In My View - Thursday-Wednesday

Bangladesh steps backward to move forward

Democratic transitions of power in the Indian sub continent are a rarity, be it in Pakistan or Bangladesh, now Nepal or in Sri Lanka. In October last when Begum Khaleda Zia government’s term came to an end, a sense of foreboding had set in. This feeling was based upon the sharp and intense polarisation in the nation’s polity by which the Bangladeshis had been divided between two contending camps headed by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) alliance, on the one side; and a 14 party alliance led by the Awami League (AL) of former prime minister, Hasina Wajed, on the other.

The country had been wracked by violent protests in the penultimate days of Zia rule when the AL and its allies agitated against the selection process of a chef advisor for the caretaker government that was to succeed Zia government. Bangladesh’s constitution demanded that. protest

The task of the caretaker government was to hold the general election in an impartial manner. The AL had protested against the choice of the candidate to head the caretaker government as it found him to be a BNP cohort. In the ensuing turmoil the president of Bangladesh, Iajuddin Ahmed took the reins of government and vowed to hold the polls at the first available opportunity on 22 January.

The Al had again objected seeking revision of the electoral rolls as it had believed them to be contaminated by inclusion of a vast number of false voters. Ahmed was not ready to revise the rolls, which would have called for a delay in the polls, and would have caused a severe setback to the BNP-JeI alliance. The AL alliance decided, in its turn, to boycott the polls and register its protest in a continuous programme of mass moblisation. The resultant political crisis threatened to engulf the nation in turmoil.

Thus, when the Emergency came, not many people were surprised. For, the logjam the political process had entered into did not seem to have a way out. Many believe it would not be soon that democratic politics would return to Bangladesh. Initial indications emanating from Dhaka also appear to underline this belief. Senior members of the caretaker government have gone on record to say that they wish to achieve a situation where elections could be held free of “black money power,” electoral malpractices and a rectified electoral roll. The last task itself would take upwards of six months to be accomplished, if the government in place decides to do a thorough job.

Some astute political observers of the nation see a more diabolical plot in the evolving situation. They see the hand of the army in the sudden volte face of the President, Iajuddin Ahmed, who seemed to change his mind in a span of 24 hours. Between 10 and 11 January, Ahmed had a remarkable transformation by which on Thursday, 11 January, evening when he addressed the nation, he debunked all that he himself had done in the past few months. This radical shift, these observers say could not have occurred without a less than gentle prod by the armed forces. These people also say that a significant section of the army wants to launch a ‘de-Tareqisation’ operation in the country.

That bit of counterfactual statement requires a clearer enunciation. People in Bangladesh believe that during the Khaleda Zia government, all powers were really centred in the hands of her son, Tareq, who one civil society activist describes as someone who had, “looted the country in five years in a manner that no South Asian country has ever witnessed in their histories.” While that could have been written off as middle-class hyperbole had it not been for the fact that the member in charge of the power sector of the previous caretaker government led by Ahmed, soon after its anointment, had to declare that he would launch an investigation on a “power scam.” The scam ran into more than ten thousand crores, sources say. Reportedly, this was despite Ahmed’s own affliction of the “Madam desires/ or does not…” disease that he had carried over to the independent constitutional apparatus, which he chose to head. The current talk about negating influence of money power in Bangaldesh’s elections seem aimed at none other than the same protagonist, Tareq Zia.

From the window in South Block through which the Indian Ministry of External Affairs looks out to Bangladesh – though some say it normally stays shut to keep the heat and the grime out – this may look like familiar territory, a confounding mess. Yet, subtle differences could not have missed the attention of the punctilious desk hands. Most important of that is that the nation’s army chose not to jump into the fray directly this time around. Indian mandarins might have also noted with some relief that this time the cantonments seemed particularly sensitive to the words being said in Washington, London or New York. The latter – the UN’s – threat to stop the country’s individually lucrative armed forces assignments to various peace missions in other parts of the world had hit heard the senior brass. And they had acted quickly, a Bangaldeshi columnist noted recently.

This susceptibility to international pressure can also create problems in the medium term. For many believe that the caretaker government with its long mandate would be beholden to do the bidding of Washington and New Delhi, both spoken in the same breath. And that would not be too popular at a time, when Bangladesh is being seen as the latest frontier in the ever expanding terror network of the Islamists led by Osama Bin Laden. India should not have anything to do with that new hyphenated interest and instead, wait to achieve clarity in a proximate neighbour.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi of Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in