On August 2 of this year, after attending a student-led protest at the Central Shaheed Minar on the Dhaka University campus, I took a rickshaw home in the evening.
During the ride, I struck up a conversation with the rickshaw puller, who seemed to be well over 60. I asked him, “What do you think will happen in the coming days?”
“What else but the resignation of the despot?” he replied confidently. By “despot,” he clearly meant Sheikh Hasina, who was then Bangladesh’s prime minister.
It was surprising to hear, as the student protesters had not yet put forward a demand for Hasina’s resignation. At that time, no one was certain whether such an outcome was even possible. Yet, the rickshaw puller predicted it.
I asked him why he thought so. “Because we’ve reached a breaking point,” he said. “For poor people like us, it has become impossible to survive with the price of basic goods skyrocketing.”
And there it was – his frustration laid bare.
When people are pushed to their limits, when they can no longer afford to feed their families, no amount of political repression can stop them from rising up, as we saw in the days leading up to August 5.
Those outside the country may believe that the mass uprising that eventually ended Hasina’s 15-plus-year rule was solely about the unfair quota system in public services. But that’s far from the truth.
That issue may have been the spark, with the movement gaining momentum after hundreds of protesters were killed. However, at the heart of the unrest was widespread public discontent with the government, fueled by economic hardship, inflation, and the rising cost of necessities.
Most people in Bangladesh, many of whom live hand-to-mouth, do not care much about politics. They certainly have little stake in public service job quotas. What they care about is being able to feed their families, and that was becoming increasingly impossible in Hasina’s later years.
While her government consistently promoted the narrative of Bangladesh achieving self-sufficiency in food production and securing food availability, even official data contradicted this. According to the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS)’s “Food Security Statistics 2023,” released late last year, 21.91 percent of the population was suffering from moderate or severe food insecurity, with 0.83 percent facing severe insecurity.
Additionally, a survey by the South Asian Network on Economic Modelling (SANEM), published in March, found that 70 percent of Bangladeshi households had been forced to change their food habits due to high prices.
Yet the Hasina government, always keen to present a rosy picture of development, resisted criticism.
In a telling incident, a journalist from Prothom Alo, one of Bangladesh’s leading newspapers, quoted a day laborer in March 2023 as saying, “We want the freedom of fish, meat, and rice.” For this, the journalist was swiftly detained by the authorities, exposing the fragility of press freedom under the Hasina regime.
Looking back at Bangladesh’s history, this isn’t the first time food insecurity has led to political upheaval. In Bangladesh, hunger is more than a personal crisis; it is a national reckoning.
The 1943 Bengal famine, though occurring before independence, left a deep scar on the region that would become Bangladesh. Driven by wartime policies and poor management, the famine caused millions of deaths and intensified anti-colonial sentiment, contributing to the political movements that eventually led to the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
In the 1950s and 1960s, East Pakistan – now Bangladesh – suffered from repeated food shortages and economic neglect by the central government in West Pakistan. These crises and the unequal distribution of resources fueled demands for autonomy, ultimately sparking the independence movement. Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan in 1971 after a brutal war.
However, soon after the birth of the new nation, another famine struck in 1974. This famine, caused by flooding, government mismanagement, and global economic instability, led to immense suffering and growing dissatisfaction with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government, contributing to the political instability that culminated in his assassination in 1975.
Food insecurity and economic struggles also played a significant role during the military regime of General Hussain Muhammad Ershad in the 1980s. These issues, combined with demands for the restoration of democracy, united opposition groups and led to mass protests, culminating in Ershad’s resignation in 1990 and the return of democratic governance.
The global food crisis of 2007-2008 also had a significant impact on Bangladesh. The poor were disproportionately affected by rising global food prices, and staples like rice became unaffordable for many. Protests and strikes erupted, highlighting the vulnerability of the population to global economic trends. The unrest occurred during a period of political instability under a military-backed caretaker government.
In each of these instances, food insecurity was not just about hunger. It acted as a driving force for social unrest and political change, often amplifying existing grievances against the government and sparking demands for reform or regime change.
It is fair to say that much of Bangladesh’s political history has been shaped by struggles with food insecurity. However, despite the ousting of Sheikh Hasina, the country’s future remains uncertain.
The interim government, led by Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has so far struggled to restore law and order, and the much-promised reforms seem to be taking longer than expected. Their greatest failure, however, has been their inability to control market prices.
A dozen ripe bananas now cost 160-170 Bangladeshi takas ($1.34-1.42), while a dozen eggs cost 180-190 takas. Most vegetables are priced at over 100 takas per kilogram, and fish and meat have become unaffordable for even the middle class.
If this situation persists, it is not unthinkable that another mass uprising could very well be on the horizon.