Bangladesh is in the throes of its most severe political crisis in 15 years, spurred by a contentious job quota system and escalating into widespread calls for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s resignation. The protests have descended into violence, with the deadliest day recorded just a day before Hasina Wajid’s resignation, claiming at least 94 lives, including 14 police officers, and bringing the total death toll to 300 since July. To curb the unrest, the government has imposed curfews, restricted internet access, and shut down offices and factories, yet an estimated 400,000 protesters have defied these measures, converging in Dhaka to demand change.
This tumultuous period culminated in the resignation of Sheikh Hasina Wajid after 15 years of rule, marking a significant turning point in Bangladesh’s political landscape. Her departure is being celebrated as a good riddance by a populace long frustrated with her administration’s authoritarianism, cronyism, and perceived subservience to Indian interests. For the people of Bangladesh, this moment is not just the end of a regime but the breaking of chains that have bound the country to a trajectory dominated by external influence and internal repression. Many hope it will usher in a new era of greater freedom, justice, and autonomy.
Sheikh Hasina’s tenure was initially marked by hopes of stability and progress, but over time, her government became synonymous with undemocratic practices, stifling dissent, and centralizing power. Critics often referred to her rule as a “civil dictatorship,” a term that captures the paradox of a democratically elected leader who governs with an iron fist. Under her leadership, elections were marred by allegations of rigging and violence, opposition voices were systematically silenced, and the judiciary’s independence was severely compromised. The media, once a vibrant and diverse space, was muzzled through draconian laws, leading to widespread self-censorship and fear among journalists.
The end of Hasina’s rule is a watershed moment for those who have long advocated for a return to democratic norms and human rights in Bangladesh. Her resignation, driven by mounting domestic pressure and international criticism, represents a rare victory for civil society and opposition forces who have struggled against overwhelming odds. For many, it is the first real opportunity in years to envision a Bangladesh that is not dominated by a single family or party but by the collective will of its people.
One of the most significant aspects of Hasina’s resignation is the symbolic break it represents from India’s influence over Bangladesh’s internal affairs. Throughout her tenure, Hasina was often perceived as too closely aligned with New Delhi, a perception that fueled nationalist sentiments and resentment among ordinary Bangladeshis. While India has been a key ally and economic partner, many in Bangladesh felt that Hasina’s government was too willing to cater to Indian interests at the expense of national sovereignty. This was particularly evident in issues like the sharing of river waters, border security, and trade agreements, where Bangladesh often seemed to be on the losing end of negotiations.
The perception of Bangladesh as a junior partner in its relationship with India was exacerbated by Hasina’s reliance on Indian support to maintain her grip on power. This relationship alienated large segments of the population who saw their country’s foreign policy being dictated from outside its borders. Her resignation, therefore, is being hailed as an opportunity for Bangladesh to redefine its relationship with India, moving towards a more balanced and mutually respectful partnership that prioritizes national interests.
The economic dimension of Hasina’s rule also played a crucial role in her downfall. While Bangladesh experienced impressive GDP growth during her tenure, the benefits of this growth were unevenly distributed, leading to increased inequality and widespread discontent. Corruption became endemic, with the ruling party and its affiliates controlling key sectors of the economy, often at the expense of smaller businesses and ordinary citizens. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, coupled with rising living costs, eroded public trust in the government and fueled a growing demand for change.
Furthermore, Hasina’s government faced increasing criticism for its handling of the Rohingya refugee crisis. While initially praised for opening Bangladesh’s borders to those fleeing persecution in Myanmar, the situation quickly deteriorated as the government failed to secure sufficient international support or a sustainable solution. The presence of nearly a million refugees strained resources and stoked tensions in host communities, creating another point of contention against her administration.
In the final years of her rule, Hasina’s government struggled to maintain the façade of legitimacy as opposition movements gained momentum. Protests, although often met with brutal crackdowns, grew and frequency, signaling a shift in public sentiment. The international community, which had previously been reluctant to criticize her too harshly, began to voice concerns over the deteriorating human rights situation and the erosion of democratic institutions.
Sheikh Hasina’s resignation, therefore, is more than just the end of a political era; it is a potential rebirth for Bangladesh. The challenges ahead are immense, but so are the opportunities. For the first time in years, there is hope that the country can move towards a more inclusive and democratic system of governance, one that respects the rights of all its citizens and is truly independent in its foreign policy. The fall of Hasina Wajid is a chance for Bangladesh to reclaim its national identity, free from the shadow of authoritarianism and undue external influence. The people of Bangladesh have finally broken the shackles that bound them, and the future, while uncertain, is theirs to shape.
