Former Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty on the ties between the two countries and the interim government in Bangladesh. The session was moderated by Shubhajit Roy, Diplomatic Affairs Editor
Written by Shubhajit Roy
New Delhi | October 12, 2024
View attachment 71706
This Explained Live event was held on August 30. Since then, the interim government has announced a nine-member commission to review and evaluate the country’s Constitution and recommend necessary reforms. Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Adviser to the government, expressed discomfort at Sheikh Hasina making statements about Bangladesh from India, where she has been since she fled the country amid protests. However, Yunus recently said Dhaka-Delhi relations should be “very close” despite the regime change, saying it would be in the interest of both countries. On the economic front, inflation remains high in Bangladesh.
On what the Sheikh Hasina government meant for Bangladesh
It certainly meant that Bangladesh became one of the fastest-growing economies in Asia. It also had a stable relationship with India. Indian investments were made in Bangladesh, and we developed energy connectivity, railway and transport links. The two economies were increasingly getting integrated to benefit both, and trade grew to almost $18 billion (pre-Covid figures). Bangladeshis also became the largest set of foreign visitors to India.
On the negative side, there were allegations of elections not being free and fair. The other major party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), also boycotted the polls. Then the Jamaat-e-Islami was banned as a political organisation and a party.
Hasina also banned the Jamaat’s student wing, the Islamic Chhatra Shibir. Plus, she instituted the International War Crimes Tribunal, for the Jamaat leaders who were pro-Pakistan in 1971. Those leaders were convicted and hanged; that created bad blood. Then the BNP’s leader
Khaleda Zia was convicted of corruption. Such domestic developments gave the feeling that
Sheikh Hasina was becoming increasingly authoritarian. India had no role to play in those things; they were entirely domestic.
On India’s relationship with the Bangladesh govt under Hasina
India’s problems with the previous BNP-Jamaat government were over security issues and their dalliance with Pakistan’s Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). The BNP has always been a little right-wing and pro-Pakistan. Jamaat, of course, has always been very pro-Pakistan, although they now claim that they are different. The BNP, too, claims they have changed.
But when Sheikh Hasina came to power in 2009, she said they would not allow their soil to be used against Indian security interests. This was something she lived up to. The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) Assam insurgency leaders were handed over to India. She ensured the insurgents’ camps were uprooted and handed over. So on that score, Hasina fulfilled one of our major concerns, of security.
She also realised that on the economic side, it would be best to cooperate fully with India. I remember how Hasina first told me that she needed electricity from India. That is how the project began for connecting the grids. Today, we provide almost 1,200 megawatts. We also planned the Numaligarh refinery pipeline to northern Bangladesh, to provide diesel and petroleum products, which helps our economy by powering boats and other riverine cargo that goes everywhere, as it is a country of rivers.
On the dissatisfaction with the economy, especially among the youth
I think people welcomed the economic growth until the
Ukraine war broke out and the energy and food prices went sky high. Further, Bangladesh’s growth was probably not equitable. The jobs created were insufficient and a younger generation was entering the economy. That’s why the anti-quota agitation came in since quotas blocked employment in the government. Plus, with the elections, the new voters felt that they were not getting a choice. That also added to the rising dissatisfaction.
The quota system started in 1972 after the 1971 War of Liberation. The government then decided to give some preference to those who fought for Bangladesh’s freedom and fixed a quota for them in public jobs. Over the years, once that generation passed on, they demanded that the quota be continued and given to their children, and later to their grandchildren.
The dissent stemmed from the fact that if you include the other quotas for minorities, women, etc., it came to almost 56 per cent. In 2012, an anti-quota movement first began. In 2018, Sheikh Hasina decided to remove the quotas and issued a government order cancelling them, which was challenged by those benefitting from the provision. The High Court then stayed the order and that’s when the agitation began again.
On how the anti-quota agitation grew
I believe the agitation would have stopped after the Supreme Court judgment, which reduced the quota to only 7 per cent. More than 300 people died during those agitations. The protesters returned with a nine-point demand. They wanted the resignation of ministers, the police commissioner, and so on. Now, why they did that is a mystery. And my view is that there were other influences at work there — mostly foreign and some internal. Since Hasina obviously did not agree to sack her ministers they went on a rampage again. And this time, I think, it was a very well-oiled machine backing them.
Why did it turn so political, with the march to Dhaka and demands for the PM’s resignation? That is also a question. I would say that ultimately it was the army that unseated her by saying that, no, we can’t protect you. We will not fire on these protesters.
On whether India saw this coming
Did we know about the things happening in Bangladesh? Of course, we knew. But the question is whether Sheikh Hasina anticipated her downfall. My sense is that she didn’t, maybe if you stay for 15 years in power, then you feel that everything is okay.
On the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus
It comprises different kinds of people. There is a leader of the far-right group Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh. Then there are BNP sympathisers. And then, of course, Professor Yunus is there. He’s a big, internationally-known figure. I would say he’s very anti-Hasina and she has slammed several legal cases against him, for things such as embezzlement. My worry is, will they (different sections) be able to work together? All of them could pull the government in different directions. There are two student leaders in the advisory council and apparently, there are two student appointees in every ministry to oversee what it does. Of course, some indicators are there. For example, Prof Yunus has said we must revive the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). He has also reportedly said that he would want Bangladesh to join The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (
ASEAN). But ultimately, reality will bite. Things are still all over the place. Hindus were also attacked, unfortunately, they are seen as Awami League supporters. In 2001, when the BNP-Jamaat government came to power, the same thing happened.
On Sheikh Hasina’s presence in India
She’s been here before, stayed from 1975 to ’81, when her whole family was murdered as part of a political plot. She’s back again. Does she have a future as a political leader of the Awami League (AL)? I would say we cannot dismiss the possibility that the AL reorganises, they are not a party that will disappear. They will participate in the next elections. Would Hasina then go back? She’ll have to face cases and inquiries, and they might put her in jail. It’s what was done to Khaleda Zia, and revenge politics is very much possible. But will the AL produce a new leader? These are all possibilities. Whether Hasina will continue to stay here, is her choice. I don’t think the government of India is going to push her out.
www.tbsnews.net
www.facebook.com
