The strain in the relationship that lasted for a year between Bangladesh and India seems to have finally been put behind us. As the Tarique Rah man cabinet was sworn in, this direction seemed quite clear. The recent celebration of Bangladesh Independence Day at the Bangladesh High Commission in Delhi removed any festering doubts that had remained. The event was attended by top diplomats like Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, the spokesman of the MEA and the MoS for external affairs. The High Commissioner of Bangladesh gave an extremely warm speech, paying tribute to the recently deceased Assamese cult musician Zubeen Garg and highlighting shared heritage by references to Satyajit Ray, Ritwik Ghatak and, of course, Nazrul and Tagore. This was reciprocated by the Indian minister. There can be no greater evidence of a complete reset. It is nevertheless worth inquiring as to what precisely went wrong over the course of the year and whether the warmth India enjoyed in the past will be completely restored.
Sheikh Hasina was a brutal authoritarian dictator. Though this statement might be obvious to an international audience, it would appear at least slightly perplexing to an Indian audience. It is not that anyone in India considers Hasina as a benevolent democrat. There is a recognition of her dictatorial tendencies on the domestic front, but it is accompanied by the belief that the alternative is and has always been far worse. This is complicated by the fact that Hasina was undoubtedly close to India. It is not simply the case that her government was close to India, but in her person, she had unmistakable personal ties to India. This was across party lines. She got along reasonably well with PM Modi and West Bengal’s CM Mamata Banerjee. She also has a historical relationship with the Gandhi family. After the assassination of Bangabandhu Mujib, PM Indira Gandhi personally ensured she received asylum, and her husband was given a job. Just months before her ouster, she met the Gandhi family during her visit to India, and photos of her warm hugs to Priyan ka, Rahul and Sonia Gandhi were all over the news. It is no wonder, then, that dissidents of her regime suspected her of being an Indian agent, a claim that fortunately does not pass the smell test.
It is because of her close ties with our political elites, perhaps, that Indians did not fully grasp the nature of her regime. Hasina had systematised violence against her op ponents to the extent of having literal detention centres. Her predecessor had engaged in ruthless political violence as well. Tarique Rahman exiled himself to London, not simply on charges of corruption but also on charges of being one of the conspirators in the Dhaka Grenade attack of 2004 at an Awami League rally that left 24 dead and was clearly an assassination attempt on Hasina, who was grievously injured. However, it was Hasina who made violence a part of the state apparatus. These detention centres served as torture centres. Enforced disappearance and extrajudicial murder were par for the course. The Chattra league was given a free run to commit murder in broad daylight, not including the cases of sexual assaults, where its members went unpunished. Biswajit Das, for instance, was not just hacked to death during the day, but his brutal murder was also captured live on television. His body was taken to the hospital by a rickshaw puller. A little over a decade later, the 16-year-old Golam Nafiz, after being shot by police, was similarly captured on camera being taken by a rickshaw puller to the hospital, only to be obstructed in the last critical hours by the Leaguers, which could have potentially saved his life. This became the most powerful image of resistance against Hasina.
For a year, New Delhi failed to recognize the genuine anger that people of Bangladesh felt towards an illegitimate dictator, and Dhaka failed to recognise the genuine concern that Delhi felt on the erosion of civil liberties and violence against dissenters and minorities. Muhammad Yunus undoubtedly proved to be a complete puppet with no moral scruples over releasing convicted Jihadists. The rise of the Jamaat proved to be equally concerning, but this was in part thanks to Hasina’s brutality that the Jamaat was revived. Only a decade before, the same groups and often the very same individuals who participated in the Shahbag protest in hordes (over 100,000 in numbers) for banning Jamaat-e-Islami and giving capital punishment to its leaders who fought for Pakistan in the liberation war.
There is a tendency among Indian commentators to infantilise Bangladeshis by expecting them to be grateful for Indian involvement. This narrative no longer works. The people of Bangladesh fought valiantly, including BNP’s Major Ziaur Rahman, under the inspiration of Sheikh Mujib in the face of a literal genocide. The Indian army helped them enormously and fought alongside, without which a decisive win may not have been possible so soon. Bangladesh now seeks to interact with Delhi on the terms of mutual friendship. New Delhi will have to be wary of any accusations of dominance and handle the current mood cautiously. It would help perhaps by stopping the demonisation and lynching of Bengalis at home, especially in Assam. This can only be done through an emphasis on our common cultural heritage. As the legendary Assamese singer Bhupen Hazarika sang in a song loved across both sides of Bengal- “Epar-oparkon pare Janina/Eki ashabhaloba sha/ Kanna-hashireki bhasha Dukkho-sukherbukermajhe/ ekijontrona (I know not this shore or that shore/ The same hopes, the same love/ The same language of laughter and tears/In the heart of sorrow and joy- the same pain).”
The writer is a columnist with a background in Global Affairs from Kings College London.
