• Regime Change in Bangladesh
  • Ukraine is on the Back Foot, but for How Long
  • A Waiting Game in Israel
  By Shashi P.B.B. Malla Long-time Bangladesh Prime Minister Flees Weeks of mass protests suddenly culminated in the ousting of the world’s longest-serving prime minister in Bangladesh. It was an absolutely wild ride in Bangladesh lately. Sheikh Hasina’s regime seemed stable right up until it wasn’t. “The aura of invincibility that she and her party created over the past decade and a half crumbled in a matter of hours,” writes political scientist Ali Riaz for the Atlantic Council. [The Nepali dons must be spending many sleepless nights. Rightly so!]. Sheikh Hasina went to bed a week ago on Sunday night, still the world’s longest-serving female prime minister. The next day she fled her own country by helicopter after hundreds of thousands of protesters overran her official compound. Student-led protests first broke out only in June. Students were very angry after the country’s supreme court reinstated a controversial quota system that reserved a portion of government jobs for the descendants of families of people who had fought in the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence from Pakistan (IIN/International Intrigue Newsletter, Aug.7). Until mid-July the street protests continued to simmer with resentment, and now was heated up, meeting an escalating response from Hasina herself. After deriding the protesting students as descendants of “razakars” – pro-Pakistan collaborators – she then:
  • Closed schools and universities
  • Imposed curfews with “shoot on sight” orders
  • Restricted internet and cell services, and
  • Presided over mass areests, while police and pro-government groups killed hundreds and tear-gassed others.
Hasina’s heavy-handed response simply meant that, even after the supreme court pulled a U-turn and dismissed the controversial quota system once and for all, the unrest just morphed to encompass broader grievances against Hasina herself. The protesters now demanded nothing less than her own resignation! Sheikh Hasina, the daughter of Bangladesh’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman , first served as PM from 1996 to 2001 following the end of military rule. Then after a stint in opposition and prison, she returned in 2009 and earned plaudits for economic growth that peaked at 7.9 % percent in 2019. But in the meantime, she also revealed an autocratic streak, curtailing essential freedoms while authorities handed jail sentences to critics like Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus – aka, the ‘banker of the poor’. Hasina then won her latest fourth term earlier this year, but only after the beleaguered opposition had boycotted the electoral process. And all the while, the country’s economy had started to deteriorate while its foreign exchange reserves dwindled. Unknown to participants and observers of the unfolding political drama, the events were inexorably reaching a climax. With a growing cross-section of society openly calling for Hasina’s resignation, record crowds then hit the streets until more clashes left more than 100 people dead on Sunday. Now, there was no stopping the protesters. The die was cast. Then on Monday, protesters stormed Hasina’s palace and she fled in a chopper to neighbouring India. Her army chief then announced her resignation, and coordinated with the country’s president – a mostly ceremonial figure – to meet protester demands, including dissolving parliament and forming a new transitional government. Of course, many Bangladeshis are suspicious of their army getting political – after all, it has a history of coups, and there are questions around its role in Hasina’s departure. But tensions seem to have calmed down now and the crisis to have been mastered. The military has met another protester demand: appointing Hasina critic and Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus to lead the transition government. He returned home from Paris where he had undergone a minor medical procedure. So just like that – in a matter of days, to the astonishment of so-called South Asian pundits – a seemingly permanent fixture on the world stage is now gone, opening up a new political era full of unknowns. “And for the 175 million Bangladeshis, that’s somehow both a daunting and exciting prospect” (IIN). What happens next? The unfolding political drama was riveting in itself. But Bangladesh’s geography and geo-strategic role could have ripple effects beyond its borders:
  • Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest textile exporter, and it’s now spooked its customers, with fat-fashion brand H & M saying it’s “concerned”, while Hula Global is redirecting its orders to India for the rest of the year.
  • Bangladesh sits on the Indo-Pacific chessboard where major powers are openly vying for influence.
