By Nilova Roy Chaudhury
The family of Sheikh Hasina, the longest-serving prime minister of Bangladesh, has been at the forefront of the political life of that country since its creation in 1971, and even earlier. It is a sad reflection on the politics she pursued in the latter half of her tenure that she was forced to quit, at very short notice, and flee the country.
With her departure, the very legacy she sought to safeguard became the first casualty as her opponents vandalised statues and destroyed the monument where her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the man instrumental in the creation of Bangladesh, was murdered, along with 14 other family members. Hasina and her sister Rehana survived assassination because they were abroad.
It is a familiar, yet tragic nevertheless, tale of notions of indispensability of the individual and issues of personal legacy overtaking, with increasing repression, the greater good of the masses, or ‘awam’, which her party, the Awami League, was meant to represent.
Viewing everything in Bangladesh only from her narrow point of view, Hasina increasingly lost touch with the reality that the aspirations of the people, particularly the young generation. For them, livelihood issues and jobs are of much greater importance than the legacy of independence. Anyone opposed to her point of view was the enemy and, ironically, the use of the word ‘Razakar’ (a pejorative term from the dawn of Bangladesh’s independence used for collaborators with the Pakistan army), to describe the youth opposed to her ignited and united them into a movement which she could no longer control. The departure of the elected autocrat which she had become has again thrown the populous nation into turmoil. The just formed interim government, with the respected Nobel Laureate Mohammad Yunus at the helm, has its work cut out to first restore the rule of law and then steer the country towards a genuine, democratically mandated path of development.
The other crucial aspect of the developments that have overtaken Bangladesh is whether the country will retain its broadly secular credentials, or whether fundamentalist forces like the Jamaat-e-Islami will regain their hold over the country. The destruction of monuments and non-Islamic shrines reflects a worrying trend that has overtaken the country as religion increasingly finds significant traction in politics.
India, which had invested most of its political and economic goodwill in the Hasina establishment, finds itself increasingly isolated, with its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy now almost non-existent. Predictably, the BJP-led NDA government’s reaction has been narrow and primarily confined to seeking the welfare of the Hindu community and their assets. As the Indian media escalates these concerns, there is little outrage, or even acknowledgement among them, that minority communities in this country are becoming less than equal.
The Indian government has, on the contrary, repeatedly thwarted any other government’s attempts at criticism of some of its own anti-minority policies and actions as “interference in the internal affairs of India.” In fact, chief ministers of BJP-ruled states routinely pursue “bulldozer” politics, targeted against offenders from minority communities, and even the Prime Minister has publicly made remarks that have caused concern.
The Indian government has chosen to ignore the fact that if today the Jamaat has regained a foothold in Bangladesh, it is in no small measure because of its own perceived Hindu majoritarian agenda. As the largest country in the region, its majoritarian internal agenda sent ripples of unease across the neighbourhood.
Policies and legislation such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) really caught the then friendly governments of Afghanistan and Bangladesh and the Maldives in a difficult bind. Trying to explain to their people why Islam was being demonized with impunity in India, while maintaining close ties with the Indian government, proved very difficult.
India, which was once the most favoured nation among Afghans, became anathema after the CAA and, particularly, once New Delhi refused to help even friends when the Taliban took over power in August 2021. Expounding the benefits of the Hindu way of yoga in the Maldives saw a similar backlash, with a government severely critical of India now in power there. Similarly, for Hasina, associating with a government pursuing policies widely perceived as biased and disrespectful of Muslims, gave the Jamaat leverage to propound the theory that, under Hasina, Islam was in danger.
Inviting neighbouring heads of government for swearing-in ceremonies of the government while arrogantly and deliberately choosing to ignore their sensitivities is not good politics and, certainly, has not advanced India’s much vaunted neighbourhood first policy. Bangladesh under Hasina was India’s closest partner country in the region, but New Delhi chose to look away as she increasingly isolated herself from the majority of people in Bangladesh, feeling secure in the knowledge that her choices were limited.
The spectacular intelligence failure prior to August 5 is just another indication that India’s ‘nationalist’ foreign policy has become so limited and inward looking that it missed all the red flags in the only country in the neighbourhood where it had multifarious assets. It now stands very isolated in a dangerous, unstable neighbourhood and every state, especially along this long land border, will be affected, adversely.
While Hasina awaits permission to move to where she will get refuge, New Delhi needs to introspect and, where possible, effect major course correction by proving its credentials with the people of Bangladesh.
(Nilova Roy Chaudhury is a senior journalist based in New Delhi)