Western media has a strange record of being very harsh to several leaders of the world at certain phases in time. To give a prominent example, at a time when Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi had her finest hour while leading the country in the difficult times that culminated in the liberation of Bangladesh (of course this was much before the emergency days of 1975-77), the Western media inflicted much unjustified criticism on her efforts which were aimed at stopping Pakistan’s genocidal actions. In more recent times it was Sheikh Hasina who was at the receiving end of highly exaggerated criticism from Western media during her last few difficult months as the longest serving Prime Minister of Bangladesh, something which appears to be continuing even after her ouster.

However those of us living in the immediate neighborhood should be capable of a more nuanced and balanced understanding of recent events as well as the overall legacy of Sheikh Hasina, and her leadership of her country. Whatever some belligerent critics may be saying today, what one can assert with confidence is that when history records the events of these times, it will not be harsh to Sheikh Hasina.

Instead, while it will record some mistakes she made and from which lessons must be learnt, on the whole, it will look at her with sympathy and overall have a positive view of her efforts and struggles. Historians will view with great sympathy a lady who at the age of 27 received the devastating news that her parents, her 10-year-old brother and in fact almost all family members had been murdered in the most cruel way in a coup against her beloved father, loved and respected as Bangabandhu all over the country by tens of millions of people.

She herself had escaped only because she along with a sister was visiting West Germany. It would be difficult for anyone to recover completely from such a traumatic experience. However this brave lady made a courageous effort not just to recover but also to leap into the struggles of her country in very difficult and highrisk situations. After spending some time in India, she went to Bangladesh at a time when hostile forces, including those responsible for the murder of her family members, were still in powerful positions. The political party of her father the Awami League was in a weakened position following hostility and victimization by rulers.

It was in such difficult conditions that she could strengthen the party and lead it to victory in elections for her first tenure as Prime Minister. Again in difficult conditions she could return to election victory later and provide stability to her country for a stretch of almost 15 years. During her time the country could achieve significant development and in respect of some important human development indicators it could emerge much ahead of Pakistan.

It was during the Covid-19 days that the development effort suffered a big setback, partly as a result of the high dependence of the country on garment exports, which reflected a weakness of the economy. Once the economy faltered, problems like unemployment became more glaring and opposition to reservations in jobs for freedom fighters increased. However Western media has not given much attention to some sincere efforts the Hasina government made for redressing such grievances. Instead the Western media has given much more emphasis to her unhelpful attitude against opposition parties and forces.

This writer has been consistently asserting the need for better relations between government and opposition parties, particularly in the context of South Asia. However, in the context of the opposition with which Sheikh Hasina had to deal, we should remember that for many years a significant section of them had consisted of fanatic and fundamentalist violent elements. Several of them had collaborated with Pakistan in its genocidal actions. Some of them have been involved in violence against minorities like Hindus, Buddhists and Christians.

Some of these had been involved with or were close to the forces which supported the murderers of Bangabandhu and other family members of Sheikh Hasina. So if there were problems in relations with such people and forces, these can be understood. This is not to say that better policy and crisis management options were not available. This is also not to say that corruption was not a problem. With better skills at least the more sincere, non-fanatical elements among protesters could have been satisfied with some timely, much needed reforms. Again, it is not that such efforts were not made by the Hasina government. However when a significant, resourceful section of opponents is bent on continuing violence and mischief, then the task of any government in finding timely, satisfactory solutions becomes more difficult. What made the situation much more difficult was the foreign hand regarding which she warned in recent times even in Parliament.

We have not heard the last of this yet and in the course of time it is likely that much more will be revealed just as much more was revealed later in the case of the murder most foul of Bangabandhu and his family members. What we can certainly say even at the present juncture is that the highly exaggerated criticism of Sheikh Hasina is certainly not justified and history will confirm that her record as a leader was much better than what is being stated commonly these days.

(The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071.)