Vladimir Lenin, after all, was right. Sometimes, there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen. Glory to the martyrs and vanguards of Bangladesh who made it to a possible democracy once more!

In Bangladesh, August is apparently a month when decades happen. Karl Marx famously said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." If the fall of the BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League) regime in August 1975 was a tragedy, the boisterous exit of the regime this August is a repetition, this time as a farce. The free fall of the regime is a relief for many; however, there are also darker clouds around in the horizon.

The odds are no less apparent. One of these concerns India, the nation-state's largest neighbour. The facts around the number one superpower, the US, are another concern. But I can't deal with the second topic in this space. Let me rather stay with only India today.

To some, the events of July-August, for all their valour and glory may tell the same old story. But it is not exactly a void in which they disgorge.

Read more

Hasina falls, flees

The coup d'état of 1975 was organised clandestinely. It was a civilian-military combined effort. There is good evidence that it was sustained by a Western power. The current conjuncture seems to involve a broad coalition of radical forces led by university students, sustained by the support of a cross-section of civil society, political parties and the so-called international community. The fallout now is more uncertain than ever, at least compared to what it was a half century earlier.

The Awami League regime in 1975 under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had gone berserk with its one nation one leader "mantra". In 2024, the daughter's regime only went wilder with its sheer ruthlessness. History repeated itself.

It is perhaps too early to say what awaits us even in the not-too-distant future. A doubt pops up, nevertheless. What is the nature of the August 5 revolution? Is it a popular revolution like the French Revolution flying the banner of equality, human dignity, and social justice? Or is it to prove a coup d'etat of sorts, an 18th Brumaire of civil society, midwifed by the "international community", tailored by the armed forces? How different is it going to be from the events of January 11, 2007, events welcomed by the country's biggest neighbour, India? We hardly learn from history. That seems to be the only takeaway from history's department stores.

One does not choose from an empty set. Not a neighbour, at any rate. Nations act, as everyone knows, not as philanthropists or cynics but in their own best interest. Did Bangladesh's inevitable neighbour follow even a rule of its own best interest in underscoring the dynastic autocracy in Bangladesh? Was that the best option it had had? Will it learn a lesson, in all candour, this turnaround? These are questions best left to political pundits in India and beyond.

For us, citizens and denizens of Bangladesh, it is more of a single-payer option. India's unabashed selfishness in promoting a regime that clearly violated all rules of liberal democracy proves highly short-sighted, more now than ever.

What alternatives did India have to choose from is not apparent, or not well-known in any case. But it may even be non-transparent. In 1975, India blatantly ignored its lower riparian neighbour in claiming the Ganga-Padma as a virtually all-India domestic watercourse. That it is an international river, it apparently forgot then. India's stance on other watercourses changed little since then. The waters of the Teesta and many other common international rivers don't flow quietly anymore.

Border killings on a rhythmic scale are not simply a mystic symbol of India's political muscle but of its myopic nature. It is a bizarre thing: "India's Bangladesh Problem," as one pundit called it. Termites, they call their unhandsome neighbours.

India's China obsession, at least ever since her war with China in 1962, could have misled it to its Bangladesh policy. But a people who didn't put up with Pakistan's proto-colonial repressive regime of two and a half decades can hardly be expected (let alone taken for granted) to welcome such a proverbial "subsidiary alliance" as India desires to perpetrate on Bangladesh.

The latest regime change in the wake of a popular mass uprising should provide an occasion to rethink future relations between the two sovereign neighbours in South Asia, adorned by the common historical legacy of many centuries.

The immiseration of one neighbour for the benefit of the other can only be sustained by such regimes as the just fallen one in Bangladesh. India is a habitat, nay a breeding ground, of proverbial wise men. I am sure they will not be deluded by dreams of "Akhand Hindustan". That simply will not work.

The regime change of August 2024 may also provide an occasion to reflect on the question of national identity, a question the think tanks of national security (or regional imperialism if you like) can only ignore at their own peril.

