¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

AN IRONY points to the gap between what is said and what is implied, or what is expected and what happens in reality. It is a rhetorical technique that is widely used in literature. It creates dramatic effects by presenting contrasts or opposites. What is called dramatic irony is often used in tragedy to illustrate a character’s ignorance of happenings on one hand and tragic consequences on the other.

Sophocles’ King Oedipus is a classic Greek tragedy with plenty of dramatic ironies. Oedipus thought he knew who he was, but actually he didn’t. He ran away from his own city to avoid committing a heinous crime, but he did so only to arrive at the venue of the crime. He mocked blind Tiresias because he couldn’t see but the latter actually had clearer vision than Oedipus. He took an oath to find out the killer of the former king of Thebes. Unknowingly, he was looking for himself who was the killer. Self-blinded, he condemns himself at the end of the play, accepting the consequences of his oath.

The irony is not just a tool for a literary artist. It is, in fact, a truth or reality of human life. Ironies rule our lives. Imagining life without ironies is ironical. We work so hard and accumulate so much often ignoring that we are waiting for an invitation to leave this world every minute.

People in Bangladesh have just been freed from Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year autocratic clutches. There is an irony here, as no one thought that such a low-profile student movement could topple her established regime. Hasina was a victim of irony as she also never imagined that she would have to pack up on a short notice and fly away to safety across the border. For 15 years, she toyed with many people’s lives, but her own life was imperilled at the end.

Autocracy itself can be considered ironical. Autocrats wish to sustain their rule by all means. They want to live with absolute power for their whole life and, if possible, beyond. However, the irony is that there comes an end, sooner or later.Ìý Probably they know that their end is never too far, but they live in denial. The more they fortify their regime, the more it appears to be penetrable. They tend to deny the temporariness of power and authority and seek eternity, which is only ironical.

It is impossible to count even the major ironies of the Hasina regime. A few examples will suffice for illustration.

For 15 years, Hasina divided the population into two groups: Those she called her own and those she viewed as her opponents. Directly or indirectly, she made the first group bigger and stronger every day by political recruitment and giving various incentives including licence to engage in any level of corruption. At the same time, she reduced the size of the second group by getting them killed, evaporating them into disappearance or putting them into traditional jail or non-traditional detention centre, the latter gaining the notoriety of the ayna ghar. She was surrounded by her own groups for personal safety. She also provided safety and security to her chosen people who were often placed above the law.

Alas! At the critical moment of fleeing the country, she didn’t find many of her people around her. Those who could afford had already fled to safety, leaving her to her own devices. Fortunately, she was allowed to board a helicopter and fly away. It can be predicted what the people would have done to her person if she still had been in her mansion when they stormed in foraging for her valuables. The one who showed off her power and subdued everyone to her authoritarian rule for 15 years ran away, with a full dose of humiliation and public curse.

As an autocrat, Hasina denied the power of the people. Her aim was to disempower them so she would be invincible and accountable to none in the country. She destroyed all democratic institutions and turned them into Awami machines. Trivialising the election process is an unforgettable case, as she innovated ways to ensure that she would return to power after every election, no matter what. She would have had formed the view that people were a herd of mindless animals, whom she could handle in whatever way she wished.Ìý Reckless killings and ‘shoot on sight’ orders are testament to such attitudes.

Ironically, the beginning of her end started with ordinary students who were not only without any political clout but also without power or political mission. In their demand for the reform of the quota system, they didn’t imagine the possibility of dismantling a 15-year pyramid of power. Ironically, what started as a non-political movement by people with limited power brought an end to one of the most brutal autocratic regimes in recent history.

