Promoting regional organisations should be in India’s larger interest and part of its neighbourhood policy
By Dhananjay Tripathi
Sheikh Hasina was the most powerful political figure in Bangladesh for over a decade. She ruled with an iron hand and dealt firmly with her dissenters. However, the people of Bangladesh, historically known for challenging autocratic regimes and favouring liberation, rose against her. The angry masses remained defiant, resisted the state authorities and compelled Hasina, the daughter of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, to resign from the post of Prime Minister. Understanding the potential consequences of staying in Bangladesh, Hasina left the country and is currently staying in India, and looking for a safe refuge in some country.
In another sudden and dramatic turn of events, Ashraf Ghani, President of Afghanistan in 2021, fled from his country without putting up any challenge to the Taliban. Ghani is currently in the United Arab Emirates. While Ghani was an elected leader of Afghanistan, there were reports of corruption and gross mismanagement of resources that kept the Taliban alive as a militant opposition force.
Similarly, in 2022, Sri Lanka’s political heavyweight, three-time Prime Minister who also held the President post, Mahinda Rajapaksa, had to leave his country. The people of Sri Lanka who once voted for him hit the streets, protesting against his government. Rajapaksa was charged with nepotism, corruption and gross mismanagement of the economy. In Pakistan, the popular Imran Khan is now in jail after he fell from the good books of the Pakistani army.
All these issues were debated vigorously in the region and beyond, but Hasina’s departure from Bangladesh shocked many. Commentators started making remarks that South Asia is in crisis. A few Indian analysts also describe it as a growing challenge for India and a victory for China. Let us examine these questions to understand if South Asia is in political turmoil.
Different Crises
There seems to be a growing sense of public resentment against authoritarian leaders in many South Asian countries. In some, there are involvement of political forces who are opposed to India. However, not all of these movements are popular among the people.
Let’s consider Afghanistan, where the resurgence of the Taliban presents a unique situation unrelated to anti-India sentiments. While the Taliban’s close ties with Pakistan have raised concerns, many in India now do not view it as a direct threat. In reality, Islamabad is more apprehensive about the Taliban than any other country, and India is engaging with them both formally and informally. The return of the Taliban was a significant blow to the United States, as they were unable to decisively defeat this faction even after chasing them out of Kabul in 2001.
The presence of fundamentalist organisations in Bangladesh is not a new revelation; they were always there and most of them are anti-India
Turning to Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa maintained a strong alliance with China, mishandled the economy and offered preferential terms to Chinese companies, acting more like a feudal lord than a democratic leader. Despite being accused of human rights abuses, many in Sri Lanka admired him for ending the civil war. He was a populist leader who, fueled by public support, saw himself as an untouchable political figure. However, the people ultimately held him accountable, and there is no widespread anti-India sentiment in Sri Lanka because of this.
In Pakistan, there was a power struggle between the civilian government and the military leadership. Imran Khan aimed to assert control in a country where the military has significant influence. His efforts to proclaim authority made the Pakistani army uneasy. As a result, he was removed from power, and the army later took steps to prevent his return through elections. Despite his party’s strong performance in a controversial election, they were not able to secure the final victory. It’s important to note that these events are specific to Pakistan and are not related to India. Nevertheless, the complex relationship between India and Pakistan remains a significant issue in South Asia.
What about Bangladesh
Now, turning to Hasina, it is indisputable that she has been closely associated with India. She had previously stayed in the country after her father’s assassination. Hasina was perceived to be close to the Congress and the BJP, and to put it accurately, all these years she was admired by New Delhi. There are numerous historical, political, strategic and economic reasons for this. It is also relevant to highlight that once she had massive public support in Bangladesh.
Hasina cultivated strong relationships with both China and India, especially when facing criticism from the West for allegedly suppressing democracy in Bangladesh. China accounted for 86% of Bangladesh’s military imports, worth more than $2 billion, with the majority of small arms in the country being of Chinese origin. Bangladesh also acquired submarines and F-7BGI aircraft from China. Despite her ties with India, Hasina also adeptly utilised her relationships with China to remain in power in Bangladesh.
Hasina, like other such authoritarian rulers, misjudged her public following, remained insensitive towards the youth and this led to her downfall. Even after widespread protests, she remained unyielding, labelling protestors as traitors and terrorists. This approach in the past allowed her to consolidate power by stifling opposition voices and manipulating state institutions. This time, however, she failed to see the people’s determination and relied on her repressive tactics to crush the protest. This had a reaction and people almost revolted, became uncontrolled and compelled her to resign. There were some anti-India elements in this protest, but again, it is a domestic matter of Bangladesh.
The presence of fundamentalist organisations in Bangladesh is not a new revelation; they were always there, and most of them are anti-India. Moreover, the Hindu community is the largest minority group in Bangladesh, and currently, attacks on them are most unfortunate. Bangladesh was not a matter of concern for the West in 1971, and so it is today. India shares an extensive land border with Bangladesh and uncontrolled violence will have direct ramifications for India and not for China. Thus, it is expected that New Delhi will not be at ease because of the instability in Bangladesh. India, willingly or unwillingly, has to be watchful of political developments in Bangladesh.
Positive Engagement
To conclude, despite being divided into several countries, South Asians have social and cultural commonalities and incidents in one state are likely to have a regional impact. India, the largest country in the region that shares borders with every South Asian country, cannot in any way remain ignorant of the political crisis in the neighbourhood. India is a South Asian power; a big country, and will continue to face some protests in the neighbourhood, but its positive engagement in the region is of critical importance. Also, there are different kinds of crises in South Asian countries, and it should not be read as ‘South Asia in crisis’. Let us hope things will settle down in Bangladesh and we will see an election in the coming days.
Lastly, we need strong regional organisations that can play a constructive role in the region, particularly during crises. Promoting regional organisations should also be in India’s larger interest and must be a part of its South Asia/Neighbourhood policy.
(The author is Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, South Asian University, New Delhi)