When it comes to Bangladesh, it’s difficult to discern whether the underlying issue is rooted in Hinduphobia or is simply a calculated strategy to weaken India.
The recent crisis in Bangladesh underscores the role of external interference and its internal collaborators who have failed to win elections and bring about democratic change. The dramatic ouster of the Awami League government and Sheikh Hasina’s abrupt exit reveal the region’s inherent volatility and fragility to external interference and internal sabotage. Are really street mobs and student agitations without their external supporters? Powerful donor states like the United States, China and EU are averse to independent and democratic leadership. Rather they are at home with dictators and are ready to support religious extremists, even terrorists to serve their own interests.
NEO COLONIALISM AND IDENTITY
Bangladesh separated from Pakistan on the basis of its secular and cultural identity of being Bengali first against the imposition of Urdu. After the assassination of its Father of the Nation, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, who led the Bangladesh freedom struggle, by the pro Pakistan Islamists, brought the debate to the fore, whether Bangladesh is Bengali first or Islamic.
A lot has been written in the book, “The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide”. It is a 2013 book by American journalist and academic Gary J. Bass about “The Blood Telegram”, a State Department dissent memo on American policy during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, sent by Archer Blood, the American Consul General to Dhaka, East Pakistan.
An excerpt from the telegram reads, “Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities…. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy.” This is as relevant today. The fragility of small states and the role of international donor NGOs are terribly suspect. The same alliance that was blamed for the genocide in 1971 are the major suspects—Pakistan ISI, the US and China.
On 25 March 1971, the Pakistan Army launched a crackdown on East Pakistan and started the 1971 Hinduphobic, anti-Bengali Bangladesh genocide. Archer Blood was then the US consul general in Dhaka, East Pakistan. The staff at the US consulate in Dhaka were “horrified” by the violence and asked Washington, D.C. to intervene. Blood later described the response from Washington as “deafening” silence. Then Blood and his staff created a dissent cable, the Blood Telegram. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did not intervene because they were trying to use Pakistan to open diplomatic relations with China.
Internal strife over various issues, as seen in many countries, escalated in Bangladesh to an alarming and violent degree, raising serious concerns about the role of external actors, both governmental and non-governmental. A notable aspect of most analyses is their definitive tone, often excluding the possibility of foreign involvement. However, as Indian Foreign Minister Dr S. Jaishankar aptly stated, “It is too early to rule in or rule out anything.” While some reports suggest state actors like China, the US, or Pakistan might have a stake in the situation, it’s crucial to consider other entities as well, including Islamist terrorist groups and international organizations advocating their versions of “democracy.” Dismissing such reports as Islamophobic or illiberal is dangerously simplistic, akin to a pigeon closing its eyes to a cat, believing that ignoring the threat will make it disappear. A few reports have come out that note the activities of Pinaki Bhattacharya, a Tablighi Jamaat-influenced convert who has actively contributed to perpetuating anti-India sentiment in recent months.
LESSONS AND LEARNINGS FOR INDIA
PM Modi’s “Neighbourhood First” initiative, which began with the heads of all SAARC countries invited to his swearing-in ceremony in 2014, was a remarkable gesture promoting amity and good neighbourliness. While regional relations may not entirely hinge on India’s efforts, as domestic factors in neighbouring countries play a significant role, a troubling commonality has emerged—the “India Out” campaign, a pernicious propaganda effort funded and fuelled by India’s adversaries.
The Hindu minority in Bangladesh is now confronting the harsh reality that the so-called “peaceful transition” or “victory of the people” was more complex than portrayed. India’s global criticism over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which offered expedited citizenship to regional minorities, appears short-sighted in the light of recent events. The same critics who once denounced the CAA have fallen silent as the foresight of such policy initiatives becomes evident.
When it comes to Bangladesh, it’s difficult to discern whether the underlying issue is rooted in Hinduphobia or is simply a calculated strategy to weaken India. However, what is clear is that India’s growth—economically, politically, and geopolitically—will hinge on maintaining strong relations within the region. India faces a catch-22: Should it deeply engage with its neighbours to prevent situations like the current one in Bangladesh, or should it remain distant and allow these nations to resolve their own issues?
Both options come with significant risks. Engaging too much could result in India being perceived as an overbearing “big brother,” inadvertently fuelling anti-India sentiments and empowering anti-India groups. On the other hand, staying on the sidelines could lead to a loss of influence, leaving India vulnerable and isolated as regional dynamics shift.
It has been said that President Vladimir Putin had forewarned PM Modi last year about Bangladesh. Fake news, Woke propaganda with donor NGOs and their bosses bring about a restoration of democracy through manipulated street mobs and violence to illegally overthrow a legally elected government. Once again the history of 1971 repeats itself. The deep state with Islamists and their international NGO donors have made a regime change through undemocratic means, On 15 December 2023, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, suddenly stated in a press briefing that if Sheikh Hasina’s government comes to power in Bangladesh’s upcoming election, the United States will use all its powers to overthrow her government. By “all its powers,” the Russian spokesperson meant that the United States will create a scenario similar to the “Arab Spring.” This “Arab Spring” would involve using university, college, and school students. This is a way of manufacturing democracy where there is none but just the opposite.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.