India, by far the biggest country in Southeast Asia, has suffered another foreign policy debacle. This is one of the worst setbacks regarding its relations with its neighbors. Their puppet regime in Bangladesh, headed by Sheikh Hasina, the worst tyrant in the country of around 180 million people, has fallen with total disgrace and humiliation.
It is equivalent to India’s humiliation because most Bangladeshis see the fallen and illegitimate government of Sheikh Hasina as a regime “of India, by India, and for India.”
The last three rigged and farcical elections testify to this fact. The Bangladesh Awami League (BAL) )-led clique could come to power in Dhaka mainly through India’s naked interference in those so-called elections. Even the international community knows the chronological events of this history. New Delhi knows it better because they, together with their puppets in Bangladesh, planned, masterminded, orchestrated and executed all these events.
This time in 2024, the United States, the leading global power, tried to have a fair election in Bangladesh for different reasons. But New Delhi remained so adamant about installing the Hasina regime once again to power that Washington had to give in to their tremendous pressure.
RAW, the Indian Intelligence Agency, was very much aware that Sheikh Hasina’s popularity sank to the bottom level of the sea. Over a decade ago, they foresaw that the boat was about to sink in the 2014 general election. It was reported that they advised Sheikh Hasina to amend the constitution and repeal the caretaker government system during the election period. Hasina accepted RAW’s assessment and annulled the independent caretaker government system. However, previously, Hasina and her collaborators hinted at holding the next two elections under nonpartisan caretaker governments. The later history of using the judiciary to fulfill Hasina’s ill motives is known to all.
Alas, India could not save her puppet in Bangladesh for even one year after the last scam election. However, had India remained neutral, it would have seen that Hasina was not supposed to come to power in the first place. RAW knew well that the Hasina regime did not have even 20% support among the Bangladeshi people. But New Delhi was confident that since Hasina had an internal Gestapo force consisting of its law-enforcing agencies and murderous students and youth wings, they could keep her in power with their unlimited support.
If one looks back in history, India wanted Bangladesh to be a satellite state from the very beginning.
Shortly before our independence from Pakistan, India forced the provisional government of Bangladesh to sign a 7-Point Secret Treaty with New Delhi, which virtually made Bangladesh a subservient state to India in advance. This treaty was signed in October 1971. Under this treaty, Bangladesh pledged not to have an army of its own and was asked to consult with India when dealing with other countries. After independence, a required number of Indian troops would remain on duty in Bangladesh.
Bangladeshi (then East Pakistani) officers in the administration who did not participate in the liberation war would be sacked after independence, and Indian officers would replace them. To maintain internal security and law and order under control, Bangladesh would have a paramilitary force that paved the way for the creation of much talked about “Rakkhi Bahini.” ( *Ref: Former foreign secretary and then Delhi Mission chief Hmayun Rashid Choudhury’s interview with Masudul Huq, author of the book Bangladesher Swadhinota Andolone Raw & CIA). New Delhi forced the provisional government to sign this treaty. After putting his signature on the document, Syed Nazrul Islam, the acting president of the provisional Bangladesh government, fainted. It is widely believed that Tajuddin Ahmed, the acting Prime Minister of the Bangladesh government in exile, was instrumental in signing the treaty from the Bangladeshi side. He compromised the sovereignty of Bangladesh from the outset.
India never wanted a sovereign Bangladesh that was fully independent of New Delhi. It helped Bangladesh’s independence movement with some ulterior motives.
First, it wanted to dismember Pakistan. Second, it wanted Bangladesh as a satellite state, always subservient to India. Third, it wanted to make Bangladesh a monopolistic market for Indian goods and products. Ultimately, Bangladesh became an economic colony of India instead of Pakistan.
To achieve and maintain its goals and objectives, India needed a long-term puppet regime in Bangladesh. The Hasina-led BAL readily agreed to meet India’s demands even when these went against Bangladesh’s national interests. India wanted to perpetuate power that would allow it to unlimited corruption. Since the regime was answerable only to New Delhi- not to the people of Bangladesh, it served its interests most obediently. Besides the regime, India had some auxiliary forces in the mass media, cultural fields, administration, law enforcement agencies, and defense services. It created a fifth columnist, too.
BAL, with the patronization of its external masters, ruthlessly suppressed the BNP-led main opposition block. Any opposition from the public was termed seditious activities of the “Jamat-BNP” quarter. In doing so, India failed to understand that it made the entire nation, except for the thug Awami Leaguers and their collaborators, its opponents.
BAL could suppress the opposition led by the BNP. But when the activists under the banner of general students came out on the streets, the regime could not find an acceptable excuse. In the meantime, the BNP and all other opposition parties lent their support to the students. The accumulated anger from the more than decade-long oppressions burst into this movement, started and led by the students. Though initially it started against the quota system in the government services, ultimately, it became a one-point demand for the regime’s downfall. Taking lessons from the failures of previous movements, the students took martyr-like pledges to sacrifice their lives to achieve their goals.
When people defy bullets, embrace death and martyrdom, sacrifice life as a duty, and do not move or run away from the spot when comrades beside them are killed, no tyrant can survive. When Abu Sayed embraced martyrdom, Mugdha stepped in, and the spirit and process not only continued, but got further momentum. Bangladesh saw a positive snowball effect of the revolution or mass uprise.
