If a semblance of normalcy has returned to Bangladesh after a week of violence that claimed 200 lives, including those of security personnel, the credit largely belongs to the country's Supreme Court. The upheaval was triggered by a controversial decision from Sheikh Hasina’s government to reserve 30% of government jobs for the descendants of individuals who participated in the independence movement that reached its fruition in 1971. This policy lacked constitutional and intellectual justification and threatened to create a new privileged class in a society that takes a dim view of hereditary practices. The independence movement was a historic uprising against one of the most brutal genocides witnessed in East Pakistan, as Bangladesh was known then. Those who fought for freedom would never have envisioned their descendants leveraging their sacrifice as a means to gain undue advantage.
While it is true that Hasina herself has benefited from the sacrifices of her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, popularly known by the honorific prefix Bangabandhu, and other family members, using this as a basis for widespread job reservations was politically imprudent. The focus should have remained on merit rather than on lineage. The public's backlash was justified, and Hasina’s defensive rhetoric, suggesting that reservation might be given to those who had aligned with West Pakistan, only aggravated the situation. Consider how inappropriate it would have been if India had granted 30% reservation in civil services to the descendants of freedom fighters. Fortunately, the Supreme Court intervened, reducing the reservation to 5% and allocating 2% to ethnic minorities, transgender individuals, and people with disabilities. This means 93% of government jobs will be based on merit. The court can reassess the necessity of even the 5% reservation for freedom fighters' descendants in the future, once the situation has calmed down to allow for a logical decision.
Sheikh Hasina, the longest-serving prime minister of Bangladesh, cannot be assured of her popularity. Independent observers have cast doubt on her recent electoral victory, attributing it more to election management than genuine grassroots support. Her tactics have been compared to those of the Left Front in West Bengal, which retained power through electoral roll manipulation and booth management until Mamata Banerjee gave it a tit-for-tat. Such strategies do not ensure lasting success. This time, Hasina avoided a significant political misstep only due to the Supreme Court’s intervention and her acceptance of its resolution.
