The political developments in Bangladesh, leading to the ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed came as a surprise, not because it happened but because it hadn’t happened sooner. Her fifteen-year grip on power was absolute and beyond question. Political foes were either imprisoned or exiled, and institutions such as the judiciary and media were cajoled or supressed. There was intolerance of dissent and penalties were harsh. Discontent simmered across ranks of civil society. Coupled with all of this was an economy which, for many years had done remarkably well, began to stumble. Growth fell from 7.5% to 3% and youth unemployment at 20% was beyond the limits of acceptance.

What began as a peaceful demonstration, against job reservations for supporters of Ms Wazed’s party the Bangladesh Awami League, began to go out of hand. The government relented and reduced the percentage of reserved places within the quota system from 30% to 5%. However, by this time the students had tasted blood and declared that no settlement was possible until the Prime Minister resigned. By the first week of August, it became obvious that her position was untenable as mass protests involving thousands of demonstrators had gripped Dhaka. The initial crackdown by the security services led to the deaths of hundreds of students, further escalating the emotional sentiments. The demonstrators were clear that this time around it is going to be a fight to the finish. Under Ms Wazed, Bangladesh had made rapid strides across all social and economic indicators. Poverty levels had declined and the economy, firing on all cylinders, had created an export powerhouse. In good times, it is possible to keep in check the expressions of frustration amongst civil society. Bangladesh had clearly prospered under Awami League policies and consequently, authoritarian rule and the intolerance of dissent was assumed to be a price to pay for progress. But following the Ukraine war, as inflation began to jump, things became harder to manage. Bangladesh’s economic architecture began to wobble, and a balance of payments crisis forced the administration to go cap-in-hand to the IMF.

Turmoil in Bangladesh

Authoritarian governments can only survive, specifically under difficult socio-economic conditions, with unquestioned paramilitary backing. This is precisely what Ms Wazed had hoped and expressed in no uncertain terms her wishes to General Waker-Uz-Zaman, the Chief of Army Staff. But sadly, for her, the General did not oblige. On 5th August, she was left with a Hobson’s choice. She could stay and face the wrath of demonstrators who were literally outside the gates of her home or leave in a period of few hours in a specially arranged military aircraft to a destination of her choice. A little later, she landed at the Hindon Air Force base near New Delhi, seeking protection.

It is unclear now how long she would stay, as her requests for asylum in Western countries have so far gone unheeded. The United States will certainly not help, as they have consistently found her unacceptable. A Labour government in the UK has also refused to oblige. The critical issue for India now is to deal with a new administration that is fundamentally hostile. The Indian government had for the past 15 years invested heavily in Ms Wazed. As a secular leader, she was receptive to many of India’s priorities and on balance, the relationship between Dhaka and New Delhi was mutually beneficial. The current interim government will hold power until elections are conducted and will at best keep things chugging along. Important economic and foreign policy decisions will have to wait until after the elections, when the opposition BNP and the Jamaat-e-Islami are likely to secure a clear mandate. They may be less cooperative with India, creating a new set of headaches within the neighbourhood.