Michael Rubin
Muhammad Yunus is at best a useful idiot for Jamaat-e-Islami and other war criminals; at worst, he is also a pawn for the Chinese. Either way, he today betrays Bangladesh, its traditional secularism, and its minority population. Time is running out for Bangladeshis to choose on their own; whether in Islamabad, Beijing, or New Delhi, the choice may soon be made for them.
When Egyptians poured into the streets in 2011 to demand President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, they sought democracy and opportunity. Mubarak was a dictator, even if he pretended otherwise. Many Egyptians also resented the influence of the military in the country’s economy. Young Egyptians, unemployed and underemployed, did not feel merit mattered and that the state treated them fairly.
When Mubarak resigned, Egyptians hoped for a new beginning. During its decades in opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood had perfected the rhetoric of democracy. They used academics and think tank analysts to launder their image in the West, but behind the scenes, the Muslim Brotherhood was as dictatorial and ideological as ever. “Listen and repeat” was its mantra when young democracy-focused activists attended its meetings. They accepted no discussion. The Muslim Brotherhood activists, who had worked secretly for decades, had an ideological, religious objective, and they did not want democracy to get in its way.
The Muslim Brotherhood rule ended after just a year not simply because Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces, ousted President and Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Mohamed Morsi but because the millions of young people who forced Mubarak’s ouster returned to the streets when they recognised that Morsi had played them for fools. What Western diplomats called a coup, many Egyptians considered a revolution.
There are certain parallels to Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina grew more autocratic during her last 15 years in power. Brute force backfired as she failed to keep quota reform protests from escalating. Muhammad Yunus, the chief adviser of Bangladesh, may not himself be an Islamist, but whether due to ego, naivety, or his own personal animosity toward the Awami League, he provides cover for Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami whose agenda has less to do with democracy than with social transformation.
Here, too, there is a parallel to Iran. A full ten per cent of the Iranian public participated in the 1979 protests against the Shah. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was careful in his interviews prior to his return to Iran to speak the language of democracy. “In the Islamic Republic the rights of the religious minorities are respectfully regarded,” Khomeini told Austrian television on November 6, 1978. Ten days later, he told Britain’s Guardian newspaper, “I don’t want to have the power or the government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power.”
When he returned to Iran less than three months later, it was a different story; he quickly consolidated power, imprisoned or drove many minorities out of the country, imposed an Islamic Republic, and ruled for the next decade as its supreme leader. Iranians today seek democracy but remain trapped under a regime that has little popular legitimacy.
The question now is whether young Bangladeshis and civil society leaders who wanted democracy will instead settle for the terror and dictatorship that Jamaat-e-Islami seeks to impose with the backing, financing, and logistical support of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.
Yunus also tilts to China, selling out Bangladeshi nationalism to the People’s Republic’s predations. Pakistan sold its sovereignty to China. Its much-ballyhooed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor now saddles Pakistan with almost $40 billion in debt Pakistanis can never repay without betraying their own sovereignty. Yunus’ naivete and ego now threaten the same with Bangladesh. This raises another scenario: Grenada.
Grenada won its independence from Great Britain in 1974, but five years later, the communist leader Maurice Bishop ousted its elected prime minister, Sir Eric Gairy, in a coup when Gairy was outside the country. Bishop contracted with Cubans and Algerians to build a new airport capable of accommodating Soviet bombers. This raised the concern of the United States, but Americans simply watched with caution.
What took the conflict in Grenada to the next level was Grenada’s own internal chaos. Many Grenadians grew wary of Bishop’s performance, ultimately leading the communist party’s Central Committee to push him aside and place him under house arrest. His supporters rallied and freed him, but he eventually surrendered to the superior force of the Grenadian armed forces.
The new prime minister, Bernard Coard, was unwilling to take any more chances. An armed forces firing squad executed Bishop and his key supporters on the spot and then ousted Coard as well. The Grenadian army then imposed a shoot-on-sight curfew as Cubans poured into the country to help them consolidate control.
It was in this context that, on October 25, 1983, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US military to invade Grenada to oust the Cuban forces, protect American students on the island, and restore democracy. Freedom House today ranks Grenada as among the world’s most democratic countries, on par with France and Italy and superior to the United States.
Muhammad Yunus is at best a useful idiot for Jamaat-e-Islami and other war criminals; at worst, he is also a pawn for the Chinese. Either way, he today betrays Bangladesh, its traditional secularism, and its minority population.
Bangladeshis now have three choices: They can realise Yunus and Jamaat-e-Islami play them for fools and return to the streets like Egyptians did to make clear that they want democracy, reform, and rule of law. Their goal was never to replace Sheikh Hasina’s increasing secular autocracy with a religious dictatorship. Egyptians have yet to achieve their democracy, but Bangladeshis have a stronger legacy of democracy with which to work.
Alternatively, Bangladesh can go the Grenada route. India may have no choice to intervene. Indians are more reticent than Americans about military intervention, but New Delhi must recognise the choice is no longer conflict or no conflict, but rather a choice between conflict on India’s terms or conflict on China and Pakistan’s terms.
The third choice is to allow Bangladesh to continue down the rabbit hole into radicalisation and terror sponsorship. Heefazat-e-Islam openly seeks to establish Islamic law throughout Bangladesh under the banner, “Bangladesh will become Afghanistan, and we will become Taliban.” In such a case, India must prepare for a perpetual insurgency launched not only from Pakistan but Bangladesh as well.
Time is running out for Bangladeshis to choose on their own; whether in Islamabad, Beijing, or New Delhi, the choice may soon be made for them.
Alternatively, Bangladesh can go the Grenada route. India may have no choice to intervene. Indians are more reticent than Americans about military intervention, but New Delhi must recognise the choice is no longer conflict or no conflict, but rather a choice between conflict on India’s terms or conflict on China and Pakistan’s terms.
The third choice is to allow Bangladesh to continue down the rabbit hole into radicalisation and terror sponsorship. Heefazat-e-Islam openly seeks to establish Islamic law throughout Bangladesh under the banner, “Bangladesh will become Afghanistan, and we will become Taliban.” In such a case, India must prepare for a perpetual insurgency launched not only from Pakistan but Bangladesh as well.
Time is running out for Bangladeshis to choose on their own; whether in Islamabad, Beijing, or New Delhi, the choice may soon be made for them.
Michael Rubin
Senior Fellow