The exit of Sheikh Hasina in response to widespread protests and demonstrations has changed the status quo in Bangladesh. It is to be expected that this development would have implications on India, which shares a 4,000-km border with Bangladesh, including along the strategic North East.
The Sheikh Hasina government had close ties with India and worked to achieve unprecedented synergies in security, connectivity, trade, and people-to-people contacts over the past 15 years. On its part, India invested in Bangladesh’s development, extending $10 billion in soft loans—the largest amount of credit earmarked for any single development partner. All of this has worked to the mutual benefit of both countries. Sheikh Hasina’s government also resuscitated the spirit of 1971, when Indian and Bangladeshi forces jointly liberated the country from a genocidal Pakistani army, and emphasised a secular culture that promoted communal harmony.
Sheikh Hasina’s government oversaw a decade and a half of political stability, high growth, unprecedented development, and an increase in the standard of living that propelled Bangladesh from a least-developed country toward middle-income status. Yet, the government fell in the wake of what appears to have been a popular surge of resentment and a movement for change.
It needs to be clarified that the Sheikh Hasina government did not fall on account of its closeness to India, but due to its reliance on authoritarian rule to retain power, the subversion of democracy, corruption, nepotism, and mismanagement, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine conflict—issues tied to the vagaries of an interdependent international system. Sheikh Hasina’s closeness to India was misinterpreted as the country’s backing for the ills associated with her rule.
Ironically, India would have preferred if the former Bangladesh government had taken a far softer approach to staying in power—one that involved highlighting the positives of Hasina’s rule for gains at the ballot.
Also Read: Backing Sheikh Hasina cost India. She was playing all sides
A challenge for India
In the popular upsurge against Hasina, the protesters seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
A week without law and order or a stable administration, despite the swearing-in of an interim council of advisers, has left only uncertainty in its wake. The wanton destruction of public property, vandalism, looting, and attacks on ousted Awami League cadres and soft targets like minorities do not appear to be the work of students but of shadowy forces that infiltrated the movement. A demoralised police force, which reportedly lost 42 officers to mob violence and retribution, only reluctantly returned to work Monday, having earlier vowed not to unless their safety was guaranteed. The Bangladesh army seems unwilling to take full control, preferring to observe from the sidelines.
The newly appointed Chief Adviser, Nobel laureate Prof Muhammad Yunus, has made sincere appeals for a cessation of violence and a return to order. He has also urged those involved to stop engaging in attacks against beleaguered Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh. But uncertainty remains over where the country is headed and who controls the levers of power—there are reports that the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the radical, pro-Pakistan Jamaat-e-Islami are influential behind the scenes in the new dispensation.
Left with few options, India must make the best of a bad situation. It has to engage with those in power—or those behind power—in Bangladesh.
Also Read: Bangladesh events show chinks in ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy. India has the right to intervene
India’s priorities
India has two core concerns: that Bangladesh’s territory not be used in any manner inimical to its interests, and the safety and protection of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, as conveyed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Chief Adviser Yunus in his congratulatory message.
For both countries, it is important to continue to work on enhancing trade, connectivity, and developmental ties for mutual benefit. India has to make clear that it does not pursue partisan interests and that its priority lies in maintaining close ties with its immediate neighbour.
There is potential to start with the new government on a fresh footing by supporting its key priorities, including the need to restore peace and security and stabilise the economy. Rampant inflation and a foreign exchange crisis were among the underlying issues behind the protests, and the new unelected administration must work swiftly to address some of these concerns to gain a semblance of support among the population.
India could offer to extend rupee loans to allow the interim Bangladesh government to import essential commodities from India and relieve inflationary pressures. It could also undertake certain quick-gestation projects on the ground on a grant basis; invite a broad range of political interlocutors, including student leaders, to India; and work in tandem with partners that enjoy enormous goodwill in Bangladesh, like Japan.
The important point here is that both countries have everything to lose if they pursue a zero-sum game and everything to gain with a win-win approach.
Harsh Vardhan Shringla is former Foreign Secretary of India and Ambassador to USA, Bangladesh and Thailand. He tweets @harshvshringla. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
It can be a good situation. For a country anxious to return to the high growth phase of the pre pandemic period, enmity with India does not help in any way. A major trade partner, source of investments.