Accepting the realities of Bangladesh

As the situation in Bangladesh unfolds, television anchors and their guests outdoing each other in finding a new angle, a new accusation, or yet another conspiracy theory. True, there is much to be alarmed about, both on the immediate front and in terms of the future trajectory of India-Bangladesh ties. But some realities have to be faced, and acknowledged, so that analysis is grounded in reality rather than rhetoric.

First, the discussion in whether or not India should have welcomed former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina into India should take into consideration that everyone has a right to seek political asylum. Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”. The unfolding violence indicates that if she had stayed, her treatment would have gone far further than just persecution. As a leader who had undoubtedly delivered in terms of bilateral relations, and an often overlooked fact, also delivered to her people – she deserved every courtesy on her arrival. Her reception by the National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, was, therefore, not another ‘proof’ of intelligence collusion, but the courtesy extended to her as was her right. There’s however a cautionary clause which says this right “may not be invoked… in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations”. In short, if she is indicted by Bangladeshi courts for authorising the killing of some 300 plus people who died in the protests, her right of shelter would become questionable, and a problem for India and could complicate matters. At present, Delhi is just riding out the storm, until a quiet and amicable solution can be found.

Second, is the imputation that India was caught by surprise. That hardly seems likely as the bulk of some 9000 students were brought back much earlier in July indicating that the High Commission was keeping a sharp eye on events. Moreover, even the most hardened optimist would have expected trouble after Hasina has just ‘won’ her fourth consecutive term recently, in an election which saw the lowest voter turnout since 1991, with a super majority of 223 in the 300 seat assembly, rising even more with the support of a bevy of independents. That a row was erupting on the issue of quotas was more than evident, and a disastrous decision to let loose the ruling party’s student wing , the Bangladesh Chhatra League, on the protestors in mid-July was clearly a regressive move. Given the traditional strength of students bodies in this history of Bangladesh, from the days of the Bhasha Andolan in 1952 or the freedom struggle in 1971, no embassy would have been sanguine about the immediate future.

Third, is the repeated allegations of foreign interference in the removal of Hasina in the mainstream media. Such allegations diminish the role of the entirely peaceful anti-discrimination student movement, and will hardly win us friends in the country. Besides, two top student leaders Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud, are now part of the interim government and calling for protection of the minorities. A timeline of events also clearly shows that the shift to violence can be laid squarely at the door of the government, rather than a dubious foreign hand. However, the sudden targeting Hindus, liberals and Awami League members seems to indicate a definite direction to the violence. It may be recalled that an “India out’ campaign has taken place earlier, spearheaded by the Jamaat’s student wing Islami Chhatra Shibir, which has traditional close ties with Pakistan. That led to a ban on the whole organisation. Equally obvious has been the antithetical position of the United States, which has made no secret of its dislike of the regime. Whether or not it actually pressed Dhaka for an air base, as alleged obliquely by Hasina is unclear, but her refusal won her accolades from Beijing. Overall however, though the anti-India card is used frequently by opposition leaders in all South Asian countries, the present trends in violence points heavily to a direction from some outside quarters.

Finally, there is the charge that India has lost Bangladesh. True, a government such as Hasina’s may be difficult to replicate, given particularly the family history and their ties to India. But the relationship has gone far beyond such personal loyalties. At the core are a raft of infrastructure initiatives with two more proposed rail links, in addition to the existing five, and the fact that some 100 goods trains run every month, shows a degree of interdependency that any government would be loath to ignore. In addition, are highly concessional loans for thermal power projects, and the successful bid to operate Mongla port. A Free Trade Agreement is in the works that could potentially increase Bangladesh’s trade with India by 297% . The point is that the extensive connectivity projects signed lifts the relationship beyond just a friendship pact with the leaders.

None of this means that the future is not shaky. Chief advisor Muhammad Yunus has a hard task ahead. First to restore peace, using a police force that is hated and seems unable to function; to instill confidence in all, and eventually hold elections that are seen clearly as being fair. The inclusion into the interim government of Khalid Hossain, former vice-president of the far-Right Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh, and Jamaat e Islami sympathisers is not exactly heartening, and it is unclear how these were chosen. Yet there are persons of strong integrity such as a highly decorated retired naval officer, an experienced former foreign secretary, not to mention women’s right activists, and the whole mix could just work. Meanwhile, India can only wait to see which way the wind blows in a new government. What is certain will be the complete exclusion of an entire set of actors linked even distantly with the Awami League. Future indicators could be for instance, whether the Mongla port deal struck recently will go through, providing thereby the lie of the land with regard to outside influence. Then there’s the army. While it has always had a disproportionate role in politics, it has little liking for Right-wing forces, and could actually prove to be a stabilising force for bilateral ties, provided it can shake off the Chinese influence apparent in Beijing’s push to bolster naval ties, a traditional area of India-Bangladesh goodwill. Then there’s a ballooning debt to China that eats up some 31.5% of its revenue. That’s a lot. But the bottom line is that such ups and downs are par for the course in foreign policy. It’s true that there are no permanent friends in international relations, which is why India has been trying to move into a permanent interests mode, for both sides. That’s the way the wind has been blowing for some time. With a little more effort, particularly from Indian industry including defence, the winds can move even more in our favour. All is not lost, especially if the students have their way and get a truly democratic dispensation.

This article is authored by Tara Kartha, director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi.