifling dissent. On ties with India, Anam pointed out that the overall impression in Bangladesh was that New Delhi had been a great supporter of the Hasina government and that it ignored the bigger picture. He wants India to look at the ongoing crisis through the prism of democracy. Edited excerpts from the exclusive interview:

There is an argument that many people in Bangladesh believed that the Sheikh Hasina government was not an elected one because opposition parties boycotted the January elections. Is the crisis a reaction to that?

The story has to be segmented. One is Sheikh Hasina's continued rule for 15 years. No other government has ever ruled Bangladesh for 15 continuous years. That gave us stability and uninterrupted economic growth. But on the political side, it has been a story of decreasing space for opposition and dissent. After getting elected in a landslide in 2008, Hasina started manipulating elections. The elections in 2014 were extremely questionable, so were the elections of 2018, and also this January. It seemed like she had mastered the art of manipulating elections and came to the conclusion that she could get away with it. When you concentrate so much power in your hands, you are likely to antagonise a lot of people and make a lot of mistakes.

Second, her handling of the student movement was absolutely disastrous, inexplicable. A party like the Awami League—which just celebrated its 75th year—a party that has been a part of democratic movements from the time of Pakistan and was the leading party in our liberation war totally lost touch with the people. And then there was the government narrative that anything anti-government was promoted either by the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) or by the Jamaat (Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami). This narrative may have been politically convenient, but over time, they became a victim of this narrative themselves.

For about a year, the [protests against quotas] have been going on, and it was peaceful till July 15. Then the Awami League general secretary said that their student wing, the Chhatra League, was enough to handle that. That was a signal to their party goons to come down hard on the students. That was the day the violence started. On the first day, there were six deaths; the second day, 28 deaths. Within a week, at least 200 people were dead. But, [unofficially], the number is much higher, it is 500. Never in the history of Bangladesh, or in the history of the subcontinent, that within a week, a civilian government through police [action] had caused 200 deaths. By then, the government had accepted all the demands of the students. But the death of more than 200 people had totally transformed the psyche of the students and the general public.

In our part of the world, when the government is unaccountable, the institutions become monsters. So the police, for example, started harassing people and taking bribes. I will not say that the government [was] directly involved. But not a businessman, a high level police officer or a high level bureaucrat was taken to court for corruption or abuse of power. If something happened in your area and you wanted to lodge a case, the police will not accept it if it was against an Awami League leader. And this has been going on for 15 years.

You say this is a fight for democracy.

It is a fight for democracy, for an accountable government. However, I will not rule out the fact that some political and religious elements may take advantage. India will have its concerns, which is quite acceptable and respected. But India should not see the whole event through the eyes of some Jamaat-e-Islami people or BNP people. You should not see it through the eyes of religion. You should see it through the eyes of democracy.

What next for Bangladesh? How do you see the situation evolving in the next few days?

The students said that this was a chance to rebuild Bangladesh. So, the departure of—in their language—a dictatorial regime is the first victory. Now, it is a chance to reconstruct the country in a more democratic manner. But what do I see for tomorrow and the day after is concerning. Because I really cannot say where our government is. Who do I go to if there is some problem? Will the police come? Who is commanding the police? There is a vacuum there. The president’s statement has been quite vague. The army chief’s statement was quite laudable, but not specific.

What about the future of Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League?

The Awami League is a highly respected traditional party. They lost the plot, their touch with the grassroots. They are, at the moment, a discredited party. But if enough good people come back together, they can revive the party. The popular concept is that we all loved Bangabandhu's (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) Awami League, but we do not love Sheikh Hasina's Awami League. About Hasina's future, her son has announced that she has no interest in continuing in politics.

After leaving Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina came to Delhi. Did India react appropriately throughout the entire crisis?

A strong relationship with India is necessary for the future of Bangladesh. But India would make a mistake if it looked at the whole event through the narrative of Sheikh Hasina or the Awami League. The relationship must be between the state and the people, not between one government and another. The overall impression in Bangladesh is that India has been a great supporter of Sheikh Hasina's government, which is fine, as you support the government of the day. But India did not pay enough attention to the bigger picture. India didn't really have links with parties or people beyond the Awami League. And as the Awami League's narrative became narrower and narrower, India's view became focused on only one party.

Would you say that India put all its eggs in one basket?

From the outside, it did appear to be so. There is one appeal I would like to make to my Indian friends: seeing some Islamic manifestation, please do not come to the conclusion that we are becoming a fundamentalist country. This is a Muslim majority country. And there are devout Muslims who go to the mosque five times a day. Now, that should not define their whole [worldview], that they are part of an extremist group. If India can become Hindu without becoming non-secular, then why can't Bangladesh accept its Muslim heritage without being looked at with apprehension that this is going to be a terrorist or extremist country? There is a huge segment of Muslims in Bangladesh who believe in a close relationship with India. They are proud of their Muslim identity, just as a Hindu is proud of his Hindu identity.

What about the safety and security of Indian assets in Bangladesh?

At the moment, there is absolutely no threat. I have not heard of any Indian factories or business establishments being [affected].

Do you see the role of foreign powers behind what happened?

Nobody has said that America or India or China is involved. Perhaps you are more concerned about the geopolitics. But, at the moment, we are more concerned about democratising our own society.