Let history not repeat a second tragedy. The regime change in Dhaka, apparently, will enjoy the blessings of the "international community". But it is unlikely to work well if India does not think today what forces of circumstances will force it to think tomorrow.

India's best interest may perhaps lie in strengthening a new democracy in Bangladesh. At any rate, not obstructing democratic aspirations of a new generation in its eastward neighbourhood is the key point.

Dr Salimullah Khan is professor of general education at the University of Liberal Arts.

We welcome your contributions and analysis of global events. To submit articles to our weekly page, Geopolitical Insights, please send an email to ds.geopoliticalinsights@gmail.com

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

With the national election still two weeks away, many national and international observers have already termed it as a farce or "staged election", and it is easy to see why. One of the key features of any election is the ability of voters to select the winner. If voters are not presented with any real options to choose from, then arguably the most important purpose of an election is defeated. That is why we saw the ruling party scrambling to field dummy candidates or bargaining with the Jatiya Party to make up for the absence of the BNP and other like-minded parties, thus giving the election some sort of legitimacy.

Let us not forget that the idea of fielding dummy candidates this time—we have, of course, heard about it in previous elections also—came from the very top of the Awami League. So, if the ruling party itself is offering voters the option to choose from either a candidate of the Awami League or a dummy, what real options do voters have? And what message are they to receive from the ones conducting this election—namely, the Election Commission—who, knowing this, is still going ahead with the election? Are people to believe that the EC is conducting it in the interest of voters? Of course not.

Read more

Why do other parties need AL’s concessions to win election?

The EC asking the home ministry to take steps to prevent political rallies and processions of all kinds, except for electoral campaigns, from December 18 till polling day, also makes it complicit in suppressing protests against what a number of opposition parties see as being a farcical election. Interestingly, earlier on that same day, the Awami League's general secretary urged the commission and law enforcement agencies to take a strong stance against forces that the ruling party saw were against the elections—mainly the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Such a step to stop political rallies and programmes, it can be argued, is unconstitutional, as it denies political parties in the opposition camp the right to assembly, the right to protest, the right to movement and the right to free expression.

As concerning as the use of such a tactic may be, it hasn't been the only one used to set up what seems to be a staged and one-sided election. Last month, The Guardian reported how Bangladesh saw "full prisons and false charges" due to the crackdown on the opposition. Following such "a ruthless crackdown on the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party" in the run-up to the elections, it noted how few "believe the election will be free, fair or remotely democratic." This strategy, according to The New York Times, is leading to "Bangladesh's multiparty democracy…being methodically strangled in crowded courtrooms."

The expediated trials leading to the convictions of hundreds of opposition leaders and activists further validate such apprehensions. For example, on December 11, at least 42 BNP members and those of its infamous allies—Jamaat-e-Islami—were convicted in four cases. Between August-December, 961 opposition leaders and activists were reportedly sentenced to imprisonment in 62 cases in Dhaka. What makes these especially controversial is that convictions were apparently made without considering any independent witnesses or only with police deposition, and defence lawyers further alleged that less than half of the prosecution witnesses were heard. Furthermore, it must be noted that such speedy disposal of cases is unusual in a country where justice delivery has become particularly slow. This fact, and our previous history of witnessing politically motivated cases right before elections, indicate that opposition leaders are again being targeted and kept out of the electoral fray.

Read more

Of the AL, for the AL, and by the AL

In that regard, the recent comments made by Awami League presidium member and agriculture minister Abdur Razzaque, that jailed BNP men were offered freedom if the party agreed to contest the polls, is telling. Although AL later tried to play it down and its general secretary said it was Razzaque's personal opinion, it lends further credence to the public perception that all these arrests and convictions are being made in trumped up cases for political reasons. Additionally, it raises two very important questions: 1) If we are currently in a situation where the ruling party can decide to arrest and release thousands of opposition leaders and activists, is it really conducive for a free and fair election? And 2) what has happened to the independence of the legal system?

