Fixing the neighborhood: Can Bangladesh crisis push India towards a long overdue course correction?

In fast-moving developments, the speed of which took everyone by surprise, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh resigned on 5 August and fled for safety to India. Her resignation followed more than a month of student protest against a policy of prioritizing the children of freedom fighters who participated in the war of liberation against Pakistan in 1971 for government jobs. The students’ agitation, spontaneous and peaceful to begin with, was soon joined by people from all walks of life and turned into a violent countrywide mass upsurge. 

In the subsequent brutal crackdown by the police and armed cadres of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League’s Chhatra (students) League, over 400 people were killed, the majority of them students. There was extensive damage to public property as government buildings, police stations and buses were set on fire. With the police unable to contain the large-scale violence, looting and arson, the army was called in.

Under pressure from junior officers, army chief Gen Waqar uz Zaman conveyed to the PM his refusal to order his troops to fire on fellow citizens. Once he conveyed his inability to ensure her safety, Sheikh Hasina submitted her resignation to President Shahabuddin and availed of an army aircraft to flee.

Amidst continuing widespread violence, the ransacking of the PM’s official residence and the storming of Parliament, the army chief assumed responsibility. The president quickly dissolved Parliament and a caretaker interim government comprising 17 non-political persons was constituted under the leadership of Nobel Laureate Mohammad Yunus. It would be charged with reestablishing the writ of the government, restoring order, reviving the economy and holding free and fair elections. 

Even as this interim government begins this challenging task, the targeted killings of Awami League leaders and workers continues unabated. The violence has also taken a communal turn with attacks on the minority Hindu community and Hindu temples across the country. Attacks on policemen and police stations have led to the strikes by security personnel and has further exacerbated the situation. High ranking officials including the Chief Justice, the Bangladesh central Bank Governor and others have been intimidated by rampaging mobs and forced into resigning. Anarchic conditions prevail in many parts of the country.

Public anger against the Awami League government had risen over the last few years and made her increasingly unpopular. The economy took a serious downturn following the Covid-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine which made essential imports expensive.

Bangladesh depends on the garment export industry and remittances by the diaspora for its foreign exchange earnings and with the slowdown in the West, orders to garment exporters declined. Overcapacity led to retrenchment adding to a growing number of unemployed youth. 

As foreign exchange reserves fell, the street price of the dollar outstripped the official rate of exchange, leading to remittances through unofficial channels putting further pressure on the reserves. Shortfall in revenue, an adverse balance of trade, high inflation, massive unemployment and rampant corruption also led to huge disaffection.

The autocratic authoritarian manner in which Sheikh Hasina functioned made the situation more combustible. In what has been described as a take-no-prisoners approach (practiced by both BNP and the Awami League), she embarked on completely obliterating the opposition political parties. No democratic space to express dissent was allowed and those who did so were jailed or forced into exile. There was no freedom of expression, or of assembly. 

Elections to Parliament in 2014, 2019 and 2024 were boycotted by the opposition in the absence of a level playing field and were widely perceived to be rigged. Her calculation in conducting such farcical elections stemmed from her confidence that the state machinery remained firmly in her grip. 

Sheikh Hasina was also emboldened by the backing of India, and was untroubled by the West’s occasional and cursory noises about human rights, etc. She felt that with the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) crippled, its former prime minister Khaleda Zia in jail and most of its leadership either incarcerated or in exile (including Khaleda Zia’s son and heir Tarique Rahman), there was no party to launch any effective movement against her regime.

The miscalculation seems to have been in misjudging the extent and intensity of public anger. The student movement provided the spark which set her house on fire. 

The Jamaat-e-Islami cadre and BNP workers joined in the melee at this juncture and are perhaps responsible for some, if not most, of the targeted attacks. It would be erroneous, however, to think the movement was planned and orchestrated by the BNP or Jamat or by foreign intervention by China or Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agency. No doubt, Pakistan would be happy with Sheikh Hasina’s departure and the US too would not be unhappy at her ouster, but it is difficult to believe any of the two organized this “coup”. It would be a slap on the face of the Indian establishment if it were so.

Sheikh Hasina has left her own party, the Awami League, a mass-based party, in disarray. Those leaders who were connected to the grassroots are long gone, and those who had potential were sidelined. Her legacy, despite the economic strides made under her leadership, seems besmirched as that of a tyrant. 

