The Concerns of a Proximate Neighbour

Sanjay Pulipaka and Paras Ratna

Recently, many Indians witnessed the media space filled with the news of the fall of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government in Bangladesh amidst raging protests. The uninstallation of Sheikh Hasina’s government, sadly, was preceded by considerable loss of human lives.

Since early July, students in Bangladesh protested against reservations/quotas in jobs for the descendants of freedom fighters of the 1971 Liberation War. With police using brutal tactics to contain the demonstrations, the student protests morphed into a larger movement with the single objective of overthrowing Sheikh Hasina’s government. On August 05, in violation of curfew, large numbers of people converged in Dhaka. With the military unwilling to extend support, Sheikh Hasina had to flee the country and landed in India.

There is considerable scepticism in India about political changes in Bangladesh. There is a strong opinion in India that external actors also played a very important role in bringing down Sheikh Hasina’s government. Sheikh Hasina is a good friend of India, and her flight from the country has generated apprehension that Indian interests may be undermined. During Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, Indian insurgent groups did not find a safe haven in Bangladesh, and there was a perception that Dhaka was willing to consider the Indian concerns in its dealings with China. Because of the recent shifts, there is a possibility that China and Pakistan may acquire a bigger footprint in Bangladesh.

However, it should be noted that Delhi’s scepticism about the political shifts in Bangladesh is not merely defined by geopolitical considerations. It has its roots in India’s experience with political movements within the country and its neighbourhood. The policymakers in Delhi have enough experience to recognise that political movements may deploy rights-based rhetoric, but the objective that they wish to achieve can be illiberal. For instance, Kashmiri separatists in India often deployed words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘self-determination’ as their objective. However, for decades, minority communities, such as Hindu pandits, were subjected to unspeakable terrorism in Kashmir. Only after the security situation improved and the demands for self-determination receded into the background was there a tentative opening for minorities to go about their lives without fear. For example, Christians could openly pray at Saint Luke’s church in Srinagar, Kashmir, after three decades in 2021. Similarly, in India’s extended neighbourhood, the Arab Spring started with laudable objectives of freedom and demands for democracy, but it quickly disintegrated and provided space for regressive forces such as ISIS, which has recruits even from India.

Given these experiences, it will be difficult for India to prematurely celebrate political movements in its neighbourhood, such as the student protests in Bangladesh unless they contribute to long-lasting institutional improvements in their political system. In fact, considerable literature points out that regime change following a mass movement does not always lead to the emergence of a robust liberal democracy, which validates India’s cautious approach towards protests in its neighbourhood.

It can be argued that policymakers in India are unnecessarily anxious about Bangladesh’s political trajectory and that an interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus would ensure stability. Even prior to his appointment as the Chief Adviser to the interim government, there was considerable discussion that he may play a bigger political role in the country. Given the lead time Muhammad Yunus had, hopefully, he has a roadmap to surmount significant challenges confronting the country.

The fact that former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country instead of formally stepping down and handing over the reins to an appointed successor indicates significant institutional weakness. Muhammad Yunus is neither heading a robust party nor has substantive experience in running a political party and yet he will have to navigate the institutional vacuum in the political system. Further, Bangladesh’s politics is dotted with multiple actors with diverse agendas. The chief adviser will have to bring these varied groups under a single umbrella for the efficient functioning of the interim administration.

Muhammad Yunus’ initial comments on the law-and-order situation in Bangladesh were disappointing. When asked about the vandalization of symbols of the liberation struggle, he said Sheikh Hasina’s draconian rule had contributed to such violence. Instead of an unqualified condemnation, it was disappointing to see a Noble laureate use a ‘cause-and-effect framework’ to explain violence on the street. However, after taking over as the Chief Adviser of the interim government, Muhammad Yunus stood in pouring rain to lay wreaths at the national memorial to pay tributes to the martyrs of the Liberation War. Earlier, Muhammad Yunus also called for the end of all violence, particularly against minorities.

As an outsider but as a proximate neighbour, India is watching with disquiet the law-and-order situation and growing violence against minorities, which was evident in the Indian External Affairs Minister’s carefully worded statement in Parliament. Given the porous borders and long history of violence against Hindus, Christians and Buddhists in Bangladesh, many in India are worried that the country will have to brace for a wave of persecuted minorities that may flee from Bangladesh. In preparation for such a scenario, the Indian government has constituted a committee of senior officials to monitor the situation on the Indo-Bangladesh Border.

It is true that many liberal democracies have a history of identity-related violence. While there are no perfect democracies, the trajectory of politics should indicate an ambition to emerge as a more perfect nation. Despite scepticism, many in India would want Muhammad Yunus to nudge his country to evolve as a better nation by organizing impartial elections, consolidating democratic institutions, healing wounds, bridging the divides, and leading Bangladesh to emerge as a plural, stable, and inclusive country. Is it a very ambitious agenda for an 84-year-old Nobel laureate? Only time will tell.

*****

Sanjay Pulipaka is the Chairperson of the Politeia Research Foundation, and Paras Ratna is a PhD candidate at the National University of Singapore. The views expressed here are personal.