Hindu Minorities and Current Dhaka regime

The present Bangladesh regime, supported by BNP and Jamaat, is not exactly India friendly; besides it has strong Islamist flavour. Yet to safeguard our interests we need to forge friendly ties with Dhaka. — KK Srivastava

Sheikh Hasina’s fall from power was like writing on the wall. She one the third term through elections that were all show, rigged and boycotted by the opposition. She suppressed dissent, did not allow free expression. No doubt the economy progressed initially but later the growth did not keep pace with expectations of the people; development narrative could not be played as trump card anymore. With three fifth population in working age group, and recovery from Covid shock for the economy being incomplete, civil unrest broke out. Virtually it led to Sheikh Hasina fleeing to India. Important take away; any attempt for an authoritarian regime in a democracy can at best provide temporary domination;  it is pipe dream to hope for an opposition mukt rule. 

It is undeniable that the former PM of Bangladesh aimed at running a secular and modern nation. However, this also meant that she relentlessly pushed her own party’s agenda, while at the same time refusing to engage with other side of the debate. But in actual effect while a substantial population comprises of secular nationalists there are also Muslim citizens who never wanted independent Bangladesh; the latter infact collaborated with Pakistani army.  These people don’t approve of secularist approach of Awami League and think little of the party’s claim of getting an independent nation called Bangladesh. The authoritarian ways of Hasina provided ample fuel to add to the kindling fire to cook the pot of resurgent Ismalist minority and pro Pakistan elements. To tell the truth, Bangladesh society has never recovered from the trauma of partition and remains in a constant stare of anxiety. Now New Delhi has to be worried that these Islamists have joined the ranks of the protestors who ostensibly were the people agitating against the controversial reservation/quota being sought to be introduced by the then government. But there is no denying the fact that after the fleeting of Sheikh Hasina, anti minority (including Hindus) sentiments have caught the imagination of the protestors there. And to further catalyze these sentiments are the two parties – Jamaat and BNP. Incidentally both of them have no pretence of being anywhere close to having any secular credentials. 

In the event Indian government has to actively work to contain the damage from demise of Awami government in our neighbouring country; one of the danger ofcourse – and very substantial at that – is the real precarious state of the Hindus in the country. Inter alsa, this will depend on the fact (to be revealed now) whether our government had developed working relationships with key figures within Bangla opposition – which may be dominating the politics now – since it has a crucial role to play in calming the public anger plus in preventing the communal forces from putting the minority Hindus in peril. If a stable interim government is formed under the leadership of M. Yunus – who himself is not communal – with which a sustaining and friendly relationship is established then India should be able to ensure the safeguarding of Hindu minority and its property and institutions. 

But for this, among other things, New Delhi will have to stop romanticizing the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh, simply because, as we said earlier, that nation itself if deeply divided on writing its own history. The ‘liberation argument – the calling card of Awami league for having the right to lead since Hasina’s father had played a crucial role in creating a new entity called Bangladesh – as even advanced by India is not bought by a substantial – now even more so – chunk of population in that country. India has to swallow its pride and engage with these ‘anti liberation’ forces so that our long term interests (including protecting our minority citizens in Dhaka) are served well. Indeed India hardly gains anything by tying itself down to 1971 narrative. 

However, Bangladesh has a chequered record with interim/caretaker governments, even if it is not new to the idea and practice. Remember, according to Hasina Jamaat-e-Islami is a terrorist organization. And yet it is a legitimate entity in the current regime overseen by M. Yunus, who incidentally has labelled Hasina regime as monstrous. Moreover, it is imperative to recall that India’s experience with the last BHP-Jamaat government was far from being amiable. It is in this background that one has to be little gingerly – and tread with caution - in relation to two main issues: One, protection of Bangladeshi’s Hindu minority and, two, security along the Indo-Bangla border. For, we have enough hostile undercurrents of disapproving Indian regime both within (Jamaat and BNP), and external (China and Pakistan). All of them will be baying for moments to engage in diplomatic and other kinds of, war; it is a huge challenge for India. Jamaat infact is known for having relations with Pakistan. And, to make matters worse, under the present leadership of M. Yunus – who had no love lost with her bête noir Sheikh Hasina – Awami league (with secular credentials and friendly ties with India) would be kept out of the interim government. Jamaat, which is anti Indian and considers India to be a Hindu majoritarian state, has always spewed venom against us. While Hasina regime took care of India’s security interests, resolved the boundary issue, and checked the restive Islamist elements from fanning anti Indian sentiments, now things are on a cauldron. 

In conclusion India should stop bemoaning a potential tilt away from India in present Dhaka regime. Rather we should reach out to the new power barons there and seek to build a consensus about building an environment of cooperation for mutual benefits. While Yunus was jailed by Hasina, friend’s enemy can sometime be our friend – at least under the changed circumstances. We – the govt, policy makers, influencers, public at large, indeed we as a nation – must refrain from painting the present regime as an Islamic takeover that will sink the future of minority Hindus there. Instead, we must open dialogue with the current dispensation and build a matrix of relationship on all fronts – cultural, economic, diplomatic, political… Instead of rhetorical and self destructive words of poison, we must strive to forge better relations.

Share This