Bangladesh is under authoritarian rule from the beginning

Badruddin Umar is a Bangladeshi writer, researcher, and left-wing politician. He was born on December 20, 1931, in the town of Bardhaman of British India. After completing his studies at Dhaka University, he earned a PPE degree from Oxford University in the United Kingdom. He initially joined Dhaka University as a part-time lecturer and later, in 1963, established the Department of Sociology at Rajshahi University. He resigned in 1968 to pursue a career in politics. Subsequently, he dedicated himself fully to writing. Umar is currently the president of the Jatiyo Mukti Council and the editor of the cultural magazine Sanskriti. Recently, he discussed the current political scenario of Bangladesh with Views Bangladesh. The interview was conducted by the associate editor of Views Bangladesh, Girish Goiric. The first episode of the three-part interview is being published today.

Views Bangladesh: The Sheikh Hasina government was toppled on August 5. Could the fate of the Awami League become similar to that of the Muslim League, or can they make a come back again?

Badruddin Umar: After the downfall of Sheikh Hasina's government, the situation of the Awami League bears significant resemblance to the condition of the Muslim League after the 1954 elections. There are many similarities. The similarity is that the future of both political parties seems to have ended. Just as the Muslim League was moribund, the Awami League will also meet the same fate. But there is a difference. After the Muslim League was moribund, it was completely ousted from East Bengal. Their members were completely silenced, and they couldn't make any further disturbances. They were utterly wiped out. However, after August 5, we see that once Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League left, their members initially did nothing, but after some time, they have started to stir again. This can be considered a form of disruption. However, this won't result in anything significant. It's like the flicker of a dying lamp. The Muslim League couldn't do this, but now the Awami League can. They are making some noise, offering statements, and even speaking against those who were part of the mass uprising. This is happening because they have strong support from India. The Muslim League did not have this kind of support. India is a powerful supporter of the Awami League.

Views Bangladesh: But during the time of the Muslim League, such a situation did not exist, did it?

Badruddin Umar: After being ousted, Sheikh Hasina sought refuge in India and, from there, has been causing various disruptions and making provocative statements. During the time of the Muslim League, there was nothing of this sort. The Muslim League, at most, could have fled to West Pakistan. But speaking from there wouldn't have done them any good. There was no fear either. However, the Awami League has gained strength with the help of the Indian government after seeking refuge in India. They no longer have any power in the country. The support they once had from the people has vanished. The Awami League is completely disconnected from the people. India is supporting them, but a party that is disconnected from its own people cannot survive. There is no possibility of them regaining power through elections. The mood of the people, demonstrated through the uprising, clearly indicates that the Awami League has been rejected. This is something unprecedented in the history of the world. Many governments have been ousted, many leaders have fled. For example, Batista fled from Cuba, and Assad from Syria. But after the fleeing of the head of the government, their party members, even down to the village or union level, did not flee like this. The Awami League, however, saw its people fleeing due to fear of the masses and the possibility of attacks from the public. This kind of situation has never been seen before.

They knew that once they lose power, the people will attack them. This is why Sheikh Hasina was unwilling to step down until the last moment. The fact that the Awami League and its associates, including police and bureaucrats, fled or went into hiding when the power was lost, shows the depth of the rejection they face. Even in Syria, after fifty years of Assad's rule, his entire party didn’t flee after his fleeing. Rebels were discussing with Assad’s ministers to devise how to restructure power. But in Bangladesh, everyone fled. Some went into hiding here, and a few were caught. This situation clearly shows that the people of this country have completely rejected the Awami League.

It’s not just about the Awami League. The people have also rejected Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The image of Sheikh Mujib is the core strength of the Awami League. Sheikh Hasina has cleverly used this image throughout her rule. That’s why on August 5, it wasn’t just Sheikh Hasina who was rejected by the people, but also Sheikh Mujib. Why is there this anger now, so many years after his death in 1975? It has been a long time, so why this anger now?

Many are saying that it was wrong to destroy his statues, to burn his house, etc. Yes, we understand that it was wrong, but why did the people do this? That’s the real question. There has to be an explanation for why the people did this. The leader whom the Awami League had deified, the main pillar of the party, who was considered irreplaceable, and whose legacy Sheikh Hasina has tied to her own power, is now being rejected by the people.

The Muslim League did not face this kind of situation. The Muslim League did not have such figures or such a situation. After the fall of the Awami League, we are seeing some disturbances, but after some time, these disturbances will cease, and they won’t be able to stand again. They may exist as a small party, but it will be irrelevant whether they exist or not. The Awami League’s relevance in Bangladeshi politics will be over.

Views Bangladesh: Some political parties on behalf of the people of Bangladesh are demanding the banning of the Awami League. What is your opinion on this?

Badruddin Umar: First of all, I believe this is completely unnecessary. As I mentioned earlier, the Awami League has no future. There is no possibility of it rising again. It has no backbone, no legs or place to stand. If this is the situation, then why bother banning it? I believe those who want to ban the Awami League are under a misconception. They think that the Awami League will rise again. I believe there is no need to ban the Awami League because it has already become obsolete. It may cause some disturbance, but it will not stand upright or pose a threat to democracy anymore.

Views Bangladesh: After the authoritarian rule of Ershad, the fall of Sheikh Hasina also took place. Why is authoritarianism repeatedly emerging in our country? Will we really be able to embark on the path of democracy, or will we once again fall under the rule of an autocrat?

Badruddin Umar: To understand why authoritarian regimes repeatedly emerge, one must understand the question of class, which political analysts and historians in this country often fail to address. What is authoritarianism? It is the rule of a single class, where no one else has any freedom. Now, we need to examine why autocrats repeatedly emerge in our country. An autocrat is not only someone like Ershad or Hasina. Sheikh Mujib was also an autocrat, a fascist. Ziaur Rahman was also a fascist. Ziaur Rahman did not have to inflict as much torture on the people, nor was there a need for it. Sheikh Mujib inflicted such brutal repression that after his death, no opposition left there. Ziaur Rahman did not need to torture people. If necessary, he would have done so. He killed 200 people in the Khulna jail or when he killed many military personnel. If the needed, he would have killed others as well. But there was no need. He had the wisdom to know that unnecessary action was not required. This was something Sheikh Mujib lacked. He began to kill those who had given him such a grand welcome on January 10. Despite his immense popularity, he didn’t care about the few who criticized him. In the 1973 elections, he didn’t allow anyone else to win. What would have happened if a few politicians had won? He didn’t allow it. In Parliament, he boldly declared that there would be no other political parties in Bangladesh. What kind of statement was that?

Anyway, this is happening because we need to look at which class is in power. A detailed explanation cannot be provided here, but it can be said that the Awami League was never a party of the productive class. It did not own land, nor did it own industries or businesses. It was made up of middlemen—lawyers, teachers, unemployed youth, shopkeepers—these were the people who formed the Awami League. When they came to power, how would they acquire wealth? Not through production. So, they started looting the existing wealth. Later, they began looting the properties of Biharis and other non-Bengalis. Then they nationalized all national assets and began looting them as well. What did they do with the money they accumulated through looting? They allowed industrialists to invest up to 25 lakh. Then they became owners of millions through smuggling and illicit trade. The middleman class that emerged in Bangladesh can be said to be the cause of these events. The middleman class in Europe was created by industrialists and entrepreneurs. In India, it came from the zamindar (landlord) class, who were employed in government jobs. In Pakistan too, the middleman class consisted of those involved in government jobs and business. But in Bangladesh, the middleman class was formed through looting. This class became exploitative. And when they accumulated wealth, since they couldn’t establish industries or businesses, they turned to smuggling.

Through this smuggling, a business class was created in Bangladesh, a middle class. This middle class has now evolved into the business class now. That is why, in Hasina’s parliament, 80 per cent of the members are businessmen, and the rest are also linked to business. Is this common in any country? Usually, politicians represent big businessmen. But here, there is no representation. Businessmen themselves are in power. Those in power are not politicians; they are all businessmen. There is no practical difference between politicians and businessmen here. A politician here is essentially a businessman, and a businessman believes that he can also engage in politics. When this situation arises, the seeds of autocracy are already present. The vast wealth of the people is being looted, and as Karl Marx wrote long ago in his book Das Kapital, "When a business class comes to power in a country, it leads to murder, rape, plunder, arson, corruption, and other such events." In Bangladesh, it can be seen that the business class formed in 1972 is now ruling the country. Since this business class came to power, chaos has spread everywhere. Therefore, the beginning of autocracy in Bangladesh can be traced back to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s rule, not to Ershad or Hasina’s time. Autocracy existed from the very beginning in Bangladesh.