Such an admission and the underlying state of affairs—for example, since 2009, 1,37,569 cases have been filed against 49,80,826 BNP leaders and activists—show that the Awami League is bent on ensuring its grip over power by using the full might of the state machinery. What is missing in all of this is the role of the citizens, who have all but lost their right to vote. As a result, government officials across the board are no longer accountable to the people and so, the people no longer have any say in how the state is being run, nor how the elections should be conducted. So, even though it's been the opposition that has mainly been on the receiving end of the government's high-handedness and the ruling party's vitriol, ultimately, it will be the general people who are likely to be the biggest losers of the elections.

Eresh Omar Jamal is a journalist at The Daily Star. His X handle is @EreshOmarJamal

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

A historic leader, no matter how great or powerful, needs to be discussed, debated, and learnt from—not blindly followed. That goes for Bangabandhu, too. Until recently, saying this out loud would have been tantamount to sacrilege in an environment of total adulation cultivated over the past 15 years. But the sheer, unadulterated disregard shown for the chief architect of our independence soon after the Awami regime's collapse has upended all calculations. Perhaps equally telling has been the relative lack of surprise or even sympathy, at least of the kind you would have expected. All this calls for a re-evaluation of Bangabandhu's legacy in this new era of revolution.

An argument can be made about how much of the anger directed at Bangabandhu's statues and murals on August 5 was really aimed at the man himself. Indeed, during the mayhem that followed Sheikh Hasina's escape, many other monuments and landmarks of historical significance were also attacked. Even the parliament building, Ganabhaban, and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) were not spared, as mobs swarmed and vandalised them, many making off with furniture, bedding, potted plants, etc.

How has a man who deserves the highest honour for his role in our independence struggle come to be treated with such disrespect? PHOTO: COLLECTED

However, if there was a common target in this outburst of raw emotion, it was the key symbols of power—and what better symbol of it than the personality that Awami League had so unabashedly exploited to assert its supremacy? Many of the estimated 1,220 statues and murals it had erected of him across the country were damaged or pulled down. The historic Mujibnagar Memorial Complex in Meherpur, where he stood tall among other sculpted heroes of the Liberation War, lies in ruins. Even his residence-turned-museum in Dhanmondi was looted and burnt down. 

There are various theories about the men behind this vandalism. One involves angry mobs taking it out on anything associated with Awami League. Another involves a vague, and frankly unhelpful, reference to the re-rise of anti-liberation forces. Some observers simply blamed "miscreants" for taking advantage of a fluid security situation. But it's worth recalling that Bangabandhu's murals and statues had been destroyed even during Awami League's iron-fisted rule. This suggests that the latest vandalism was not just a momentary madness—any resentment was long in the making. And the fact that the national holiday on August 15 would be cancelled soon after, in a unanimous decision by the council of advisers and political parties, further represents the shifting ground beneath the once-inviolable stature of Bangabandhu.

How has a man who deserves the highest honour for his role in our independence struggle come to be treated with such disrespect? At the risk of sounding clichéd, let's just say this is what happens when respect is imposed, legislated, and weaponised. Over the years, we have seen how the Awami regime and intelligentsia cultivated blind, unquestioning adulation, suppressing any nuanced and dispassionate study of the man who led a very eventful life.

How has it come to this? How has a man who deserves the highest honour for his role in our independence struggle come to be treated with such disrespect? At the risk of sounding clichéd, let's just say this is what happens when respect is imposed, legislated, and weaponised. Over the years, we have seen how the Awami regime and intelligentsia cultivated blind, unquestioning adulation, suppressing any nuanced and dispassionate study of the man who led a very eventful life.

