Where is Bangladesh headed?

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled her country earlier this month and is currently in a ‘safe house’ in Delhi. Any debate about whether she formally resigned or not is irrelevant as once she fled, she ceased to hold office. Moreover, she has not yet established any government-in-exile.

What made Hasina flee?

There is a notion in India, entertained by some scholars and perhaps the officialdom, that Hasina’s fall is part of a broad ‘destabilization’ scheme by Washington, tracing back to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a previous column, we argued that such events typically have multiple causes.

In the present case, Hasina’s megalomania, and the insulation from reality that such megalomania produces—they reinforce each other—the rampant corruption among her associates, and the economic strain marked by inflation and rising youth unemployment created a condition of vulnerability for her that enabled her political foes and the so-called “foreign hands”—the US and Pakistan, presumably in collaboration—to leverage the situation to their advantage.

It would be historically inaccurate to argue that external forces alone toppled her. Fundamentally, her own megalomania led to her downfall.

Is Bangladesh getting back to normalcy?

It is difficult to say right now. All 639 police stations across the country have resumed work. Many policemen had run away fearing retribution as they had fired on peaceful protesters when ordered by their superiors.

Students were guarding temples and regulating traffic when the traffic police disappeared.

Mohammad Yunus, technically termed the chief adviser in the interim government but in effect the Prime Minister, visited the famous Dakheshwari Temple (on 13 August) and assured the minorities that the government would do its utmost to protect them.

Reliable and up-to-date information on the number of temples subjected to attacks is not available. On 12 August, the Bangladesh National Hindu Alliance said at a press conference in the capital’s National Press Club that 278 temples had been attacked.

Attacks have targeted places associated with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of their nation, including the vandalization of his mausoleum Bangabandhu Bhaban.

Member of India’s Parliament Shashi Tharoor said that the statue depicting the Pakistani army’s surrender in 1971 was destroyed, but a fact-checking report has contradicted his claim.

So when can we get reliable information? Probably after a team of UN experts, sent by UN Human Rights Commissioner Volker Turk, issues its report. Turk and Yunus have discussed this issue, and the interim government deserves credit for allowing the UN experts to enter.

There is speculation that the Bangladesh military might not exert itself to the utmost to prevent violence and thus create a situation so that it can introduce military rule arguing that civilians are incompetent.

As of now, there is not enough evidence to take seriously this scenario. The interim government has stated that it will be there for two years.

What about Hasina’s plans

India has publicly taken the line that Hasina can stay on as long as she likes. However, it might be the case that Delhi is anxious to see her go elsewhere.

Cases have been registered in Dhaka against Hasina, charging her with murder. The Bangladesh National Party (BNP) led by Khalida Zia, Hasina’s bete-noire, is pushing for putting her on trial. Zia was released from prison after Hasina’s fall.

If the cases against Hasina proceed, she will be required to appear in court, and Dhaka may ask Delhi to extradite her, putting the latter in a dilemma. It follows that it is better for India that she soon finds another country prepared to let her stay.

Where can she go?

Washington has canceled her visa and London has denied her asylum.

Did London do it as advised by Washington?

Most probably.

London has explained that a person seeking asylum should stay in the first country she or he lands that is safe.

This argument is rather meretricious.

Suppose Hasina goes to another country from India, and it turns out after a while that she is not safe there, say, after a coup. Will she then qualify for asylum in UK?

Why should the asylum seeker be compelled to stay in the first country she lands in?

A plausible destination is the UAE. India can put in a word. However, there is a complication. Hasina had once testified in a UAE court in a case involving her former son-in-law and she had to surrender her passport before testifying.

It should not be difficult for India to find a country in Africa or Latin America willing to give her asylum. Going to a faraway place might mark the end of her political career.

Her son, Sajeeb Wazed, born in 1971-the year Bangladesh was born-now staying in Washington, who persuaded her to flee, has claimed that she is still Prime Minister, and that she would return to contest the election whenever it is held.

He also put out on X a letter from her claiming that Washington wanted her downfall as she refused to agree to its request to have an airbase at St. Martin’s Island in the Bay of Bengal, close to Cox’s Bazaar.

Washington has not denied seeking a base. It has stated that it had nothing to do with her fall from power.

People aware of the developments then have said that Washington had shown interest in the island even during the time of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. It is possible that Washington might have recently shown interest in having a base in the context of its plans to contain China. However, it does not follow that any government that replaces Hasina’s will agree to a base. Ergo, Washington would not have worked for downfall hoping to get the base.

So what can India do to help stabilize Bangladesh?

India was right in abstaining from commenting in public on the events in the neighboring country.

But the key question is: Did India advise Hasina at any time that she was pursuing a perilous policy by not talking to the agitating students and resorting to force to put down the agitation?

Hasina’s son has now put out that his mother should have talked to the students. We do not know whether India gave Hasina any advice. We shall know when and if the files are declassified.

Meanwhile, there is no reason to believe that any advice was given and if given was rejected.

The Washington Post (on 15 August) carried a story that India advised Washington to lessen its pressure on Hasina, and that the advice was heeded.

The BNP government in the past had chosen to take an unfriendly line with India by giving refuge to insurgents. However, it is rather unlikely that any government in Dhaka can get a stridently anti-India line, given the ‘many-splendored’ relationship between the two countries.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the father and Indira Gandhi the mother of the new nation born in 1971. Were I a Bangladeshi diplomat, I would have followed a non-aligned line between India and China, slightly tilted towards India, given the geopolitical realities.