The toppling of statues of her father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, known as Bangabandhu (friend of Bengal), is much more than symbolic. Both Mujib and Hasina had tried to uphold the syncretic culture and pluralistic society of Bangladesh and there is no doubt this aspect will see further erosion. Despite this dismal scenario, the party still has an image of fighting for the poor, dispossessed and toiling masses. Its considerable following in rural areas means it does have the potential to bounce back under a fresh leadership.

The students’ movement having started against a quota in government jobs for children of freedom fighters has removed this hallowed lot from their special perch. With the fall of the party that was the torch bearer of the liberation war spirit, the political distinction between who stood where in 1971 has been obliterated by what the students are calling the second war of liberation. The term Razakar (as those supporting the West Pakistan army in 1971 were called) may not be as odious anymore and has in fact acquired a new meaning in the present scenario.

The turn of events represents a setback for India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi conveyed his best wishes to Prof Mohd Yunus on the latter’s assumption of the office of Chief Adviser, at the same time flagging India’s legitimate concern about the safety of the Hindu community in Bangladesh, an emotive political issue. 

Relations between the two countries have been significantly affected by the turn of events and the way the people of the two nations perceive each other. At the moment, perception of India in Bangladesh is negative to say the least. Anti-India sentiment has been high for some time and Delhi’s unqualified support for Sheikh Hasina suggests complicity.

Bangladeshis see India’s hand in her persecuting political opponents who Dehli too considered enemies, and legitimizing repeated, rigged and farcical elections which enabled her to steal peoples’ fundamental rights through authoritarian rule. As an aggrieved party, there have been statements suggesting India needs to take the first steps to reestablish its relationship with the Bangladeshi people, not just with a preferred party or individual.

There is a lot at stake for India in having a friendly and stable neighbor on its eastern border with regard to legitimate security concerns. It doesn’t want Northeastern insurgents finding sanctuary in Bangladesh as they have in the past. Even more significantly, India would be wary of an increasing Chinese presence in a neighboring country. 

There are also economic interests in trade, both in public and private sector investments in projects across different parts of Bangladesh, and in ensuring continued transit links to the Northeastern states on which India’s ‘look East, act East’ policy depends.

Discordant voices have been and will be raised on both sides. Important will be how these are ignored, and how the concerns of either side are conveyed and sorted out privately. While the new dispensation in Dhaka will eventually recognise the win-win outcome of cooperation with Delhi, for the latter this provides a great opportunity for a long-overdue course correction. Preferred parties in its neighborhood cannot always come to power in democratic electoral processes and it is impossible to sustain them in power by non democratic means. One will have to live with whoever people choose. 

In Bangladesh, the time has come to understand not everyone who does not agree with you is an adversary. Relationships will have to be built across the political spectrum in Bangladesh. Only then will India’s interests be secured.

The Advisory Council headed by Prof Yunus faces the daunting task of restoring order, rebuilding the administrative machinery and reestablishing the writ of the state.  It has to revive the economy which is in dire straits. It has to overhaul institutions to ensure rule of law and justice to the aggrieved in the cycle of violence, loot, arson and killings in the last couple of months. It has to effect conciliation in society and politics. Above all it has to achieve all of this to conduct free and fair participative and competitive elections.

The council of 17 non-political members is drawn from various backgrounds: civil society,  NGOs, students, legal professionals, a retired army Brigadier and one former diplomat. Whether they will gel and be able to work cohesively, only time will tell. The presence of Naib Amir of the obscurantist Hefazat-e-Islam does raise eyebrows. The BNP connection with many of the appointees is a potentially troubling factor.

Most do not have any experience in administration but held positions during the BNP’s rule from 2001-2006. There is also opposition to the inclusion of diplomat Supradip Chakma on grounds he served under the outgoing regime. It is therefore hoped that the council will remain neutral in approach as well as execution.

What the council’s relations will be with the army is not known. The time-frame to hold elections has also not been disclosed. One can expect the BNP to push for early elections as its main competitor the Awami League is in disarray, at least for the time being. 

One also hopes that in their enthusiasm to pose as staunch “nationalists” the council will not adopt a confrontationist posture with Delhi. At the same time, if Delhi wants Bangladesh to avoid a lurch to the right, the centrist parties should have the assurance that they will have a responsive partner. That will reduce, if not do away with, its dependence on Islamist forces.