The forced ouster of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from power by street agitators earlier this week has many dimensions, internal and external, all of which will be problematic in the near to medium term for Bangladesh itself, for India, and the entire region.
Bangladesh politics has been tumultuous, with Sheikh Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, considered the Father of the Nation, killed in 1975 in a military coup, along with all the members of his family – except Sheikh Hasina and her sister, who happened to be abroad at that time.
Since then, Bangladesh has had a series of military coups until the restoration of civilian rule in 1991. This, however, failed to stabilize the country’s politics because of the unending rivalry between Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League (AL) and Begum Khaled Zia, the widow of former coup leader General Ziaur Rahman, who heads the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
This has deeply polarized Bangladesh politics, making it virtually impossible for proper democratic processes to function. The BNP has not participated in the last two general elections. Khaleda Zia had been under house arrest since 2018 on corruption charges, but was released by the Bangladesh president hours after Hasina’s ouster.
Adding to this complexity of personal rivalry is the presence of radical Islamist forces in the body politic of Bangladesh, such as the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), which is closely linked to the BNP. The JeI believes in an Islamic Bangladesh, unlike the more secular-minded AL.
These radical Islamist elements, which did not participate in the liberation struggle against the Pakistani military in the then East Pakistan, are pro-Pakistan and anti-India by orientation, given India’s role in Bangladesh’s liberation. With the ouster of Sheikh Hasina, her party in political disarray, and the BNP politically revitalized, the JeI and associated Islamist elements will wield much more influence and weaken the more secular-minded forces in the country.
According to reports, the Hindu minority in Bangladesh is already being targeted by radical Islamists. A disquieting sign is the toppling of the statue of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman by vandals in a copycat version of the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad. The residence of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, which had been turned into a museum, has been set on fire, and the former prime minister’s residence vandalized, just like the Sri Lankan mobs did to the premier’s residence in Colombo and the Taliban did to the presidential palace in Kabul after Ashraf Ghani fled.
It bodes ill for the future of democracy in Bangladesh that the AL, the party of Bangladesh’s freedom struggle, was not invited by the army chief to the meeting to discuss the formation of the interim government in Bangladesh. Whether it can renew itself and what role it can play in Bangladesh politics in the future under a new leadership is unclear.
The BNP, the product of a military coup, has doubtful democratic credentials, especially because of its Islamist links. It has in the past supported terrorism and insurgency against India from its soil. When in power it opposed mutually beneficial cooperation with India in developing connectivity and transit links, with the clear objective of denying easier access to India’s northeastern states and impeding their development.
The West, especially the US, cynically sought to put political pressure on Sheikh Hasina on the democracy front, in full knowledge that the alternatives were even less democratic, with more Islamist influence to boot. The US played a role in de-legitimizing Sheikh Hasina’s rule with many of the steps it took, which no doubt indirectly encouraged her overthrow. This is not to say that there was no democracy deficit in Sheikh Hasina’s functioning, but that does not justify external interference, especially if it is selective.
Bangladesh was not invited to the Summit for Democracy in Washington, DC in 2021 to which, ironically, Pakistan was invited. The same year, the US sanctioned Bangladesh’s elite para-military force, the Rapid Action Battalion, for human rights violations. In 2016, the US opposed the trial by the AL government of local pro-Pakistan militias who had collaborated with the Pakistan military in murders and rapes during the liberation struggle.
In 2023, the State Department announced it was taking steps to impose visa restrictions on Bangladeshi individuals responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh. In May 2024, it sanctioned a former Bangladesh army chief for corruption.
Mohammed Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank, who was sentenced to six months in jail for violating labor laws in Bangladesh and had opposed Sheikh Hasina, has now been asked to head the interim government in Bangladesh. He is considered a protégé of the US. The corruption cases against him have been withdrawn by the new dispensation.
The bad blood between Sheikh Hasina and the US has been quite open. The former prime minister went to the extent of recently accusing Washington of seeking to carve a small Christian state out of parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India’s Manipur (where the US has been provocative in its comments on the internal ethnic turmoil there) on the Timor-Leste model. It would be relevant to remember that the US opposed the creation of Bangladesh and militarily threatened India at that time. How much of this legacy has continued to influence US policy towards Sheikh Hasina and the AL is a matter of speculation.
It is clear, however, that US policy on Bangladesh has not been in consonance with the strategic partnership between the India and the US, or the objectives of the Quad group and the Indo-Pacific concept. India’s relations with Bangladesh were a notable success story of India’s neighborhood policy.
India-Bangladesh ties flourished under Sheikh Hasina, with numerous development, connectivity, and transit projects. She eliminated the anti-Indian insurgent groups operating from Bangladesh soil, as well terrorism directed at India by Islamist elements linked to Pakistan. However, she also cultivated ties with China at the same time, with China becoming the country’s biggest defense supplier. Bangladesh was the first country to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, after Pakistan. India has been concerned about China
building a port in Bangladesh as part of the former’s Indian Ocean maritime strategy aimed at increasing its naval presence in the Indian Ocean.
The statements coming out of the US and the UK on the Bangladesh crisis take no note of India’s concerns, especially the security of the Hindu community there. Both countries, especially the US, liberally make statements about the security of minorities in India, but are silent on the issue of minorities in Bangladesh. The UK foreign secretary has called for a UN investigation into the events of recent weeks in Bangladesh, with the seeming intent of internationalizing the developments and targeting Sheikh Hasina on human rights issues.
India is rightfully concerned about the fall-out from the changes in Bangladesh, not only for the Hindu minority, but also because of the potential for the instability to spill over into India’s northeast, already under pressure due to the turmoil in Myanmar. New Delhi will also be concerned about the disruption to Indian projects in the country, especially those of connectivity and transit. With the insurgencies in Myanmar, instability in Bangladesh de-stabilizes India’s neighborhood in the east. India’s Act East policy has also been further disrupted.
In India’s view, both Pakistan and China will gain from the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. Pakistan will have anti-Indian Islamist elements as partners to disturb India-Bangladesh ties in the future. China seems to have distanced itself from Sheikh Hasina lately, judging from reports that during her very recent visit there she was not given a meeting with President Xi Jinping, besides not obtaining the amount of financial assistance she had in mind, which prompted her to cut short her visit. Anti-Indian sentiments in Bangladesh will open more doors for China there.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.