Photo credit: The Guardian
The Bangladesh Awami League, one of the country's oldest political parties, has played a pivotal role in shaping the nation's history. It led to the Liberation War of 1971 and was at the forefront of major political movements, both during the Pakistan era and in the independence of Bangladesh. Following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the iconic figure of the liberation struggle, his daughter Sheikh Hasina emerged as the party's undisputed leader. Since assuming the party control in 1981, Hasina has dominated the political landscape until fleeing the country amidst a bloody uprising that claimed thousands of lives.
Hasina first became Prime Minister in 1996 but failed to secure a second consecutive term. However, in 2009, following a three-year military-backed interim rule, the ninth parliamentary election was held. In a startling turn of events, her coalition secured a two-thirds majority, winning 257 out of 300 seats. Many were astonished by this overwhelming victory, which marked the beginning of Hasina's 15-year iron-fist reign. To her supporters, she became the "Iron Lady," but to her detractors, she earned the ominous moniker "Lady Hitler."
Bangladesh in a Political Dystopia
The 2008 election results were particularly surprising due to the unexpected defeat of high-profile leaders from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, two major opposition parties. Despite reducing the opposition to just 33 seats, BNP and Jamaat reluctantly accepted the government, though they expressed serious concerns about electoral irregularities. However, any semblance of calm was shattered soon after Hasina took office. On Feb. 25, 2009, a tragic and unprecedented event unfolded when soldiers from the paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles revolted, killing 57 army officers (Its officers used to be posted from the army). While rumors of Hasina's involvement circulated at the time, fresh evidence has surfaced following her recent departure from the country, fueling suspicion.
Once in power, Hasina swiftly moved to weaken the opposition through a series of legal and political maneuvers. Thousands of cases were filed against opposition figures, and gatherings were violently suppressed. Within a year, Hasina expelled Khaleda Zia, the three-time prime minister and then opposition leader, from her residence in Dhaka Cantonment, bulldozing the property. Numerous key opposition leaders were arrested or disappeared. Jamaat-e-Islami, in particular, saw its offices shut down across the country, and its senior leaders were executed for war crimes by International Crime Tribunals—trials that organizations like Human Rights Watch labeled as flawed and far away from international standards.
The period since Hasina's ascent has been marked by near-constant protests, crackdowns, and political violence. Tensions peaked in 2011 when Hasina's government used its parliamentary supermajority to abolish the caretaker government system. This system had acted as a crucial safeguard for Bangladesh's democratic transition by ensuring that elections were overseen by a neutral, non-partisan body. Although controversial, in 2006 due to overstaying, the caretaker system had successfully delivered credible results in previous elections. Its removal raised alarm, as it effectively ensured that all subsequent elections would be conducted under the ruling Awami League, leading to widespread fears of electoral manipulation. The opposition responded with mass protests, strikes, and blockades, marking the beginning of a prolonged period of unrest that has persisted throughout Hasina's tenure.
In 2013, the International Crimes Tribunal began issuing death sentences to leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami. These verdicts, especially against senior figures, ignited widespread violent protests throughout the country. Human rights organizations had been voicing concerns about the tribunal's standards from the outset, but the controversy known as the "Skype scandal," revealed by The Economist, further exposed the situation. This scandal exposed conversations between the tribunal's chief and a legal expert in Belgium regardm,ing the weak merits of the cases. Still, the Jamaat leaders were given death sentences. One particularly controversial case was that of Delawar Hossain Sayeedi, the vice president of Jamaat and a prominent Islamic scholar. His death sentence, delivered on Feb. 28, 2013, sparked an unprecedented wave of violence as Jamaat members and Sayeedi’s followers took to the streets in huge numbers. In response to the protests, the police opened fire, resulting in the deaths of more than hundred people. The unrest became so severe that the military was deployed in certain areas, marking the first mass killing under Hasina’s regime.
A second major crackdown soon followed. Various Islamic groups, primarily associated with the madrasa-based education system, accused the government of fostering anti-Islamic and blasphemous activities. They claimed that these actions dishonored Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and even Allah. In response, a coalition known as Hefazat-e-Islam was formed, and on May 5, 2013, they organized a massive rally in Dhaka. Hundreds of thousands gathered, vowing to stage a sit-in until their demands were met. That night, the government imposed a media blackout, shut down television channels sympathetic to the movement, and ordered a brutal crackdown. In the dark of night, with gunfire echoing through the streets, the protest site was cleared by dawn. While the government claimed there were no fatalities, a human rights organization, ‘Odhikar’ member of International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), reported the names of 61 people killed. The group's chairman was arrested later on and sent to jail. Many believe the death toll was far higher, but Hasina’s tight control over the situation allowed her to suppress evidence and erase proof of the atrocities.