RAW and concerned people failed to foresee the imminent catastrophe. Only a few days before this debacle, Indian diplomats like Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, Veena Sikri and Harsh Vardhan Shringla spoke in favor of the Hasina regime. They analyzed and concluded that Hasina would overcome the situation. They ignored the might of the people’s power in Bangladesh and overestimated their patronization of Hasina and her clique. The whole Indian intelligence and diplomatic circle was befooled at Hasina’s downfall, which happened so quickly. They were aware of Hasina’s extreme unpopularity. But they thought that the shield they created around her was invincible. They could not imagine that this fortress would collapse within days.
It is Hasina’s “don’t care attitude to the people” that brought her downfall with humiliation. Similarly, India had to face humiliation because it did not stop to patronize the tyrant until the mass uprising ousted her.
India could have avoided this debacle if it had not pursued the policy of keeping a totally corrupt puppet government in power in Dhaka with the sole intention that it would serve the unjust interest of New Delhi, sacrificing and compromising its own interests.
It is mainly India that brought Hasina into power through the farcical elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024. India pleads that without its support, the Awami League could not come to power, and in that case, the BNP-led coalition would form the government. It tried to argue that the BNP is an anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani party.
When the BNP was in power, the Pakistani intelligence agency was very much active in Bangladesh, and Dhaka gave shelter to the secessionist leaders of Nagaland and Mizoram. It is a misleading argument. India actively provoked and patronized secessionism in the Chittagong Hill tracts. It invited and gave shelter to thousands of Chakmas. The Chakma rebels got trainning in India and carried out attacks inside Bangladesh frequently. This insurgency became a threat to the sovereignty of Bangladesh. The BNP-led Bangladesh government had to take some countermeasures to thwart this aggression. India forced them to do the needful. It may be mentioned that secessionist movements in some of the “Seven Sisters” states in India have been going on since the independence of India.
India says Bangladesh must consider India’s security concerns. It is particularly concerned about its Seven Sister states. But it must understand that Bangladesh cannot engage in any actions/activities that will antagonize the secessionist rebels of those states. It is India’s problem, and it has to solve it without involving us.
Similarly, we cannot antagonize the People’s Republic of China on the Sikkim issue. It is an issue between China and India. If India wants to avoid the “Chicken’s Neck,” it must use its own territory. It cannot ask Bangladesh to give it rail transit facilities. The proposed transit/corridor facilities might become a security threat for Bangladesh.
Terming the BNP as an anti-Indian party is an absurd supposition. The BNP is not so foolish that it does not understand that it cannot make India an enemy. At the same time, as a patriotic party, it cannot compromise its vital national interests or sovereignty. Only a puppet government can sacrifice national interests to come or stay in power with mighty foreign powers. This does not help in the long run. Protecting national sovereignty is the first and foremost responsibility of any patriotic government.
India, like its agents/puppets in Bangladesh, has always tried to play the minority card against the BNP and like-minded political parties. No one can deny that some Hindus, like Muslims, have become victims of unacceptable attacks by unruly mobs and political workers who were oppressed during the Awami League tyranny. These attacks are not communal in nature. Hindus, like Muslims, were attacked because of their political identity, not their religious beliefs. Instead, it has been found that Hindus have become victims of injustices by the Awami Leaguers. Records indicate that their houses and landed properties, etc., were illegally occupied mostly by the Awami thugs.
India ignored the fact that due to their policies, a section of people in Bangladesh has been branded as fifth-columnists and pro-Indians.
The irony is that the Bhartiya Janata Party, or the BJP, is much more communal than any major Bangladeshi political party. Still, the BJP tries to portray the BNP as a communal party.
After the fall of Sheikh Hasina, India is expected to have understood that it cannot have an obedient and tyrant regime in power in Bangladesh for a long time. Instead of a satellite government, India should be ready to work with a legitimate government that has widespread support among the people. More specifically, relations should be state-to-state, not with any specific party or group. One cannot keep all eggs in the same basket. Interestingly, BAL also kept all its eggs in the same basket, i.e., in New Delhi’s pocket.
The Awami League tried to play with the competing super and regional powers at good times, engaging one against the other. But it could not continue this dangerous game for long. Ultimately, it surrendered to its master, India. But the student-public mass uprising forced not only the regime’s fall but, at the same time, India’s humiliation.
India should understand that the mentality of dominance and subjugation must be abandoned. A win-win situation can be created for both parties if there is a good intention. India is by far the largest country in the region. So, it will enjoy some natural advantages. But India must be careful that its dealings are not seen as monstrous by its neighbors. Bangladesh’s trade deficit with India can be minimized to a large extent. Bangladesh is a market of 170 million people for India. On the other hand, India is a potential market of 1.4 billion people for Bangladesh. What India can earn from exporting 8 items to Bangladesh, Bangladesh can earn the same amount of money exporting only 1 item to India. Even Bangladesh can export finished products to India with Indian raw materials if it can import them at a fair price because the cost of production in Bangladesh is lower. However, the tariff rate must be reasonable.
Till today, both the BJP and the Congress have maintained a hegemonistic attitude toward Bangladesh. A people-to-people relationship between the countries can change this detrimental attitude. In that case, independent and responsible media and civil societies can play a vital role.
A few days ago, The Statesman, a prestigious Indian daily, stated that India should review its policy towards Bangladesh. Some think tanks and influential politicians have changed their tone. Now, everything depends on the South Block. Will the political authority in New Delhi accept the new reality and allow its diplomats to change the course in the right direction?
*Anisur Rahman is a senior journalist now residing in Stockholm, Sweden.
August 30, 2024
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
