Illinois State University ISU ReD: Research and eData Theses and Dissertations 7-10-2020 Political Violence In Bangladesh: Explaining The Role Of State Zunaid Almamun Illinois State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Almamun, Zunaid, "Political Violence In Bangladesh: Explaining The Role Of State" (2020). Theses and Dissertations. 1280. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1280 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ISU ReD: Research and eData. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ISU ReD: Research and eData. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN BANGLADESH: EXPLAINING THE ROLE OF STATE ZUNAID ALMAMUN 155 Pages Violence has been an integral part of the politics of Bangladesh since after its independence. The government has used the coercive apparatus of the state in order to confront the political opponents and the dissenters. Irrespective of the type of regime and political parties in power, the state always perpetrated violence against its citizens. On the one hand, the government used the law enforcement agencies, and the specialists of violence relied on coercion against the citizens, on the other hand, various groups appeared as the affiliates of the government in perpetrating violence. However, the nature of violence changed over time, and so did the actors, instruments, and the scopes of violence. Besides, the role of the state towards violence also changed. This thesis explains the violence perpetrated by the state in three phases. The first phase is from 1972 to 1990, the second phase is from 1991 to 2011, and the third phase is from 2012 to 2018. The actors of violence are divided into two groups that are the government agent and the government affiliates. Actors in both of these groups changed during these three phases. The instruments of violence were mostly physical and legal in all these three phases. A new type of instrument has been noticed during the third phase, which is the cyber instrument. With the advent of new technology, the state introduced various types of cyber instruments to perpetrate violence against its targets. The scopes of violence were mostly the political opposition, the press, and the dissenters. The incumbent government frequently relied on coercion to confront the political opposition, alternative political ideology, freedom of the press, and any dissent. A new kind of scope is also noticed during the third phase that is potential dissenters. Unlike the other two phases, the state perpetrated violence against the potential dissenters so that it can silence citizens even before they express their dissension. Therefore, the role of the state towards political violence has also noticeably changed. This thesis explains that the blurring boundary between the state and the government has posed a moral legitimacy crisis to the government. Besides, the opposition political parties have frequently challenged the moral rights of the government to rule the country. The challenges posed at the government were dealt with coercion in every phase. Hence, I argue that the moral legitimacy crisis of the government resulted in the changing role of the state in perpetrating violence against the citizens. The incumbent government has intensified violence through the government agents and government affiliates in order to enforce legitimacy and thus stay in power. KEYWORDS: Political violence; Bangladesh; state approaches POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN BANGLADESH: EXPLAINING THE ROLE OF STATE ZUNAID ALMAMUN A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Politics and Government ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY 2020 © 2020 Zunaid Almamun POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN BANGLADESH: EXPLAINING THE ROLE OF STATE ZUNAID ALMAMUN COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Ali Riaz, Chair Noha Shawki Yusuf Sarfati CONTENTS Page CONTENTS i TABLES iv CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Brief Background of the Violent Politics of Bangladesh 2 Research Questions 7 Methodology 10 Outline of the Chapters 12 CHAPTER II: CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE 14 Literature Review 15 Political Violence in Bangladesh 15 Operationalizing Some Key Concepts 22 Political Violence 22 State 26 Legitimacy 29 Theoretical Framework 31 State and Violence 31 Why State Resorts to Violence 32 i How to Explain the Violence Perpetrated or Supported by State 35 CHAPTER III: UNFOLDING VIOLENCE 42 First Phase (1972-1990) 44 First Period (1972-15 August 1975) 45 Actors and Nature 46 Government Agents 49 Government Affiliates 52 Instruments and Scopes 53 CHAPTER IV: CONTINUING VIOLENCE 60 Second Period (16 August 1975- 06 December 1990) 60 Actors and Nature 61 Government Agents 63 Government Affiliates 65 Instruments and Scopes 66 CHAPTER V: HOPE AND DESPAIR 77 Second Phase (1991-2011) 77 Actors and Nature 78 Government Agents 78 Government Affiliates 80 Instruments and Scopes 82 ii CHAPTER VI: A MORE PREDATORY STATE 91 Third Phase (2012-2018) 91 Actors and Nature 95 Government Agents 96 Government Affiliates 98 Instruments and Scopes 101 CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSION 113 Changes in the Political Landscape 116 Changes in the Nature of Political Violence 117 Changes in the Actors 123 Changes in the Instruments and Scopes 124 Explaining the Changes in the Role of State towards Political Violence 128 Conclusion 130 REFERENCES 133 iii TABLES Table Page 1. State: Monopoly of Violence 40 2. Actors, Instruments, and Targets of Political Violence in Bangladesh 114 iv CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Introduction Why does a state perpetrate violence against its citizens? Why do some citizens of a state keep perpetrating violence against the other citizens in tandem with the state law enforcement agencies? Why does a state even support political violence carried out by the citizens to some extent? If violence is an integral part of politics, then how does the state change its role towards perpetrating violence over the volatile political landscape? These questions are very significant in the context of Bangladesh as violence has been an integral part of the politics of Bangladesh, before and after its independence in 1971. The country was born out of a nine-month-long independence war with Pakistan, which started with a genocide perpetrated by the government of Pakistan. Since independence in 1971, the country has regularly experienced various kinds of political violence in the past five decades. Although the term ‘political violence’ may sound too straight forward, there is no agreed definition in the scholarly literature. There is ample academic debate about what constitutes political violence or what type of violence may be considered as political violence. In this thesis, I define political violence as an organized act of violence through the use of physical force to inflict damage on the target to achieve a certain political aim. I will operationalize the definition of political violence later in the conceptual part, however, among the various types of political violence described by different scholars, Bangladesh has experienced a great deal of them such as genocide, war, social movement, terrorism, political assassinations, armed conflict between political parties, etc. in the last five decades from 1971-2018. Several successful as well as foiled coup d’états, assassinations of high- 1 profile politicians including two presidents, presence of autocratic regime, political upheavals, street agitations testify to the political instability characterized by violence. Therefore, despite the end of the independence war in 1971, political violence did not end in the history of Bangladesh. Brief Background of the Violent Politics of Bangladesh The political history of Bangladesh is marred with the experience of multiple types of government, including civil and military, and various types of political violence. Riaz (2016, p. 1) argues that ‘’[t]o say that the political history of Bangladesh is mercurial and eventful is an understatement”. Bangladesh experienced ‘Populist Authoritarianism’ between 1972 and 1975, ‘Military Dictatorship’ between 1975 and 1990, democratic government with hope and frustration between 1991 and 2013, and hybrid regime since 2014 (Riaz, 2016). The following discussion briefly shows how violence became an integral part of politics in Bangladesh. The independence war of Bangladesh was participated by people from almost all classes, and after the independence war, although a ceremonial arm surrender of the freedom fighters took place in 1972, however, Riaz (2016) argues that it was ‘chiefly of symbolic value.’ Therefore, one of the key challenges to the newly liberated state was to control the potential threat to law and order due to the large supply of weapons at the hands of mass people. Violence became a new normal with the availability of illicit weapons, and it also played a pivotal role in achieving political objectives (Islam, 2011). Additionally, accommodating different political ideologies, particularly a radical fraction of Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) with the aim of ‘scientific socialism’ appeared as a threat 2 to the state as that radical fraction propagated that the independence war is an unfinished revolution and there is way more to go to establish scientific socialism in Bangladesh. Eventually, the radical group formed their own political party named ‘Jatiyo Samajtantrik