In early 2014, Bangladesh was set to hold its 10th general election. However, the opposition, led by the BNP, refused to participate without the reinstatement of the caretaker government system. They launched widespread protests, calling for a boycott of the election. Despite months of economic shutdowns, street violence, and casualties, Hasina stood firm. On Jan. 5, 2014, the election went ahead, but only the Awami League and its allied parties participated. Of the 300 parliamentary seats, 154 were uncontested, meaning Awami League effectively won the majority even before a single vote was cast. Voter turnout was the lowest in Bangladesh’s history, and on election day, the opposition called for a complete shutdown of the country, resulting in more violence and fatalities. Despite the turmoil, Hasina successfully formed a government with little real resistance.
Not only did Hasina remain in power, but she went on to complete two more terms as prime minister. Throughout this period, the opposition's attempts to challenge her rule were met with brutal crackdowns. Despite sustained protests, strikes, and violent clashes, the opposition failed to secure any meaningful concession. In the 2019 general election, they participated without the caretaker government in place, and got reduced to a mere seven seats in what many consider one of the most controversial elections in the country’s history. The opposition claimed that Awami League members, with support from civilian officials and security forces, pre-stamped ballot papers and stuffed ballot boxes. A BBC journalist even recorded footage showing ballot boxes filled with votes being transported before the election had started.
During these years, thousands of opposition members were jailed, many were killed in custody, and others simply disappeared at the hands of security forces. Khaleda Zia, leader of the BNP, was imprisoned and later placed under house arrest, effectively forced into retirement from politics. Six senior Jamaat leaders, including the party’s chief were executed. Even Hefazat-e-Islam, which had suffered one of the harshest crackdowns in Bangladesh’s history, ultimately entered negotiations with Hasina, bestowing her with the title "Mother of Quami," a nod to the madrasa education system she had once been accused of persecuting.
In their attempts to unseat Sheikh Hasina, the opposition parties exhausted every strategy at their disposal, but nothing seemed to work. Even as they mobilized large-scale protests in November 2023 ahead of the January 2024 election, the result remained the same. The Awami League swiftly orchestrated the national election and secured their fourth consecutive term in power amid opposition boycott. Yet, in a matter of months, the unthinkable happened: the downfall of Bangladesh’s “Iron Lady.” What years of political maneuvering could not accomplish, the July uprising achieved, dramatically altering the country’s history at a time when the fascist regime appeared to be at its strongest with a fresh mandate.
Unity Against Oppression: The Turning Point
What set this uprising apart from previous movements was the participation of the non-political masses, particularly the urban middle class. The 15-year authoritarian rule of Sheikh Hasina did not only oppress political opposition; it affected the everyday lives of ordinary citizens. Inflation surged to unprecedented levels, corruption became endemic, and the people were disenfranchised, having been deprived of a fair vote in the last three national elections. Unemployment soared, the quality of education declined, public services deteriorated, and the country’s international reputation continued to sink. Frustration grew, and the people were desperate to escape this suffocating situation.
However, a key element of Hasina’s strategy had long been working in her favor. Since she took power, the government party Awami League and their allies in the media and cultural spheres had carefully crafted a narrative that painted the opposition as fanatics, extremists, and corrupt. In contrast, they positioned the Awami League as the sole defender of liberal and secular values. Moreover, they cultivated an atmosphere of political apathy among the youth, urban elites, and middle class, discouraging their engagement in politics. As a result, when the opposition mounted protests over the years, they struggled to attract support beyond their party members. Ordinary people saw the opposition's efforts as little more than a power struggle, disconnected from the rights of mass people.
But the July uprising was different for three key reasons: its non-political outlook led by students, the full support of opposition political parties, and crucial mistakes by Hasina’s missteps, common to many dictators.
The leaders of this movement were students who did not belong to any mainstream political parties. However, as politically conscious citizens, they had long desired the end of the fascist regime and the restoration of voting rights. When the opportunity arose to turn the movement for quota reform into a broader uprising against the regime, they seized it. As the student leaders were seen as non-partisan and had a clean image, the public viewed the movement not as a political power struggle, but as a rare chance for true emancipation. For the first time in 15 years, thousands of common people not affiliated to any party flooded the streets, demanding the resignation of the prime minister. From elementary school students to senior citizens, people from all walks of life participated in the uprising.