Hasina took Bangladesh for granted. She might have been overconfident about her magical power to spellbind the nation. When she declared that no one could be more patriotic than her, she thought she was given a full audience. She thought no matter what she did — and whatever she gave to her benefactor state in the region — she would be beyond question. She also probably thought she effectively convinced everyone that no one in the country could have more pain than herself — the pain of loss or sacrifice. For her, the personal tragedy was an effective stopper of any expression of pain or suffering by others for right or wrong reasons. She might have also taken pride in the discourse that she was the most popular one in the country. When the myths of ‘she had no alternative’ and ‘Bangladesh without her was unimaginable’ were propagated, she would have had the greatest sense of satisfaction and security. However, nothing worked for her security in the end.Ìý

Hasina left no stone unturned to have BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami burnt into ashes in her political fire. The top Jamaat leaders were executed or jailed by abusing the judicial system. Khaleda Zia was imprisoned; Tarique Rahman was given the red card of not returning to Bangladesh. Hasina bribed, incentivised and instigated BNP leaders to either leave the party or launch new political parties. A clear 24/7 agenda that the police had in the past 15 years was foiling BNP and Jamaat programmes. Arrests, remands, going from one lawcourt to another and convictions defined the political lives of their office-bearers. The Awami leadership thought that these oppositions which were effectively represented as anti-liberation forces had been destroyed to pieces. It can be noted that Hasina had at least two ministers with the BNP Affairs portfolio. Practically, they spoke more about BNP than their own ministries. They gave free advice to ‘misguided’ and ‘misbehaving’ BNP; they also repeatedly questioned its very existence, as the regime thought that it had broken its political spine.

On the other hand, the regime invested heavily in their own party. The Awami League grew stronger and stronger over the years. The growth was so remarkable that it was hard to find people anywhere — in schools, hospitals, or government offices — who were not supporters of the party.

Ironically, this two-pronged investment amounted to nothing when the regime fell on August 5. BNP has survived the steamroller of oppression and came stronger. If anything, Jamaat seems to have gained more acceptability and popularity, thanks to Hasina’s repression. Hasina banned Jamaat days before her fall, and now her own party can be banned if those in the judiciary were to follow her own rules and formulas.

It is the Awami League which seems to be facing an existential crisis now. The party which was ubiquitous and omnipotent does not have the guts to face the public. It has gone underground, a label that Hasina used for Jamaat. Perhaps, it’s hatching conspiracies from places of hiding, to use Awami terminologies.

The irony that can’t be missed is related to Professor Muhammad Yunus who took over as chief adviser of the interim government when Hasina’s regime fell. She couldn’t stand the Nobel laureate who is respected far and wide. Her reasons for hating him were many. He wanted to launch a political party which she didn’t like. She was also jealous because she thought she deserved the Nobel prize more than him. She also couldn’t accept that someone else could be more respected than her in her Bangladesh. So, she initiated Yunus’ character assassination mission. He was represented as Bangladesh’s enemy who she thought conspired against the construction of the Padma Bridge. He was humiliated in many ways and was about to find himself in Kashimpur jail. When the Padma Bridge was inaugurated, she infamously said that Yunus should be dipped into the water of the river as a punishment for his alleged conspiracy, etc.

Ironically, Professor Yunus has now replaced her as Bangladesh’s ruler. He was refused entry into politics but this time he was invited to lead the country without politics. In his role, he can pay back everything that Hasina showered on him — humiliation, character assassination, false cases and conviction. He can even arrange to dip her into the same river, if he wanted. What an irony!

Despite all such dramatic ironies, Hasina’s fall is not a tragedy, and she is not a tragic hero. This is because she embodies evil with no noteworthy virtue to attract human sympathy. Her story does not remind us of human struggles or sufferings that tragic characters go through. Losing her whole family in 1975 had the material for a tragedy, However, she destroyed it altogether by producing many more tragedies for innumerable people. Even Shakespeare’s lady Macbeth might attract more sympathy than her.

The rise and fall of Hasina as an autocrat have had a positive outcome for the people in Bangladesh and beyond. If the world enacts the rise of Hasinas, it also shows their ironical fall. Her story reinforces the conventional moral that the forces of evil are doomed to fail despite initial prosperity. Some believe that if her rise was orchestrated, her fall was not only destined but somewhat miraculously executed. Killing is the most effective strategy for autocrats, but what can they do when people stop fearing death and embrace it wholeheartedly? What prompted students and other people to present themselves before bullets en masse to topple an autocrat will continue to inspire freedom-loving generations to come.

Those who are going to lead Bangladesh in the coming years should learn by heart that Hasina’s path is not the right path. Her power was an illusion, like all autocratic power; her arrogance was unhuman. But her fall is real, humiliating and unworthy of compassion or sympathy.

Ìý

Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world.