India’s Calculated Move Or Missed Opportunity In Bangladesh? – OpEd

The recent political upheaval in Bangladesh, marked by the unexpected fall of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina after 15 years in power, has been met with conspicuous silence from India. This reticence, while initially puzzling, can be understood through the complex dynamics of Indo-Bangladeshi relations, which hinge on national security and connectivity. However, as India grapples with the rapid developments in Dhaka, it must navigate a delicate balance between maintaining strategic interests and honoring democratic principles.

India’s relationship with Bangladesh has been historically significant, influenced by geographic proximity and shared security concerns. Bangladesh serves as a critical buffer for India’s northeastern states, plagued by insurgencies. Furthermore, connectivity, encompassing physical infrastructure and energy links, has been a cornerstone of bilateral cooperation. Under Hasina’s leadership, these ties have deepened, evidenced by agreements on land boundaries and transit accords, and robust economic interactions.

The sudden political shift in Bangladesh, driven by widespread protests and a military intervention, has left India in a precarious position. For over 24 hours, India refrained from commenting on Hasina’s ouster, a move interpreted by many as a cautious approach to assess the ground reality. This silence, however, risks being perceived as indifference or tacit approval of the undemocratic transition, potentially straining relations with the new leadership and the Bangladeshi populace.

Historically, India has been a steadfast ally of Hasina and her Awami League government. The mutual support was evident in India’s diplomatic backing during controversial elections and the reciprocal cooperation on security and connectivity projects. This long-standing alliance has fostered significant economic ties, with India being Bangladesh’s largest export destination in Asia. The political stability under Hasina’s regime has facilitated these economic and infrastructural collaborations, making her sudden departure a matter of serious concern for New Delhi.

The reticence from India’s side can partly be attributed to the ongoing parliamentary session, where External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar is expected to brief opposition parties and address the Lok Sabha. Additionally, India is likely taking time to understand the implications of the new political landscape in Dhaka, especially given the uncertainty about Hasina’s immediate future and the composition of the interim government.

Prominent observers suggest that India’s silence is a strategic pause to recalibrate its approach to the evolving situation. Former Indian ambassador to Bangladesh, Deb Mukharji, and analyst Smruti S. Pattanaik both highlight the unpredictability of Hasina’s ouster and the need for India to tread cautiously. The Indian government’s next steps will be crucial in maintaining its influence in Bangladesh while adapting to the new political reality.

One of the critical factors in this recalibration is the inclusion of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami in the interim government talks. The BNP’s past governance was marked by strained relations with India, and the inclusion of Jamaat, with its perceived links to Pakistan, adds a layer of complexity. India’s institutional memory of past conflicts and insurgent activities associated with these parties informs its cautious stance.

Despite these challenges, India’s response must reflect a commitment to democratic principles and respect for the will of the Bangladeshi people. Observers like Shafqat Munir from the Bangladesh Centre for Terrorism Research and former Bangladeshi ambassador M Humayun Kabir emphasize the importance of recognizing the popular nature of the movement that led to Hasina’s fall. They argue that India should align with the democratic aspirations of the Bangladeshi populace, just as it did during the 1971 Liberation War.

The path forward for India involves a delicate balancing act. While national security and connectivity remain paramount, New Delhi must address the perceptions of unequal benefits in trade and political access. Prominent Bangladeshi voices, including Debapriya Bhattacharya, underscore the need for equitable treatment in areas like multimodal transport systems, water sharing, and economic investments. By addressing these valid concerns, India can foster a more mutually beneficial relationship with Bangladesh.

Moreover, India must prepare for the potential challenges posed by the new interim government, especially concerning the law and order situation and the protection of minorities. Reports of violence against religious minorities and Awami League supporters highlight the fragile nature of the current political climate. India’s diplomatic engagement should emphasize the importance of safeguarding democratic values and human rights, aligning with the broader aspirations of the Bangladeshi people.

In conclusion, India’s silence on the recent political developments in Bangladesh is a strategic pause, reflecting the complexities of a deeply intertwined bilateral relationship. As the situation unfolds, India must navigate this transition with a balanced approach that honors democratic principles, addresses strategic interests, and fosters equitable bilateral cooperation. This nuanced response will be crucial in maintaining India’s influence and ensuring a stable and prosperous future for both nations.