We have seen how the personality cult around him was continually enhanced through an infinite mix of Bangabandhu-themed monuments, billboards, textbooks, notes and coins, postage stamps, etc. His posters were churned out and plastered everywhere, his portraits hung in every government office. From hospitals to universities to safari parks to high-tech centres to bridges and expressways—everything bears his name. His words were turned into catchphrases, his speeches tirelessly rebroadcast on state television. His life spawned innumerable books, shorts, and movies, often through state sponsorship, giving him a saint-like status. And anyone who dared to question it would be silenced through various legal tools.

Read more

Beyond Liberation

Even Bangabandhu would have found this deification quite distasteful, had he been alive today.

This is quite unprecedented not just in the subcontinent, but perhaps anywhere in the world. In India, where we saw Congress live off Mahatma Gandhi for decades, he was not subjected to such wholesale deification. In Cuba, you will not see any statues of Fidel Castro. In fact, naming of any street, institution, locality or monument after Castro is prohibited by law. There is then the idolatry encouraged by other communist leaders such as Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin or North Korea's Kim family, but that too may pale in comparison to the ubiquitous presence of Bangabandhu in Bangladesh.

For many in today’s Bangladesh, Bangabandhu was a story narrated to us through a carefully chosen medley of pictures, historical accounts, audio clips, and video footage. PHOTO: Jack Garofalo

For those of us who grew up in recent decades, Bangabandhu was a story narrated through a carefully orchestrated medley of pictures, historical accounts, audio clips, and video footage. It kept you in awe of the person. It kept you at a distance. We were raised to bow before his altar without really understanding him, and marvel at his greatness without knowing, beyond the highlights of his career, what made him great to his people. He was, for us, not someone we could easily relate to, but one shrouded in reverent mystique.

But the way to approach a great leader is not by ignoring his past deeds or his humanness, but by acknowledging how these helped him become the man he was destined to be. A leader doesn't have to be flawless. Englishmen do not deny that millions of Bangalees starved to death in 1943 when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and other colonies while a deadly famine swept through Bengal. In China, Mao-bashing is very much a thing. Even though he and his descendants mounted campaigns that developed the country and simultaneously elevated his cult of personality, many associate his legacy with mass murder and violent class struggle. Similarly, many other leaders who led their nations to their most glorious moments had to face the bitter test of time as their legacy was subjected to harsher interpretations—often as an opposite reaction to their deification.

Like many revolutionaries who later became statesmen, Bangabandhu had his fair share of mistakes and failures. Sometimes he learnt from them, sometimes he failed to. Sometimes he made bad judgement calls. Sometimes his decisions distanced him from trusted aides, and even had had the inadvertent effect of isolating the very people he loved and fought for. Those were not his brightest moments—those were his "human" moments. But this is precisely what made him someone the new generation could identify with—a man with human triumphs and failings—yet this is the part that was often buried.

For his part, Bangabandhu was known for his remarkable affinity with the ordinary people. The candour with which he interacted with them is legendary. He commanded their respect, rather than forcing it upon them. However, like many revolutionaries who later became statesmen, Bangabandhu had his fair share of mistakes and failures. Sometimes he learnt from them, sometimes he failed to. Sometimes he made bad judgement calls. Sometimes his decisions distanced him from trusted aides, and even had had the inadvertent effect of isolating the very people he loved and fought for. Those were not his brightest moments—those were his "human" moments. But this is precisely what made him someone the new generation could identify with—a man with human triumphs and failings—yet this is the part that was often buried.

Read more

The lasting symbolism of Bangabandhu

The challenge of the post-truth age is that no legacy is innately secure, and truths in politics are invariably contingent. In post-truth politics, you appeal to emotion rather than objective facts to shape public opinion. Emotion excites the mind and lasts for a while, but for a lasting impact, there is no alternative to a narrative based on facts and truths. Bangabandhu as a subject of study should be approached with an openness to embrace truths, however unflattering.

In the new age of revolution, Bangabandhu can be just Bangabandhu—or Sheikh Saheb, or Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, or simply "Mujib"—without the obsessive, cultist praise following him but also without meaningless criticism along party lines. He may still remain the Father of the Nation, but more human, more relatable, more in alignment with other heroes of our independence. And for that, it is essential that he be restudied and reimagined by subjecting his life and legacy to broader interpretations.