Seeing the overwhelming public support for the student-led movement that they had been unable to generate for 15 years, the opposition parties sensed a rare opportunity to topple the regime that had been ruthlessly suppressing them. They threw their full weight behind the uprising, providing logistical support, strategic planning, and mobilizing mass participation. However, the opposition parties refrained from openly using their banners, fearing that associating the movement with political groups would alienate a significant portion of the public. The student leaders, recognizing the value of the opposition’s experience and the dedication of their loyal supporters, accepted their help without hesitation. This combination of broad public participation on one hand, and efficient planning with a core of determined workers of the political parties willing to face bullets on the other, created a force that the regime could not control.
However, perhaps the most significant factor in the uprising’s success was Sheikh Hasina’s own miscalculations. Having successfully crushed political opposition movements through brutal crackdowns in the past, Hasina believed she could do the same this time. What she failed to realize was that this was not merely a political protest—it was a national movement united behind the students. Moreover, the demand initiating the protest was not political at all but rather a call for reform; the students sought changes to a quota system that reserved 56% of government jobs for specific groups that constitute a very small number of the population. In a country suffering from high graduate unemployment, this was a pressing issue. The student leaders made it clear that once the quota system was reformed, they would return to their studies. But for a leader accustomed to authoritarian rule, even such a rational demand seemed like a threat. And, as history shows, authoritarian leaders often make fatal mistakes in their final hours.
Instead of addressing the students’ legitimate concerns, Hasina labeled them as traitors. When this provoked further anger, she reverted to her tried-and-tested method – a violent crackdown. This decision backfired catastrophically. On July 16, 2024, students called for protests in response to Hasina’s remarks. Police opened fire on demonstrators across the country, killing six students. One of the victims, Abu Sayeed, became a symbol of the movement’s resistance. Sayeed was captured on television standing fearlessly before the police, arms spread wide, moments before being shot dead. The footage of his bravery went viral within minutes, spreading like wildfire on social media. His courage inspired thousands, and the public's fear of repression evaporated.
The following day, students called for a symbolic funeral at Dhaka University, followed by a nationwide march for justice. However, the police launched another brutal crackdown, attacking students on every public university campus and forcing them to flee. This marked a turning point in the uprising.
With public university students driven out, their peers from private universities felt a strong sense of responsibility to continue the fight. On July 18, private university students took to the streets across the country, joined by high school and diploma students, as well as countless ordinary citizens. The protests in Dhaka, in particular, were massive. Hasina, seeing Dhaka as the last bastion of the movement, ordered the security forces to disperse the protesters at any cost. What followed was a day of violent clashes. Police and paramilitary forces not only opened fire on demonstrators in the streets but also stormed university buildings, even using helicopters to target protesters. By the afternoon, reports confirmed the deaths of over 50 students, most of whom were from private universities, with the highest casualties occurring in Dhaka.
Hasina's crackdown on private university students proved to be a grievous error — arguably her worst miscalculation. Many of these students came from the elite class, a group that had historically remained aligned with the government or, at the very least, stayed silent on anti-government issues. This elite demographic had been largely insulated from the inflation, corruption, and political violence that plagued the rest of the country during the Awami League’s rule. For the first time, they found themselves directly affected by the government's brutality. When the regime’s crackdown led to the deaths of their own children, the elites, once Awami League's most reliable support base, turned against the government. It went to such an extent that when a police officer was shooting protesters in the Dhaka streets, his own son was present in the protest and got killed by the bullets fired by police.
This event marked a turning point for the uprising. Both sides had crossed a threshold from which there was no return. The mass killings on that day—hundreds of people in a single day—pushed the situation beyond the government's control. In a desperate bid to regain order, Hasina shut down the internet, deployed the army, and imposed a "shoot-on-sight" curfew. But for the protesters, the sacrifices had risen far beyond their demand for quota reform. The movement’s leaders declared new demands; a nine-point ultimatum that included public acknowledgment of the killings by the Prime Minister, her public apology, and the dismissal of the police chief interior, minister and many more. Anyone having a substantial idea about Bangladesh’s political landscape understood that it was an implicit call for Hasina’s step down.
Despite the internet blackout and curfew, the protests did not stop, and reports of deaths continued to emerge. Hasina, understanding her severe misstep, tried to de-escalate the situation. She released many of the detained students and, ironically, fully conceded to the original demand of quota reform. But by then, it was far too late. Hasina had united the nation against her, transcending class, sect, religion, and ideology—the damage was done. Yet, she persisted with her hardline approach. The security forces intensified their repression, conducting night raids, arresting students from their homes, and detaining key movement leaders.Due to brutal suppression and lack of coordination amid internet blackout the clash in the streets cooled down gradually. Over the following weeks, as curfews were slowly lifted and the internet restored, reports surfaced that the regime's "Neo-Gestapo" tactics had claimed over 500 lives.
