Freedom of Speech, Covert Signaling, and Interference Politics

Indian authorities allowing Bangladesh’s deposed former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s recorded speech to be played at a public seminar held in New Delhi recently has unleashed a predictable storm of protest in Dhaka. Indian media outlets and analysts, interviewed predictably by BBC Bangla, have rushed to Hasina’s defense using platitudes about freedom of speech. But like Bangladesh’s irritation with India bullying her into taking the Rohingya refugees at enormous cost to herself, platitudes about freedom of speech don’t quite cut it.

Allowing Sheikh Hasina to address a political gathering in India raises broader questions of interference with Bangladesh’s internal affairs than mere freedom of speech.

At what point does defending freedom of speech cross over into active interference?

Freedom of Speech or Freedom Fuddery?

India’s argument is simple. India is a secular democracy where people can speak their minds. Therefore, if someone hosts a seminar and Sheikh Hasina’s voice is played there, it has nothing to do with the Indian government.

But of course that’s not true. Freedom of speech is never absolute in any country. When Indian authorities believe someone’s speech can harm India’s national interests, disrupt public order, or relations with another country, they deny visas, permits, or platforms all the time. Especially if the person trying to speak is not an Indian citizen.

To suggest that Indian authorities have no business limiting the activities of a former prime minister accused of being a murderous dictator who stole elections isn’t defending free speech. It’s picking and choosing who you believe deserves free speech protections based on your priors about them.

Did Indian authorities allow Sheikh Hasina’s voice to be broadcast in India because they have nothing to hide? Or because they have something to broadcast?

Oh, Bye Bye Bangladesh!

This isn’t the first time Hasina has used India as a bully pulpit to attack Bangladesh’s democratic process. Normatively speaking, when a deposed head of state uses the soil of another country to attack their successor, the hosting country implicates itself politically. Hospitality ends when a former head of state uses your hospitality to challenge the legitimacy of their successor.

Contextually speaking, this wasn’t the first or even second time Sheikh Hasina spoke about political issues while in exile in India. She didn’t talk about democracy in general or share her innermost feelings on gardening tips. She discussed current politics in Bangladesh and implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the current Bangladeshi administration.

Freedom of Speech, my foot.

India likes stability in Bangladesh. For over a decade now, India has had a “standby” relationship with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League government. Bangladesh was cooperating with India on everything from security to transit facilities. When that administration was removed from power, that reliable stability was suddenly threatened.

Allowing Sheikh Hasina to speak her heart may very well be India signaling both Bangladesh AND Sheikh Hasina that they have options. Remembering her would allow Bangladeshis to know that India can make life difficult for them if they don’t get their act together. Letting Hasina speak reminds Hasina that India remembers her, and can make Bangladesh “remember her” should things continue on their current trajectory.

India isn’t necessarily calling for Hasina’s return. India could very well be hedging its bets. Keeping Sheikh Hasina close keeps their friends close, and Bangladesh independent distant.

Ironically, Indian Liberal Hypocrisy

This won’t be the last time you hear criticism of India for its seemingly selective liberal principles. Speech that is anti-Bangladesh or pro-Bhattacharjee is a fair game, but Muslim professors and activists are regularly harassed, monitored, or silenced with little repercussion in India. India may claim to be secular, but actions speak louder than words, and India's actions towards its own Muslim population have failed to inspire confidence in Dhaka.

Perception isn’t reality, but in international relations, sometimes bad faith is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Did India shoot itself in the foot?

Time will tell whether allowing Sheikh Hasina to speak will hurt India-Bangladesh relations in the long run. If India truly wants long-term goodwill from Bangladeshis, though, catering to the whims of a hugely unpopular strongman from Bangladesh’s past won’t help.

Bangladesh won’t tolerate outsiders interfering with its democratic process. Allowing Sheikh Hasina a platform to speak insults the intelligence of the Bangladeshi people and damages the credibility of Indian claims that they respect Bangladesh’s sovereignty.

Countries outlive individual leaders. Allowing deposed leaders to use your platform to undermine your partners’ current leaders is folly. India may not have been throwing its weight around. It was most certainly putting it on display.