Bangladesh's Struggle -Democracy or Authoritarianism?

The recent plea filed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing Bangladesh’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina Wajid, of crimes against humanity during the 2013 student protests is a stark reminder of the ongoing human rights abuses in one of South Asia’s most volatile democracies. As the world watches with a mix of concern and indifference, these allegations raise critical questions about Hasina’s rule, the erosion of democracy in Bangladesh, and the complicity of powerful foreign allies, particularly India, in perpetuating an environment of state-sanctioned repression.

The charges against Hasina are not new. They revive longstanding grievances held by her political opponents, critics, and human rights advocates who argue that she has systematically targeted dissent, including silencing Islamic scholars, opposition leaders, and student activists. These actions, they claim, echo the repressive legacy of her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whose authoritarian policies in the 1970s led to violent purges and deep scars in the nation’s collective memory. The resurfacing of these accusations calls for a hard look at whether Bangladesh has truly embraced democracy or if it has merely traded one form of authoritarianism for another.

The deaths of over 400 students in recent months, following violent crackdowns on protests, have intensified fears that the country’s political motives have spiraled into dangerous territory. Critics argue that these deaths are not the result of isolated incidents but rather part of a broader campaign by Hasina’s government to stifle dissent and control the narrative around Bangladesh’s future. These events have led to growing concerns that Hasina’s actions are driven by more than just domestic politics, with allegations that foreign powers—most notably India—have supported her in maintaining a tight grip on power, potentially at the cost of Bangladesh’s sovereignty.

Indian intelligence agencies, particularly RAW (Research and Analysis Wing), have been accused of covertly backing Hasina, allegedly aiding her in consolidating power and neutralizing opposition. This external influence has sparked fears among Bangladeshis that their nation’s sovereignty is being compromised by foreign interests. For many, Hasina’s close ties with India—and her government’s alignment with Indian strategic priorities—only deepen the sense that her authority is not fully legitimate, but rather a product of geopolitical machinations. India’s involvement, some argue, is reminiscent of the historical ties between Bangladesh’s ruling elite and India’s security apparatus, particularly the role of the Mukti Bahini during the 1971 war of independence. This growing influence has raised suspicions that Hasina is using her position to create a “shadow army,” a network of security forces operating outside the purview of democratic accountability, in a manner reminiscent of the Mukti Bahini.

This “shadow army,” critics contend, is being used not just for national security purposes but as a tool to silence political opposition and enforce policies that are sympathetic to Indian interests. In this context, the allegations of violence against students and Islamic scholars should not be viewed as isolated incidents but rather as part of a broader pattern of repression that has been enabled by both internal and external powers.

The international community, however, has largely turned a blind eye to these allegations, despite mounting evidence of state-led human rights abuses. Bangladesh’s judiciary is often seen as compromised, with political pressures inhibiting its ability to investigate and prosecute those in power. Local courts, many argue, would not have pursued such charges against Hasina without significant international pressure. That is why the ICC’s involvement is crucial—not just to ensure accountability for the specific crimes alleged but to send a message that impunity for human rights violations, particularly by powerful leaders, will not be tolerated.

As Bangladesh navigates these turbulent waters, the ICC’s decision to take up this case will be a critical test of the international community’s commitment to justice and human rights in South Asia. The world must ask itself whether it is willing to hold powerful figures accountable for actions that directly violate the principles of democracy, freedom of speech, and the right to protest.

The allegations of Hasina’s involvement in previous genocidal actions, particularly the 1971 violence against Bengali Muslims, add another layer of complexity to the current situation. These historical grievances have resurfaced in the wake of the student protests, as many accuse Hasina of perpetuating a legacy of violent repression against religious minorities and political opponents. The perceived marginalization of Islamic scholars, in particular, has sparked widespread anger, with many seeing it as part of a broader strategy to consolidate Hasina’s power and silence anyone who might challenge her political dominance.

Hasina’s political calculus, as seen through her crackdowns on dissent, reflects a deeply authoritarian mindset that seeks to marginalize and even erase any opposition to her rule. By suppressing religious scholars, sidelining opposition parties, and curtailing freedom of speech, she has created an environment where any form of dissent is seen as a threat to the state and treated as such. In this climate of fear, it becomes increasingly difficult for ordinary Bangladeshis to speak out against the government, knowing that doing so could result in imprisonment, violence, or even death.

The situation has escalated beyond domestic politics; it now has the potential to destabilize the entire region. As global powers look to strengthen their alliances with Bangladesh, particularly with regard to trade, security, and counterterrorism, they must also consider the moral implications of endorsing a government that appears to be systematically violating the human rights of its citizens. This is not merely a bilateral issue between Bangladesh and India; it is an issue that has implications for the future of democracy and human rights across South Asia.

The international community cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the growing authoritarianism in Bangladesh. If the ICC pursues this case, it will not just hold Hasina accountable for her role in the deaths of over 400 students and the broader repression of opposition figures—it will also set a crucial precedent for protecting human rights in a region that has long struggled with authoritarianism and political violence.

Bangladesh’s future is at a crossroads. The time has come for the global community to stand firm in its commitment to human rights and accountability. Justice for the victims of Hasina’s repression is not just a moral imperative—it is a vital step toward restoring the democratic principles that Bangladesh so desperately needs to preserve.