Five things need to be said about the recent change of regime in Bangladesh. Some have—admittedly—been said before but they are, nevertheless, worth repeating.
One: This is terrible news for India. Whatever her faults, Sheikh Hasina was a good friend to India, a secular person who resisted a growing tide of Islamism. It is still not clear what form post-Hasina Bangladesh will take but the portents are far from encouraging. The decision to release the India-baiting Begum Khaleda Zia from jail and the presence of anti-Indian elements among those who may now be in charge do not augur well for India-Bangladesh relations.
Nor does the rise of Islamist movements. In 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman said religion was not enough to hold a nation together. He was talking about Pakistan, of which Bangladesh was then a part, but his words ring true today. It may be too hasty to conclude that Bangladesh’s Hindus are all in mortal danger in the post-Hasina scenario and it is irresponsible of politicians and elements of the Indian media to keep repeating that to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment in India. But equally, it is hard to deny that the safety of Bangladesh’s Hindus is a major concern. In 1971 when the Pakistan army unleashed a genocide on what was then East Pakistan, Hindus bore the brunt of the attacks: many millions of them fled to India as refugees.
Today’s protesters have forgotten their history and blanked out that terrible murderous phase, which preceded the creation of Bangladesh. And so, there is always the danger that Islamists will pick on Hindus. They are the softest targets.
Even if this does not happen—and let us pray that such fears are groundless—Bangladesh’s location means that there are strategic consequences for India. In its East Pakistan avatar, the region offered shelter and assistance to anti-India elements and our secessionists. Even after the creation of independent Bangladesh, whenever anti-India regimes have been in power, the border has become a source of danger for India.
Two: It is foolish and naïve of people, especially those on the Left (or what remains of the Left) to rejoice over the ouster of Sheikh Hasina and to celebrate the victory of a so-called ‘peoples movement’. While Sheikh Hasina had become increasingly autocratic in recent years (see below), she was hardly a blood-thirsty tyrant.
To celebrate the chaos on the streets of Dhaka is to make the same mistake that so many liberals made when, in a fit of ignorant and unrealistic optimism, they gleefully welcomed the chaos of the Arab Spring. In many countries, the Arab Spring led to a rise in Islamist feelings, civil war, suffering, a break-down of law and order and military takeovers.
To cheer for people who pull down statues of Sheikh Mujib and set fire to historical buildings is stupidity of the worst kind. Just because people riot and overthrow a government, they are not necessarily heroes. And the end result is rarely a victory for democracy.
Also read: Sheikh Hasina’s fall will lead to rise of the only organised force in Bangladesh—religion
India is in a dangerous place
Three: All the statistics will show you how many economic strides Bangladesh has made in the last decade. In many ways, its people are more prosperous than citizens of other countries in the sub-continent. Sheikh Hasina must get at least some credit for this.
But ultimately that was not enough. All too often supporters of dictatorial regimes claim that the average person does not care about democracy or liberal freedoms as long as there is prosperity. Events in Bangladesh remind us that this is utter nonsense.
Economic progress alone is not enough to keep the populace happy. We should have learned that lesson from Iran’s experience in the 1970s. Oil revenues and rising prosperity made no difference; people still revolted against the Shah.
We should also remember another lesson from Iran. When an unpopular and undemocratic ruler is overthrown, it does not always mean that freedom and democracy follow. It is hard to argue that the brutal, medieval regime that replaced the Shah was any improvement on his absolute rule.
So always be sceptical of people who say liberal freedoms don’t matter, only prosperity does.
Four: Shaikh Hasina won an overwhelming victory in the last General Election in Bangladesh for the simplest of reasons: the Opposition boycotted the polls. At the time, this seemed like a minor obstacle to her continued progress. After all, went the argument, she had been in charge for so long and the economy had done well so who really cared about the sulking Opposition? In fact, as last week’s events demonstrate, the role of an Opposition is crucial in any democracy.
Any government, intoxicated with its own power and lulled into believing that parliamentary democracy works better when the Opposition is expelled, ignored, arrested or diminished in some way risks the future of parliament democracy itself. Even when a government is popular, democracy needs an Opposition to serve as a conduit for the public’s grievances and unfulfilled desires. Take away the Opposition and you leave the people no choice but to take to the streets. Eventually, it can have the sort of consequences we have just seen in Bangladesh.
Five: South Asia is now a more dangerous place—especially for India and for Indians. Even if you don’t believe the many theories that foreign powers (China, Pakistan or even the US) were behind the turmoil in Dhaka, it is clear that Bangladesh is much less stable than it was just a couple of months ago. And that is dangerous for the whole region.
Consider now, the position of India—Bangladesh is a potential enemy, Pakistan is a declared enemy with a dangerously unstable polity, China is an open enemy which occupies our territory, and Sri Lanka has only just recovered from a major upheaval, which also saw scenes such as ones we have just seen on the streets of Dhaka. And despite India’s attempts to win back our warm relationship with the Maldives (such as inviting the Prime Minister to the swearing-in of our government), there are concerns that the Chinese are increasing their influence in the country. In Nepal, Prime Ministers come and go and India has to constantly remain one step ahead of our critics to maintain the relationship.
It is not a happy situation to be in. So perhaps some of us should stop hailing the bogus ‘people’s revolution’ in Dhaka and think about our own country instead. There is a lot to worry about.
Vir Sanghvi is a print and television journalist, and talk show host. He tweets @virsanghvi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)