Its amazing that the two religious nations Pakistan and Bangladesh have been failed states and the one secular country India has made it.
A very clear A/B test which shows mixing governance and religion is a terrible idea. So it is strange that India is now moving towards religion and more importantly we are doing this here in the US?
Bangladesh overtook India in GDP per capita since 2019, so at least by that measure it has been more successful than India.
Of course, that was before the recent crisis. I don’t know what that is going to do to GDP per capita figures, but I’d be surprised if Bangladesh didn’t go backwards as a result of this.
Also, calling Bangladesh a “religious nation” ignores that Sheikh Hasina’s rule was fundamentally secular, even though she never sought to change the religious provisions in the national constitution, she largely governed as if they weren’t there.
Hasina is the worse dictator Bangladesh has ever seen!
Yes she came through a election initially, but quickly converted to a autocrat in matter of few years, after the pillkhana massacre happened.
She murdered 400+ in a matter of week, and intended to continue if the official had not rejected. And in the first week she killed 216+ of which 75% had no political affiliation, and most if them was aged between 17 to 25.
Ershad, the first dictator killed 300+ in span of a year. We don't even know how much she killed in her total regime
> Hasina is the worse dictator Bangladesh has ever seen!
It depends on what your criteria for "worse dictator" is.
Compare a secular dictator who kills many political opponents, but leaves those who don't oppose them politically free to live their lives mostly in peace, to a religious dictator who kills significantly less people, but tries hard to force everyone to follow strict religious law. Some people will say the religious one is worst than the secular one, despite having killed more people.
Or compare a dictator who kills many political opponents, but is tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities so long as they don't politically oppose the regime, to a dictator who kills fewer people overall, but subjects ethnic and religious minorities to harsh (but mostly non-lethal) oppression.
It reminds me of the debate over Bashar al-Assad.
I'd rather be ruled by Sheikh Hasina than Ali Khamenei, even if it somehow turned out that she killed more people than he has.
Given that dozens of her extended family was assassinated on 1 day, Bangladesh started with a high bar for worst dicator. Her recent election was a sham, but she doesn't cross the that bar.
For the protests, my understanding is that most deaths came from rubber bullets and fairly violent fights between police and protestors. The line between protestor and revolutionary was fairly thin. I don't mean to minimize what was clearly a non-democratic act. But, almost every violent riot involves the deaths of 17-25 year olds. That is the primary demographic for all violent acts everywhere. It is grim but not unique. Similarly, political affiliations deliberately difficult to identify.
I know emotions are high, so I'll limit my cynicism.
I hope Bangladesh is able to find a stable & secular democratic alternative.
The students protested an unfair quota system. Protests were met with violence. Government was toppled.
People don’t just rise up. They rise up to combat injustice. You want peace? Don’t push people past their breaking point. When they have legitimate concerns listen to them. When they assemble to shout don’t escalate to violence. Because governments are fragile and rule only so long as the people let them.
Did she went to India because they don't have a presidential plane to go further? Assume she has graft grains stashed in UAE or UK where she has family MP. Would India want to host her long term?
Readit News
A very clear A/B test which shows mixing governance and religion is a terrible idea. So it is strange that India is now moving towards religion and more importantly we are doing this here in the US?
Did Christopher Hitchens teach us nothing?
Of course, that was before the recent crisis. I don’t know what that is going to do to GDP per capita figures, but I’d be surprised if Bangladesh didn’t go backwards as a result of this.
Also, calling Bangladesh a “religious nation” ignores that Sheikh Hasina’s rule was fundamentally secular, even though she never sought to change the religious provisions in the national constitution, she largely governed as if they weren’t there.
Dead Comment
Every leader of independent Bangladesh was an islamist, dictator or both. Sheikh Hasina was the exception.
I hope this transition is peaceful and democratic.But looking at the opposition, I'm not optimistic.
Between Myanmar, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Srilanka....that's a lot of recent instability in the subcontinent.
Hasina is the worse dictator Bangladesh has ever seen!
Yes she came through a election initially, but quickly converted to a autocrat in matter of few years, after the pillkhana massacre happened.
She murdered 400+ in a matter of week, and intended to continue if the official had not rejected. And in the first week she killed 216+ of which 75% had no political affiliation, and most if them was aged between 17 to 25.
Ershad, the first dictator killed 300+ in span of a year. We don't even know how much she killed in her total regime
It depends on what your criteria for "worse dictator" is.
Compare a secular dictator who kills many political opponents, but leaves those who don't oppose them politically free to live their lives mostly in peace, to a religious dictator who kills significantly less people, but tries hard to force everyone to follow strict religious law. Some people will say the religious one is worst than the secular one, despite having killed more people.
Or compare a dictator who kills many political opponents, but is tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities so long as they don't politically oppose the regime, to a dictator who kills fewer people overall, but subjects ethnic and religious minorities to harsh (but mostly non-lethal) oppression.
It reminds me of the debate over Bashar al-Assad.
I'd rather be ruled by Sheikh Hasina than Ali Khamenei, even if it somehow turned out that she killed more people than he has.
For the protests, my understanding is that most deaths came from rubber bullets and fairly violent fights between police and protestors. The line between protestor and revolutionary was fairly thin. I don't mean to minimize what was clearly a non-democratic act. But, almost every violent riot involves the deaths of 17-25 year olds. That is the primary demographic for all violent acts everywhere. It is grim but not unique. Similarly, political affiliations deliberately difficult to identify.
I know emotions are high, so I'll limit my cynicism.
I hope Bangladesh is able to find a stable & secular democratic alternative.
Deleted Comment
Otherwise, going from autocracy to military rule is like hating the frying pan and jumping into the fire.
People don’t just rise up. They rise up to combat injustice. You want peace? Don’t push people past their breaking point. When they have legitimate concerns listen to them. When they assemble to shout don’t escalate to violence. Because governments are fragile and rule only so long as the people let them.