"Hasina fled to save herself, destroyed her father."

 Political change in the world has a simple name: revolution. At one time, communists would frequently talk about revolution, whether needed or not. Now, they no longer speak of revolution. The political shifts that occur over time are mostly violent. In these shifts, there are always two sides: one victorious and the other defeated. The victorious side calls it a revolution; the defeated side calls it a conspiracy.

In 1975, a one-party (BAKSAL) government was imposed on the country. There was no provision for government change in the constitution. The constitution stated that any change would be at the will of the President. On August 15, the government changed through a massacre. President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was killed along with his family.

Sheikh Mujib’s government was overthrown at a time when his popularity had plummeted. At one point, Sheikh Mujib was at the peak of popularity, even before coming to power. Such an example is rare in history; but within a few years, such a change occurred that many could not have imagined.

The exact same event repeated five decades later—on August 5, 2024. Surrounded by sycophants and those driven by greed, Sheikh Hasina thought the days would continue like this; but perhaps even 24 hours earlier, she didn’t realize what accumulated public anger over the years could trigger. The military coup in 1975 was unprecedented in our history. Previous military coups during the Pakistan era were bloodless. The coup in 1975 was a bloody military coup. Those who orchestrated it called it a revolution.

Later, the Awami League called it a national and international conspiracy. My simple analysis is that the coup of 1975 was carried out by a discontented faction of the ruling party, with the support of a section of the military.

In 1971, Sheikh Mujib was a leader of the people. In 1975, he was a ruler. In 1971, the Pakistan military tried to suppress the people’s movement and aspirations by capturing him, but they failed. In 1975, the coup was against Sheikh Mujib’s rule. Although there was no direct public participation in that coup, there was public support. Almost every political party outside the ruling party supported the coup of 1975.

Then, in 1990, another political change occurred in our country. There was a wave of emotion and enthusiasm among everyone—we believed we were moving towards democratic rule, away from military rule, whether uniformed or not; but it didn’t take long for that illusion to break. We have seen the continuation of autocracy under the guise of democratic rule.

After the events of January 11 (one-eleven), Sheikh Hasina’s government remained in power continuously from 2009 until August 2024. During this time, three farcical elections were held, or elections were held unilaterally. Sheikh Hasina decided how many seats her party would win and how many seats the opposition would get. We haven’t seen or heard of such a situation anywhere else.

From the beginning of the 1970s, we have seen the rule of one individual in Bangladesh, and even after the so-called democratic transition in 1991, that didn’t change. We continued to see the rule of that individual.

Gradually, the entire country was sacrificed on the altar of personal and familial rule under Khaleda, Hasina, and Khaleda again. Then January 11 disrupted many things. But politicians didn’t learn any lessons from January 11.

In post-January 11 Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina’s government remained in power continuously from 2009 until August 2024. During this time, three farcical elections were held, or elections were held unilaterally. Sheikh Hasina decided how many seats her party would win and how many seats the opposition would get. We haven’t seen or heard of such a situation anywhere else.

One person, her relatives, acquaintances, sycophants, and enforcers—this group was responsible for running the government. People were growing angry against this, but they had no way to express it.

The traditional opposition parties in our country could not do much. They organized many rallies and processions, were attacked, and then retreated. When the student movement against the quota reform, which was essentially an anti-discrimination movement, began, it wasn’t clear that the movement would take such a severe turn.

The strategy the government used to suppress this movement was the strategy of utterly foolish rulers. Sheikh Hasina’s hold on power depended heavily on the police force. But eventually, that defense line broke down. The youth were coming forward, offering their chests to the bullets. Then Sheikh Hasina called in the army. The army decided they would not stand against the people. As a result, Sheikh Hasina’s dream structure collapsed like a house of cards.

The way public anger manifested itself went beyond Sheikh Hasina, the Awami government, and its sycophants, reaching Sheikh Mujib. Sheikh Mujib had gradually prepared the people of this country for independence. His house at Dhanmondi 32, which had become a museum, was turned into a heap of ruins.

For the past 15 years, we’ve seen that every August 15, the road in front of Dhanmondi 32 would be blocked from early morning because the Prime Minister would come to lay flowers at Bangabandhu’s mural. After her tribute, the area would be opened up again. All government employees were forced to come there with banners. Leaders and activists would bring in people from different areas by paying them. There was no public participation in the mourning. This August 15, we saw those same kinds of people, with sticks, bamboo, and wooden staffs, taking over the streets and beating people.

The anger, resentment, and dissatisfaction against Sheikh Hasina, as well as her various tactics to cling to power, had to be paid for by the late Sheikh Mujib. Sheikh Hasina fled to save herself, but she destroyed her father Sheikh Mujib. In this country, the language of protest involves smashing cars, setting fire to opponents’ homes, and beating opponents; but whether the burning of the house at Dhanmondi 32 can be equated with that remains a question that will be raised sooner or later. In 1971, the house saw the flow of public processions; in 1975, it witnessed a bloody coup; and later, it was burned down.

Some will find a sadistic pleasure in standing by the attack, labeling it as an attack against the ‘epitome of fascism’; but this act will leave a small black mark on the recent popular uprising—a fact that many might not want to acknowledge right now for fear of losing popular support.

At the same time, the question has arisen: how logical is it to mourn the assassination of her authoritarian father from five decades ago when those who were mercilessly killed to fulfill daughter Hasina’s power hunger are yet to be forgotten? This introduces a new discourse. There were many flaws in Sheikh Hasina’s politics. Countless people were victims of her ruthless behavior and vindictiveness. This trend of politics needs to end. In recent years, the Awami League spread a lot of hatred against Ziaur Rahman, the founder of the BNP, denying that he was a freedom fighter. This caused pain to many. Naturally, there was bound to be retaliation. It came in the form of an attack on the house at 32 Dhanmondi. Hatred in politics leads to nothing good.