Despite this brutal suppression, the student leaders, empowered by mass public support and aided by the opposition parties, remained resolute and regrouped after the curfew was lifted. Though the original demand for quota reform had been met, they refused to end their protest until all nine demands were fulfilled. Recognizing that these demands were tantamount to a call for her resignation, Hasina attempted to negotiate, offering minor concessions but these efforts fell flat. In a final, desperate move, she labeled the movement as being orchestrated by Jamaat-e-Islami and banned the party on Aug. 1, accusing it of inciting violence. The strategy was clear: divide and discredit the uprising by driving a wedge between its secular supporters and Islamic supporters. However, the movement had progressed too far for such tactics to work. Hasina’s claims were largely ignored, and the protests only grew in size and sophistication. The once unassailable "Iron Lady" of Bangladesh now faced a rapidly slipping grip on power.
With no options left, Hasina made a final attempt to suppress the uprising with even more force. In the last days of July and the first days of August, dozens of protesters were killed. However, by this point, the dynamic had shifted. Junior army officers, who had been deployed to enforce the curfew, began to question their orders. During an assembly with the army chief on Aug. 3, they expressed their unwillingness to continue acting against the people. The army chief agreed with them, deciding not to shoot the people but the police and paramilitary forces remained loyal to Hasina. On Aug. 3 alone, security forces killed dozens of demonstrators, further fueling public anger. By Aug. 4, with brutality escalating, the protest leaders made their demands explicit — Hasina must resign. They called for a mass march to Dhaka on Aug. 6, but after the killing of hundreds more on Aug. 4, the date was moved up to Aug. 5 to prevent giving the government any time to reorganize its plan.
As tensions reached a boiling point, Hasina reimposed the curfew and ordered the security forces to crush the protests at any cost, but the situation had changed dramatically. The military, deeply embedded in Bangladeshi society, could no longer stomach the mass killings of ordinary citizens. Many of the officers had family and friends urging them to stand down, and the junior and mid-level officers were horrified by the brutality of the police and paramilitary forces. Unlike these forces, which had been conditioned by 15 years of repressive rule, the Bangladesh military was not accustomed to widespread violence against civilians. The soldiers, shocked by the suffering of their fellow citizens, began to distance themselves from the political cause. Pressure mounted within the military ranks, including from retired officers, for the army to intervene and end the crisis.
This internal pressure culminated in a decision by General Wakaruzzaman, the army chief, to act, a decision that took many by surprise given his familial ties to Hasina. Ultimately, the weight of public sentiment prevailed over blood ties. On Aug. 5, as hundreds of thousands of protesters marched towards the Prime Minister's residence in defiance of the curfew, Hasina summoned her top police and military officers. General Wakaruzzaman, having consulted with his officers beforehand, advised Hasina to resign and leave the country. Infuriated, she ordered the security forces to crush the marchers with even greater force, but quickly realized that the military was no longer willing to kill thousands of people just to keep her in power. As the masses neared her residence, Hasina had no time to address the nation or formally resign. A military helicopter stood ready in the courtyard, and in a rushed exit, she boarded the helicopter and fled to India—the country that had backed her regime in all aspects.
Shortly after Hasina's departure, jubilant crowds stormed the Prime Minister’s residence, celebrating the end of a 15-year-long dictatorship. The cost of this hard-fought freedom was steep: in just three weeks, nearly 1,500 people had sacrificed their lives, tens of thousands were injured, many lost limbs, and over 500 people were left permanently blind. Even on the day Hasina fled, more than 150 people were killed by the police and paramilitary forces. Bangladeshis referred to the date as ‘July 36,’ paying tribute to the uprising as the ‘July Revolution’.
Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus has taken charge of the post-Hasina interim government with unanimous support from the stakeholders of the uprising. However, the path to stability is fraught with challenges. Sheikh Hasina's 15-year autocratic rule left key institutions weakened, filled with loyalists implicated in corruption and the bloodshed of the July Uprising. These figures remain entrenched and resistant to cooperation, posing a dilemma for the new government; removing them risks paralyzing state functions, while their continued presence obstructs necessary reforms. In addition, Dr. Yunus is navigating the growing ideological divisions among the political parties that were united during the uprising but have since fractured after the fall of their common enemy. They are now making conflicting demands. Different groups are also staging protests over issues they were unable to address during the past 15 years. Many suspect that the recently ousted Awami League is behind these disruptions. Whether true or not, this unrest is further complicating efforts to rebuild the nation.
Despite these difficulties, some positive changes have already begun to take shape under Yunus's leadership. His global stature, charisma, and experience have allowed him to initiate important reforms, and there is hope that with time, he can steer the country toward a path of sustainable democracy. For the people of Bangladesh, this is their greatest hope and prayer.
Comentarios