Bangladesh emerged as an independent state in December 1971. The force of the circumstances was striking: to witness the greater part of a federal country breaking away from its smaller, dominant part. We accepted the disintegration of the country without any remorse or meaningful introspection to identify the political, economic, and federal policy blunders that alienated Bengalis and confronted us with such disgrace and humiliation. Exactly six years later, we returned to our well-treaded path of military rule and political gerrymandering that continues to overshadow the political landscape of this helpless nation of 250 million.
After secession, Bangladesh had its share of nightmarish political experiences, leading to the brutal assassination of the entire family of Shaikh Mujeeb, barring Hasina Wajed; the takeover of power by generals; the alternating rule of the two strong women – Begum Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed; and the latter’s long and authoritarian rule, along with her vindictive indulgence in the indiscriminate persecution of her political opponents, particularly the hanging of senior leaders of Jamaat-e-Islami on charges of collaboration with the army of Pakistan during the war of independence. All this authoritarianism, coercive rule, and acquiescence in the hegemonic dominance of India sparked intense public protests, forcing Hasina Wajed to flee the country.
Notwithstanding the economic stability the country achieved during the long rule of the Awami League, Prime Minister Hasina Wajed’s authoritarian style of rule eroded plural political culture, democracy, representative governance, the rule of law, and trust in national institutions, including the Election Commission and the judiciary, with all those phoney judicial tribunals and accountability courts established for the trial of political opponents.
As public protests gathered steam, the national army declined to be part of further violence and coercion to be perpetrated on the people. This ended the most dreaded rule of this authoritarian woman. The army stayed away from direct intervention or takeover of political power.
The interim administration of Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus (2024–2026) took two years to steady the country on the course of economic development and stabilise the political situation for fair and free elections. The septuagenarian leader performed this task with a measure of finesse. We cannot confidently say that the deep state was totally indifferent to the new political evolution after the end of the Awami League Raj. However, no political leader or party seriously challenged the conduct of the elections.
The Jamaat-led alliance gracefully accepted the overwhelming public mandate received by the Bangladesh National Party (BNP)-led alliance. This reflects the political maturity and democratic temperament of the Bengali leadership. How the Election Commission regained its credibility with the people is the moot question. The answer is simple: the interim leadership, along with national institutions, remained neutral, supporting the Election Commission in holding fair elections.
There have been signs of a reorientation of bilateral relations with Pakistan, bound by history, cultural and spiritual affinity, shared political and economic interests, and, above all, massive public goodwill
The majority of Bengalis are secular, liberal, and progressive in their political leanings. We recall that the liberal, progressive, and modern politicians in the former East Pakistan had outshone religious leaders in united Pakistan. In synch with this political culture, the deep state also might have inclined towards the Tarique Zia-led liberal, secular, modern, and progressive political alliance. However, such a leaning could not have massively turned the scale of the electoral outcome in his favour, giving him 212 seats in a House of 299 members. He will comfortably carry out the proposed constitutional reforms.
Jamaat has a good following in Bangladesh, with street power and organisational strength. We know that students from the ranks of Islami Jamiat-e-Tulba formed the backbone of the political agitation against Hasina Wajed’s government. They were in the vanguard of the long and sustained agitation, facing brutal coercion from the ruthlessly oppressive administrative machinery.
Jamaat suffered the worst kind of persecution at the hands of the Awami League government. The anger and anguish of the young cadre of Jamaat were reflected in the scale of their sacrifices.
Notwithstanding these sufferings, the Jamaat-led alliance could not translate huge public sympathy into electoral strength. The voting trend reflected Bengali voters’ reluctance to entrust state affairs to a raw, religious, and untested alliance. They chose to mandate a comparatively liberal and modern alliance grounded in governing experience from previous years. The opposition, headed by Jamaat-e-Islami, would help the ruling alliance stay on a constitutional course. Prime Minister Tarique Zia will have to listen to the opposition.
The post-election period did not witness any threats of mass resignations, as is the wont of our political leaders; there were no public condemnations of the Election Commission, no complaints of discrepancies in the tabulation of electoral outcomes, no theft of the forms containing polling-station results, no innovative adoption of Form 47, and no rush to the election tribunals.
There may be complaints here and there, but these electoral discrepancies could not affect the march of the nation towards the restoration of democratic rule in the country or justify the intervention of praetorian forces in the political process, as happened in Pakistan in 1977.
The BNP has traditionally followed a pro-Pakistan foreign policy. I remember the visit of Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia in the early 1990s. After the end of her visit to Islamabad, she travelled to Lahore to meet the erstwhile colleagues of her husband, General Zia-ur-Rehman, and their wives.
She was accommodated in the State Guest House. We arranged her meetings with old family friends. She loved Lahore and the Lahoris. She felt gratified and returned to her country satisfied with the outcome of her visit.
We witnessed violent outbursts of anger and anguish against symbols of Indian influence in the country. We also witnessed the destruction of symbols associated with Shaikh Mujeeb or the so-called war of independence.
There have been signs of a reorientation of bilateral relations with Pakistan, bound by history, cultural and spiritual affinity, shared political and economic interests, and, above all, massive public goodwill. We have to build on this goodwill to cement a cooperative relationship between the two countries.
Democracy has a strong future in Bangladesh. Historically, the BNP has shown strong democratic credentials under Begum Khaleda Zia. Prime Minister Tarique Zia will stay the democratic course and follow a peaceful and cooperative foreign policy in synch with the rules-based international order.
He will also carefully and gradually reorient his country’s bilateral relations with India, as long as the latter refrains from interfering in the internal affairs of Bangladesh at the behest of the controversial Hasina Wajed. Pakistan has a stack of important cards and needs to use them wisely.
The foreign policy of a country reflects its internal political and economic situation. A country torn asunder by political confrontation and pulled down by a failing economy and weakening federal structure cannot run a successful foreign and security policy. Our house has been in disarray for many years. We need to put it in order.