So India, China and Russia were quick to congratulate Hasina when she ‘won’ earlier this year, though arguably now tainting each of them with her legacy. But interestingly, the U.S. rebuked her at the time, and China snubbed her during a fundraising visit to Beijing last month, potentially leaving those same great powers best placed for whatever comes next. But since India is the great neighbour surrounding Bangladesh by land, it will surely rebound to play a deciding role. Bangladesh in South Asia The ouster of Bangladesh’s autocratic premier sparked celebrations in Dhaka but alarm in neighbouring India, which had backed Sheikh Hasina to counter rival China and quash Islamist alternatives (AFP/Agence France Press, August 9). Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was among the first to offer his “best wishes” after Bangladesh’s newly sworn-in leader Muhammad Yunus took power last Thursday, saying New Delhi was “committed” to working with Dhaka. But China was also swift to welcome Dhaka’s new rulers, saying it “attaches importance to the development” of relations. With Hasina’s arch rivals in control in Dhaka, India’s support for the old government has come back to bite. “From the point of view of Bangladeshis, India has been on the wrong side for a couple of years now,” said International Crisis Group analyst Thomas Kean. “The Indian government absolutely did not want to see a change in Dhaka, and had made that very clear for years that they didn’t see any alternative to Hasina and [ her party] the Awami League.” India and China, the world’s two most populous nations, are intense rivals competing for strategic influence across South Asia, including in Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. However, only Nepal and Bhutan have a common border with China. Hasina pursued a delicate balancing act, benefitting from support from New Delhi, while maintaining strong relations with Beijing. New Delhi saw a common threat in groups Hasina viewed as rivals and crushed with brutal force, including the key Bangladesh National Party (BNP). “In New Delhi’s view, the BNP and its allies are dangerous Islamist forces that could imnperil Indian interests,” said Michael  Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Washington-based Wilson Center. Indian media warn of the “formidable diplomatic challenge” India now faces. “New Delhi must actively work to limit the damage, and ensure the high stakes in the relationship are protected,” the Indian Express newspaper warned. “This could involve some near-term setbacks.” But Bangladesh’s new leader Yunus has already offered an olive branch. “Although some countries, such as India, backed the ousted prime minister and earned the enmity of the Bangladeshi people as a result, there will be many opportunities to heal these kinds of rifts,” Yunus wrote in The Economist shortly before returning to Bangladesh. [The leaders of the other countries of South Asia were also caught completely unawares. Bangladesh could be an important trading partner for Nepal, but it’s so-called leaders – themselves in terminal decline – have no idea how to move forward]. International Crisis Group’s Kean meanwhile said he believes the nations will put the past aside for pragmatic reasons. “India is Bangladesh’s most important international partner, and there’s no reason that they can’t find a way to move forward from this,” said Kean. “Economic forces will compel them to work together.” Ukraine Despite having launched a notable incursion into south-western Russian Kursk territory last week, Ukraine’s forces are being driven back in the Donbas region. The Economist writes: “Beset by a shortage of weapons and men, Ukraine has steadily lost ground since falling back from Avdiivka in February: a village here, a bungled rotation there,” the magazine writes. “It is now retreating by up to 1 km a day. Fighting has intensified all along the front line.” The picture The Economist conjures up is grim, featuring mobilization problems and in some cases deficient military command. Acknowledging such difficulties in a Foreign Affairs essay, retired Australian Army Maj.Gen. Mick Ryan suggests things aren’t so bad for Kyiv: Russia’s gains have come at a very high cost, Ryan writes, and Moscow’s battlefield momentum appears likely to run out soon. “All in all, the amount of territory seized by Russia since January 2024 adds up to around 360 square miles, an area roughly two-thirds the size of New York City,” Ryan writes. “It is hard to describe these gains as a success when they came at the cost of more than 180,000 Russian casualties, according to Western intelligence estimates .  .  . “Now Moscow’s window of maximum opportunity has almost passed. Over the coming months, as Russian momentum wanes, Ukraine will be preparing, reconstituting, and watching for chances. Success is never certain in war, but Uraine will be better placed in 2025 than it has been this year to liberate territory and to convince Russia that the cost of the war is not “ “But to prevail, Kyiv will have to rebuild its offensive capacity, with a new theory of how to win.” In the meantime, the axiom “fortune favours the bold” was on display last week as Ukrainian forces launched a surprise incursion (or invasion?) several miles into Russian territory. “Some raids have no impact on the course of a war,” writes former US Ambassador to Poland Dan Fried. “Other raids do have strategic impact,” he adds, drawing a comparison between Ukraine’s move and General George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River in December 1776. Washington’s famous gambit revived flagging troop morale and political support at a critical moment in the American Revolutionary War. Ukraine’s raid into the Kursk province of Russia last week, Fried argues, could have a similar effect. Israel Times of Israel senior analyst Haviv Rettig Gur tells American commentator and Middle East specialist Dan Senor. After the recent assassinations of top leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, the region and the world are waiting to see how Iran and its network of proxies will respond. That network includes, most notably, the heavily armed Lebanese militia Hezbollah, which already has been trading cross-border fire with Israel since the Gaza war began. Citizens on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border have been displaced. Assessing the mood in Israel, Gur suggests that while the war in Gaza has become contentious, there appears to be broad support for confronting Hezbollah. Israelis view Iran and its allies as implacably bent on Israel’s destruction, and they want an “exacting of costs” over the displacement of Israelis from the border region, Gur says. One path to avoid a large, multi-party Middle East war involving Iran, its allies, Israel, and possibly the US is for Washington to intensify pressure on Israel and Hamas to reach a ceasefire in Gaza, International Crisis Group President and CEO Comfort Ero writes for Foreign Policy. Such efforts have ramped up and Iran views a Gaza ceasefire as a priority, Al-Monitor reports. A Financial Times’ editorial argues that a Gaza ceasefire “is the only way to prevent escalation.” The paper adds, contrary to some of Gur’s analysis of Israel: “The irony is that Israel, Iran and Hezbollah would all like to avoid a full-blown regional conflict. As the last months have shown, however, they are slowly and dangerously sliding into war.” The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com