Dr Muhammad Yunus conveyed his views to an NDTV interviewer on 6th August, merely two days prior to assuming the Chief Adviser role in the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh. His insights hold significance for the Modi Administration and the populace of India. He stressed the far-reaching implications of destabilizing Bangladesh, resonating across Myanmar, the “Seven Sisters,” West Bengal, and beyond, likening it to a “volcanic eruption everywhere around us.” It can be inferred that he implicitly suggested India as a potential destabilizing force in Bangladesh.
In light of the ongoing political crisis in Bangladesh, attributed in part to India’s exclusive alignment with the Awami League since Bangladesh’s inception, it is pertinent for India to disengage from hegemonic tendencies involving the internal and external affairs of its smaller neighbouring nations. This approach would prevent India from fostering dysfunctional relations with all its immediate neighbours.
It’s important to note that since the Awami League was elected to power with the direct blessings of New Delhi in 2008, there have been no free and fair elections in Bangladesh in the following three rounds of polls in 2014, 2018, and 2024, which the Awami League of Sheikh Hasina won with covert or overt Indian support. One was more blatantly farcical and, hence, illegal than the other. Consequently, the growing unpopularity of the Awami League can be attributed not only to winning elections by massive rigging but also to the corrupt and ruthless nature of the Hasina Administration from 2009 until Hasina’s disgraceful departure from Bangladesh on 5th August due to a mass upsurge.
Those who know Bangladesh intimately also know in the wake of each round of farcical and blatantly rigged elections from 2014 to 2024, Hasina and her party lost popular support in geometric proportion. It is widely believed that at the time of the overthrow of the quasi-fascist, corrupt Hasina regime on August 5th, the support for her regime ranged anywhere between five and ten per cent amidst the massive student and mass unrest. Interestingly, the Modi administration knew Hasina’s waning popularity in Bangladesh. The significant anti-Indian sentiment manifested in a widespread boycott of Indian goods following the contentious “voteless elections” in January 2024 with extensive support from New Delhi.
Hasina’s departure from Bangladesh to India signalled the potential conclusion of the oppressive and corrupt dynastic rule. This development has inflicted more damage upon India than Hasina and her associates, primarily due to India’s ineffective regional foreign policy management. Consequently, India has effectively forfeited its influence in Bangladesh indefinitely, thus imperilling its strategic interests in light of prospective encroachments by China in the region.
Bangladesh’s former foreign minister, Abdul Momen, publicly declared last year that he had sought support from Indian Prime Minister Modi for the Awami League in the upcoming elections, indicating a questionable level of India’s involvement in Bangladesh’s internal affairs. This assertion aligns with former President Pranab Mukherjee’s confirmation of India’s interference in his book, “The Coalition Years.” In a recent interview with the Times of India, BNP leader Goyeshwar Roy expressed discontent with India’s unwavering support of the Awami League.
The ongoing Indian narrative, as articulated by both the Congress and BJP, regarding Bangladesh’s primary political parties, namely the Awami League, BNP, and Jamaat-e-Islami (Jamaat), poses a significant threat to the political stability, economic progress, and social unity in Bangladesh. This narrative is predicated upon baseless allegations, characterizing the BNP-Jamaat alliance as anti-Hindu communal entities with alleged ties to the Pakistani ISI, Taliban, and al Qaeda while positioning the Awami League and its affiliates as liberal and secular advocates for the marginalized Hindu minority within Bangladesh.
Regrettably, this narrative embodies a striking similarity to Goebbelsian propaganda tactics. It’s noteworthy that there exists a significant alignment between the collective narrative of the Indian government, think tanks, and media regarding the challenges faced by Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, which appears to closely mirror the Awami League’s narrative on the same issue. Although sporadic attacks on Hindu minorities in Bangladesh by political goons and opportunistic mobs in the wake of elections leading to Awami’s victory are common, this cannot be a policy guideline for the Indian government towards Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, the law-and-order situation in Bangladesh has significantly improved, reducing the attacks on Hindu minorities. Gobinda Pramanik, the President of the Jatiya Hindu Mahajote (National Hindu Alliance) in the country, publicly stated the following:
- a) Awami League workers attacked Hindus posing as BNP-Jamaat activists.
- b) The attacks on Hindus were politically motivated rather than being driven by communal conflicts against Hasina supporters.
- c) Muslim supporters of Hasina were also not spared from the attacks.
The Modi Administration refrained from expressing condemnation or addressing the plight of Bangladeshi students and civilians who lost their lives in thousands at the hands of Awami police, army, border guards, and party members between mid-July and 4th August. Instead, they regarded it as the “internal affairs” of the country. Conversely, Indian ministers for Home and External Affairs – Amit Shah and Jaishankar, respectively – denounced the attacks on Hindus after the downfall of the Hasina Regime. They issued strong warnings against Bangladesh, urging them to take action against people attacking Hindus. One may wonder if they forgot that attacks on Hindu minorities were also internal affairs of Bangladesh, supposed to be addressed not by India but by the Bangladesh authorities.
The prevailing Indian perspective is unequivocal: the Awami League and some of its “leftist” allies in Bangladesh prioritize liberal democracy, secularism, and friendly relations with India. Conversely, other political parties and their supporters are regarded as being “pro-Pakistani/pro-Chinese or anti-Indian by design”. This stance has effectively justified several advantages gained by India from Bangladesh, such as unequal trade benefits, transit and corridor facilities, and complete control over shared rivers like the Ganges and Teesta, as well as Bangladeshi seaports. Among all the political parties, only the Awami League of Hasina has offered unreserved support to India in exchange for India’s unwavering support of the Hasina regime. However, the situation has reached a critical juncture, necessitating a substantial re-evaluation of India’s Bangladesh policy.
India’s approach to its Bangladesh policy fails to account for the distinct dynamics with its smaller South Asian counterparts such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives. Despite Bangladesh’s lack of military strength and nuclear capabilities comparable to Pakistan, it holds significant strategic importance for New Delhi. The foreign policy under Modi’s leadership, characterized by neocolonial, hegemonic, and intrusive overtones toward Bangladesh until the fall of the Hasina Regime, marked the definitive end of Indian hegemony in the country. The subsequent loss of transit rights through Bangladesh, which could have provided an alternative lifeline for India to connect with its vulnerable Northeast and mitigate the vulnerability of the Siliguri Corridor (“Chicken Neck”), will have far-reaching implications for India. It is plausible that China and America will exert considerable influence over Bangladesh, thus reshaping the regional dynamics.