The recent overthrow of Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s democratically elected Prime Minister, raises serious concerns about the future of democracy and stability in the country. Her resignation was coerced by weeks of violent protests, which resulted in approximately 300 fatalities. Though the protests were launched by students demanding changes to a controversial job quota system, they were quickly hijacked by Islamic radicals who have long opposed Sheikh Hasina’s progressive outlook and policies. While the grievances of the students warranted consideration, the violent rioters supported by Hasina’s political opponents, have rendered the whole movement unjustified.
The rioters not only targeted government institutions but also attacked Hindu minorities, highlighting a disturbing trend of communal violence that threatens the future of Bangladeshi society. Such actions undermine the progressive values that Sheikh Hasina had championed throughout her tenure, including women’s rights and secular governance. Her opponents, many of whom are affiliated with hardline groups like Jamaat-e-Islami, have a history of inciting violence and promoting radical ideologies, which were instrumental in the atrocities of the 1971 genocide.
Sheikh Hasina’s leadership had been marked by significant economic growth and social development, but it also faced criticism for authoritarian tendencies. Allegations of electoral malpractice in recent elections fueled dissent, yet it is crucial to recognize that the alternative to her leadership may lead to a resurgence of Islamic extremism and instability. The military’s involvement in the political process, as indicated by the announcement of an interim government, raises fears of further repression and a departure from democratic norms.
ALSO READ: Bangladesh Coup: Hasina flees; Army takes control – THE NEW INDIAN
In the context of global geopolitics, Hasina has navigated complex relationships with both the United States and China, balancing national interests amid external pressures. Her recent admission of pressure from the U.S. to allow a military base in Bangladesh to counter China’s influence underscores the precarious position of smaller nations caught in the crossfire of global power struggles. As Bangladesh’s largest trading partner, China’s interests are vital to the country’s economy, and aligning too closely with the U.S. could jeopardize these crucial ties.
The history of U.S. intervention in South Asia and beyond reveals a troubling pattern of regime change that prioritizes military interests and geopolitical dominance over the stability and democratic aspirations of nations. From the Cold War to the present, the U.S. has repeatedly engaged in actions aimed at toppling governments that do not align with its strategic interests, often leaving chaos and suffering in their wake. The interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq serve as stark examples of this approach, where the initial goals of establishing democracy and stability quickly devolved into prolonged conflicts with devastating consequences for local populations.
In South Asia, the U.S. has historically manipulated political landscapes to maintain its hegemonic preeminence. The support for military coups, such as in Pakistan, and the backing of authoritarian regimes under the guise of counterterrorism have often undermined democratic movements. The U.S. has also been complicit in exacerbating sectarian tensions, as seen in its dealings with various factions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This pattern of intervention not only destabilizes regions but also fosters resentment and anti-American sentiment among local populations, complicating future diplomatic relations.
As Bangladesh navigates its current political crisis, the lessons from past U.S. interventions must be heeded. The international community should advocate for a respectful approach that prioritizes the sovereignty and democratic rights of nations, rather than imposing external agendas that can lead to violence and instability. The overthrow of Sheikh Hasina should serve as a reminder of the potential consequences of foreign influence in domestic affairs, and the need for a commitment to genuine democratic processes that reflect the will of the people.