¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

FOR a couple of months, Bangladesh has been making the media headlines. What is happening in this geographically small but strategically important country of 175 million people has created widespread interest.

On August 5, fascist prime minister Sheikh Hasina resigned and fled to India in the face of massive student-people uprising. It was truly a Gen Z-led revolution that overthrew Hasina’s 16-year tyrannical rule. Why did Hasina flee to India? For her, it was the obvious choice as she was India’s string-puppet in Bangladesh. She went back to her mentors. In consequence, relations between Dhaka and Delhi immediately took a dive.

An interim government led by Dr Muhammad Yunus was sworn in on August 8. Yunus is a universally accepted leader, who was urged to take over the helm of Bangladesh to repair and reform the state structures destroyed by Hasina.

The fall of Hasina was a jolt to India. Mandarins in Delhi could not believe that their domesticated pet had fallen. Interestingly, at 9:48 pm on August 8, India’s prime minster Narendra Modi issued a twitter message for Yunus, which reads as follows:

‘My best wishes to professor Muhammad Yunus on the assumption of his new responsibilities. We hope for an early return to normalcy, ensuring the safety and protection of Hindus and all other minority communities. India remains committed to working with Bangladesh to fulfil the shared aspirations of both our peoples for peace, security and development.’

It was an appalling text that the head of government of one country could send to the head of another government. To date, no formal message came from Modi to Yunus. Clearly, the twitter text reflected Delhi’s anguish. In reply, when Yunus called Modi and invited him to visit Bangladesh to see for himself the revolution, Modi declined.

Firstly, diplomatic norm was totally ignored. It was a knee-jerk reaction. Diplomatic practice requires such messages to be sent through diplomatic channel. As both countries have high commissions in Dhaka and Delhi, the text could have been formally sent through either mission.

Secondly, the wording was poor. The text was impersonal, abrupt, devoid of niceties and condescending. One wonders whether Modi is capable of handling twitter and write messages.

Thirdly, he issued a warning to Yunus. He ordered Yunus to ensure safety and protection of the Hindus. To Modi, only the lives of the Hindus mattered. Lives of non-Hindus did not bother him. To him, it was all right if non-Hindus were persecuted. It revealed a sickening frame of mind.

During the immediate post-Hasina days, there was anti-Awami League retribution. It was essentially political in nature and certainly not communal. Yet, Hindu temples and families were guarded by young vigilantes of political parties, including madrassah students. Bangladeshis have proved again its non-communal identity.

India has all through played two cards to prop up the Hasina government: (a) Hindu persecutionÌýand (b) insurgency in seven sisters. Indian propaganda on these narratives is patently false. Yunus said that India had exaggerated the Hindu persecution issue. Yet, the Modi government tried vehemently to internationalise the Hindu persecution story but did not succeed because of lack of Washington’s support.

Hasina cunningly played along to convince Delhi that she needed to stay in power to stop the Hindu persecution and eliminate insurgency. She succeeded in persuading Delhi that other than the Awami League, all other parties in Bangladesh were Islamist.

It is nauseating to see the continuous propaganda war launched by the ‘Godi media’ sitting on the lap of the BJP government. The lies and disinformation presented in theatrical manner are revolting. They pander to the communal prejudice of the Hindu India. These media deliberately ignored the reasons Hasina fell. They never question Hasina’s trampling on democracy, rights violations and massive corruption. Indians seem to have forgotten the communal riots following the destruction of the Babri Mosque in 1992, when more than 2,000 Muslims were butchered. Communal violence is a regular feature in India. People living in glass houses should not throw stones at others.

After Yunus had given the Press Trust of India an interview, these media accused him of conducting ‘megaphone diplomacy’. Yunus as head of the government is the first diplomat of Bangladesh. He did speak openly about some pending issues with India and wanted fair solutions.

There is strong anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh, for which both the Awami League and Delhi are responsible. It is Delhi’s imperialistic policies towards Bangladesh. Indian ministers calling Bangladeshis ‘termites’, ‘insurgents’, ‘hang them with their heads down’, etc fanned anti-India feelings. Delhi established personal ties with Hasina and totally ignored the people of Bangladesh. India also deliberately shunned all other political parties in Bangladesh.

Hasina and her ministers also constantly repeated the narrative that ‘India gave Bangladesh its independence’. The sacrifice of Mukti Bahini was trashed. Minister Abdul Momen said that he had asked Delhi to keep Hasina in power. An election candidate announced that he was India’s nominee. Obaidul Qader said that the Awami League would be in power with Delhi’s help. There are many such utterances from Awami League leaders. Hasina signed agreements with India without any debate in the parliament. All these subservient behaviours of the Hasina government compromised Bangladesh’s sovereignty. Naturally, anti-India sentiments kept growing.

Now that Hasina is in India, what will Delhi do with her? Hasina has no valid travel document. The countries approached to give her sanctuary have regretted. According to the bilateral agreement between Bangladesh and India, she could stay in India for 45 days, which ended on September 20. Delhi is quiet on Hasina’s status.

What are the options for Delhi:

— Give her political asylum. In that case, Dhaka-Delhi relations will be further strained. Many cite the example of Dalai Lama. There is a significant difference. Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader, not accused of crime. Hasina committed criminal offences and is liable to face trial.

— Grant Hasina Indian citizenship. After Mujib’s assassination, Indira Gandhi gave Hasina refuge in Delhi. There are rumours that during that period (1975–1981), Hasina acquired Indian citizenship under a Hindu name.

— Treat her as an illegal immigrant.

— Send her back at Bangladesh’s formal request. There are already loud calls from Bangladesh to bring her back to face trials for the crimes she committed.

— If Hasina finds a place to hide, who will issue her travel document?

— Whatever may be the legal dispensation, Delhi has to choose either Hasina or Bangladesh. Hasina is an impediment in Dhaka-Delhi relations.

Sitting in Delhi, Sheikh Hasina continues to foment trouble in Bangladesh, instructing the Awami League remnants to rise against the interim government. Yunus has asked India that Hasina should keep quiet as it was not helpful. Her son is also talking outrageously and has asked India to ensure quick elections in Bangladesh.

Surprisingly, India is still in a state of denial. It cannot believe that Hasina has been overthrown and has become a fugitive. The hawkish section of Indians wants to teach Bangladesh a lesson for being disobedient. The saner section thinks that Modi needs to recognise the reality and recalibrate its policies towards Bangladesh. Hiding the head in sand and ignoring reality will certainly not help Delhi to improve relations with Dhaka.

Bangladesh wants friendly relations with India. As Yunus has said, ‘We need to work together to improve this relationship, which is now at a low.’ But that has to be on the basis of respect and fairness. The second republic of Bangladesh will not accept a domineering India. Will Delhi change its prism and look positively at Bangladesh as a sovereign equal?

Ìý

Mahmood Hasan is former ambassador and secretary.