Badiuzzaman Bay is assistant editor at The Daily Star. He can be reached at badiuzzaman.bd@gmail.com

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.

The Awami League yesterday decided not to field party candidates in any local government polls as a measure to stop infighting between AL leaders.

The infighting worsened after the party decided to nominate candidates in the recently held national election and allowed their party colleagues to compete against them.

The new decision will be effective in the polls to Cumilla and Mymensingh city corporations, which are slated for March 9, said sources.

No candidates will get the party symbol "boat". 

The decision was made at an emergency meeting of AL Central Working Committee, the highest decision-making body of the party, at the Gono Bhaban. AL President Sheikh Hasina chaired the meeting.

The ruling party convened the meeting to discuss the way out of the intra-party feuds.

As the BNP and some other parties boycotted the polls, the party adopted a strategy to make the election appear participatory and to increase turnout. This ultimately led to violence between AL leaders in many places.

According to insiders, at the beginning of the meeting, Hasina asked party leaders to come up their recommendations on how to minimise the infighting and party's role in upcoming elections to upazila parishads, which will be held in phases. The polls are likely to begin in March.

AL Joint General Secretary AFM Bahauddin Nasim started first with his proposal for not providing party electoral symbol in local government elections.

He also recommended holding extended meetings in the districts where AL's internal feuds are intense and said the party should take all-out measures so that the infighting does not intensify further, said sources.

Almost all other party leaders echoed Nasim.

Some of them also suggested that the government take stern action against the arsonists to stop the recurrence of arson attacks, said sources.

At the one stage of the meeting, Hasina, also the prime minister, brought up the US presidential election and said the presidential election between George W Bush and Al Gore was questionable, said meeting insiders.

She said Donald Trump also did not recognise Joe Biden's victory.

Those who are preaching good elections to Bangladesh are mum on the issues of the US presidential election, Hasina said, according to meeting sources.

At the end of the meeting, AL chief Hasina decided to take "boat" out of the local government polls.

The AL started fielding candidates for the local body polls with its electoral symbol "boat" from 2015 after five laws related to union parishads, upazila parishads, municipalities and city corporations were amended, allowing party-backed candidates in local government bodies.

The meeting also assigned eight divisional committees to meet the leaders of the districts where there are intra-party feuds. It also decided to hold extended meetings there to resolve the problem.

While briefing reporters about the outcome of the meeting, AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader said the party would not allocate "boat" to any candidates in upazila parishad elections.

He, however, said the final decision would be made at a joint meeting of party's local government and parliamentary nomination boards.

The former Awami League-led government had a longstanding tradition of involving artistes and celebrities in their election campaigns. Recently, popular actor Irfan Sajjad, who previously voiced support for anti-discrimination student movement, shared an incident on his Facebook profile related to this practice.

In his post, Irfan revealed, "During the previous election, I was offered a substantial sum to join their campaign. However, I politely declined, making it clear that I wouldn't align myself with any political party. In my view, none of the parties are deserving of my endorsement."

He continued, "I believe that actors, singers, directors, and all artistes are created by the people, for the people. It deeply saddens me to acknowledge that those artistes who supported atrocities while innocent lives were being lost have failed—not just as artistes, but as human beings. You may have seniority over us in the industry, but when it comes to humanity, you're far behind."

He went on to say, "I denounce you. I may not know who else was involved or supported these atrocities, but they share the same guilt. No matter how much you try to redeem yourselves now, it won't change anything."

Read more

‘Throw hot water on protesters’: ‘Alo Ashbei’ artistes’ WhatsApp group under fire

Yesterday, a private WhatsApp group titled "Alo Ashbei" was exposed, revealing conversations where several prominent figures in the entertainment industry were found openly criticising the student movement. These revelations are what Irfan Sajjad referred to in his recent post.