But as an editor, do you have any news that there could be some involvement from Pakistan or China, in any way?

 In India, Pakistan may be involved, or China may be involved. In Bangladesh, since I'm not in the government or heading an intelligence body, I cannot say yes or no. But you can interpret. For example, America has welcomed the change, so you can interpret that America must be behind it. India has not said anything as of now, [so] India is unhappy about it. But I don't have reasons to write an editorial or a report about foreign intervention based on facts on the ground.

But Sheikh Hasina was close to India.

I sincerely urge the Indian leadership to take a deep look into what Bangladesh is. It is a country of 80 plus per cent Muslims. Globally, there is a rise of Islam. So you can see more mosques in Dhaka, more mosques around Bangladesh. Please do not associate this with the rise of anti-Indianism or extremism. Bangladesh is a rising country, a country which has learned from its own experience. And a good relationship with India is good for Bangladesh. However, your attitude also will determine that. If you are suspicious of this student-led movement, [it could become difficult]. As of now, I am quite convinced that it was based on issues of Bangladesh's importance, not driven by any foreign country. But it is a fluid situation. And you never know, in the coming days or weeks, some manoeuvring may take place.

Sheikh Hasina was in China on July 13, and she had to cut short her visit, apparently upset with Beijing's failure to fulfil its promise of financial support. And the appropriate protocol was not accorded to her. Was this twist in the relationship an indicator of the things to come?

China is not that powerful in Bangladesh. They may give us some aid. But no, these students are not driven by any Chinese, American or Indian agenda.
But commercially, China has a lot of interest in Bangladesh, for instance, in the textile sector.

There are more Indian garments factory owners in Dhaka than there are Chinese. China is a good partner in the ready-made garment sector, but so is India. And here, let me say something to which I give Sheikh Hasina a lot of credit. Before her tenure, if the Awami League was in power, we were totally pro-India. If the BNP was in power, we were totally pro-China. But Hasina could take our relationship with India to a very high level, and also develop our relationship with China a lot.

The Ulfa insurgency in northeast India was crushed primarily due to the proactive measures by the Hasina government. Do you think a new regime would perhaps encourage separatists?

I don't think Bangladesh will go there at all, because it's not good for us. For example, there are insurgents from the Kuki Chin group [in Bangladesh]. They have armed training camps, and they have been talking about carving out a greater homeland for the people of the Chin origin, Christians largely. And we are very worried about it. We will do everything to protect our sovereignty. Helping Ulfa is not going to strengthen our sovereignty.

What about Begum Khaleda Zia? What could be the role for the BNP?

The idea is to have an election, as free and fair as possible, which was not possible under Hasina. We will let the people of Bangladesh express their views through the election.

What final outcome would you prefer and how fast do you want it?

One of the things that have truly hurt me is the failure of all political leaders to strengthen political institutions. We got a chance in 1971, when we became liberated. Then tragedies happened, Bangabandhu was assassinated, and we got the military rule. Then through peaceful public demonstration, we toppled General Ershad. And we got a chance to rebuild the country in 1991. But we shunted out a military dictator, brought democracy back, and today we are handing over bouquets to the military to take Bangladesh back to democracy. What can be more dramatic than this symbolism of the failure of political leaders? The BNP and the Awami League just quarrelled with each other.

When Hasina came to power, she just didn't allow any space for the BNP. So the political culture was maligned. Parliament as an institution was not allowed to function. There was no opposition, it was literally one-party rule. The judiciary as an independent body was not allowed to flourish. The bureaucracy and the police were partisan. Our first priority should be political reforms. Elected representatives being allowed to play the role, parliament becoming an institution of real policymaking, bureaucracy getting its own space, police not becoming a party tool. These are the reforms we urgently need if Bangladesh is to flourish. The Hasina regime had given us a lot of economic growth. But the quality of the education system has gone down. Our students are falling behind in global competition, our public health structure [is not good]. Our roads are full of potholes. Chittagong, our biggest port city, becomes totally inundated with just one or two days of heavy rain. Our banks have been looted. When Hasina took charge, our total default loan was 23,000 crore takas (Rs 16,470 crore). As of now, our default loan is 1,45,000 crore takas (Rs 1,03,900). How could it happen? Big businesses would take money and would not repay. There is enough evidence that these defaulters would actually siphon off their money abroad. International agencies have reported that every year Bangladesh loses anything between $5 billion to $8 billion through money laundering. So these accumulated stories disillusioned people against the Hasina regime. I am sad that a leader like Sheikh Hasina had to relinquish power and leave the country that she worked for. But she made it inevitable.

When do you see the concerns being addressed and things getting back to normal?

I cannot say it right now. I really would like to see Bangladesh stabilise. I am happy that the students have approached professor Muhammad Yunus to be the chief of this transition government. He is an extremely knowledgeable person, highly respected in Bangladesh and abroad.

When you are talking about rebuilding Bangladesh, no progress can happen in isolation. What is the role of your neighbouring countries?

Our neighbour practically is only one. And, therefore, it is very vital that we manage our relationship with India. It has to be a win-win relationship. With this friendship, Bangladesh must win, India must win. We must have a relationship that helps each one of us grow together and independently. I would like to urge that India understands us a little better than understanding us through a single prism.