¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

DEALING with the fallen Awami League has posed a political and diplomatic challenge for Professor Yunus’s interim government. While this appears to be a tricky issue, Awami League’s de facto national identity as a political entity needs foregrounding.ÌýÌý

Rehabilitating this marauding political party is not a popular demand. It’s the wish of Awami activists and beneficiaries who occupied different organs of the state body during Hasina’s atrocious regime. The end of the regime in August 2024 has eliminated only a fraction of the Awamised force. The larger part is still functional in different forms and modalities. Awami leaders who were allowed to escape the public wrath and take refuge in other countries have also been actively pursuing the rehabilitation project. One host nation is using both diplomatic and undiplomatic strategies on their behalf to pressurise the new government in Bangladesh.

From the people’s perspective, it’s a question of banning — rather than restoring — Awami League. However, banning may not be a wise move in longer terms. Professor Adil Khan examined the banning option in an article in ¶¶Òõ¾«Æ· about two weeks ago. One of his conclusions was that ‘the remedy may lie not in banning a badly behaving party [read Awami League] but in preventing bad people from entering political parties.’

The ‘remedy’ as mentioned by Professor Khan is a Personnel Verification System (PVS) which is an integrity check for people entering politics and monitoring their integrity while they are in office. He noted that the model worked for South Korea. In his view, it’s worth exploring for Bangladesh in the new political environment. The model emphasises democratic norms and practices within political parties including the selection of their leaders.

However, the known and unknown agents of Awami rehabilitation may not endorse the PVS. For them, rehabilitation is bringing the old system (with all its evils) back and maintaining the status quo. For example, they would ask for reinstating Hasina, regardless of the volume of crimes that she committed in her political life.

Can Bangladesh rehabilitate a political party whose Bangladeshi identity is suspect and whose affiliation with a foreign country may have erased all marks of suspicion? Awami League’s connection with this country is proverbial. The 1971 war may not be imagined without Awami League being patronised by this country. Then, after the events of 1975, Hasina was sheltered by the same country as a special guest. Since Awami League’s first rehabilitation during Ziaur Rahman’s rule, it’s the only party in Bangladesh that this country has trusted. Without doubt, this trust in Awami League has been at the expense of the trust in or concern for the people.

This neighbouring power has come to Awami League’s rescue at every political juncture. Following the political turmoils and the 1/11 government during the first decade of this century, Awami League was resaddled to power by this neighbour’s intervention. To ensure that the party can stay in power, this country intervened at each of the subsequent elections. Its position was crystal clear: Democracy or no democracy, election or no election, Awami League should be in power. Diplomatically, it declared that elections were internal matters for Bangladesh in which it should not interfere. However, its interference has been an open secret. In the current political circumstances, the country has removed the veil of non-interference. It now demands a participatory election in Bangladesh, obviously in the interest of Awami League and of itself.

The metaphorical ‘husband-wife’ relationship that was promoted during Hasina’s rule was not between Bangladesh and this country; its affinity was with Awami League. However, it wasn’t a ‘conjugal’ affair after all. The so-called ‘husband’ can be seen — more appropriately — as the parental home for Awami League. Being thrown out of power, Hasina fled to this home. She also had returned to Bangladesh from this resort about four and a half decades ago.

Awami League’s filial obligation to the ‘parent’ nation may have no match in the world. Hasina’s autocratic rule presented many anomalies, violations, and contradictions. However, there was one clear method in all her madnesses. This was to make sure that the parental home remained ever happy with her, no matter what.

Minority Muslims have gone through terrible times in this ‘secular’ nation, especially under Hindutva rule. However, Tahajjud-praying Hasina never said a word about the inhuman treatment inflicted upon the Muslims or other minorities. Bangladeshis have been killed on the borders on regular intervals. Instead of requesting the authorities — not to speak of protesting — to stop the killing, her ministers defended it, attributing the blame to Bangladeshis. Hasina’s own public assertion that what she had given to this country can never be forgotten by the latter does not fall into the remit of political giving. It’s an instance that contributes to defining the national identity of Awami League.

This Awami identity is substantiated by countless examples of serving this nation’s interests. Abrar Fahad was beaten to death by Hasina’s hooligans simply because he spoke in the interest of Bangladesh and against Awami League’s limitless giving to this country. Bangladeshis were shot to death on the street because they protested the visit of its Muslim-butchering leader. Criticising public authorities of this nation was made a criminal offence in Bangladesh during Hasina’s rule. Bangladesh’s judicial system was mutilated to kill a group of Muslim leaders as per the prescription of this power. Giving transit to this nation, employing its nationals, buying electricity from them at exorbitant costs — all were done for this nation’s and Awami League’s own benefits.

The rehabilitation question needs to be addressed in Awami League’s own terms. Pakistanising the Jamaat and BNP was part of its key political discourses. From the Awami point of view, Jamaat and BNP leaders deserved to be exported to Pakistan because of their alleged connection with this Muslim country. In fact, Hasina did ban Jamaat days before her fall and escape to India. The Pakistan affinity of Jamaat and BNP has never been proven. On the other hand, Awami exchanges with the other nation against Bangladesh’s interests have left no doubt. If Jamaat or BNP did what Awami League has done with the other country, would the former deserve rehabilitation after their fall for reasons of their own making? If the answer is no for them, it should be no for Awami League too.

Awami League’s political asylum bid calls for a critical and rigorous scrutiny. This is not the first such request by or on behalf of the party. It was shown mercy earlier. In return, the people were rewarded with the longest rule of tyranny with, among other consequences, enforced disappearances, aynaghors and capital flight as its hallmarks. Rehabilitating this mafia-style fascist party is not just giving it a second chance. It is also capitulating to the sub-imperial hegemon in the region.

The neighbouring nation wouldn’t fall short of voicing Awami League’s innocence and goodness. It is unlikely to see the evil that led to its dethronement. This may lead to a logical proposition: Why not rehabilitate Awami League in this country rather than in Bangladesh? Awami League is neither needed nor wanted in Bangladesh. The neighbouring nation has sheltered a sizable body of Awami leaders since last year. Maybe they can join politics in the host country and continue serving the host’s interests, not worrying about Bangladesh.

Awami League’s rehabilitation bid is one of the many ironies defining the fallen regime. Hasina arrogantly said that there was no power in Bangladesh that could dethrone her. Bangladeshis were considered her enslaved subjects. With her monarchic hubris, she said that she fed, clothed, housed, lighted, and medicated 170 million people. She mythologised herself as a beneficent goddess and viewed the people of Bangladesh as recipients of her beneficence. Ironically, she is now in need of her beneficiaries’ mercy.

Hasina’s fall is natural justice. She should be allowed to suffer her destiny. Showing undue mercy to Awami League may not augur well for Bangladesh. It may be the case of a Trojan horse with sabotaging intentions and plans.

Ìý

Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland inÌýAustralia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world. He is a co-editor of Current Issues in Language Planning.