Bangladesh appears at the cusp of far-reaching
irreversible changes that may negatively impact not only its people but the
entire region. Democracy, peace, security, rule of law and accelerated economic
progress, that it had experienced in the recent years, appear increasingly
improbable in the foreseeable future. Current turmoil and uncertainty have had a spill over impact even on India.
INDIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AT FUENRAL OF KHALEDA ZIA
Amidst
sustained killings of Hindus and vandalization of their homes, temples and
businesses, alongside provocative statements by the Caretaker
regime of Bangladesh, India displayed a calm, warm and friendly gesture by sending the
External Affairs Minister to attend the funeral of former Prime Minister
Khaleda Zia. The Media showed the EAM handing over the letter of condolence
from Prime Minister Modi to Tarique Rahman, son of deceased BNP leader. Rahman has
recently returned to the country, following 17 years of self-imposed
exile to evade a volley of legal cases initiated under the previous caretaker regime during 2007-08 and Sheikh Hasina Govt subsequently.
Some
critics of the Indian government have mis-interpreted the India's gesture as over-pragmatism, showing India's willingness to deal with whosoever comes to power
in Bangladesh through whatsoever means. Some point to partisan interests
like 25-year Power Purchase Agreement between an Indian corporate entity and Bangladesh Power Development Corporation among multiple issues at
stake.
But in death of any statesperson, including opponents, generosity and
graciousness are hallmarks of the
highest level of maturity in statecraft.
CONSISTENT ANTI-INDIA POSITION OF KHALEDA ZIA
Khaleda
Zia was known for her consistently strident anti-India position. She had
opposed almost everything that could have fostered better India-Bangladesh
ties. This included renewal of 1972 India-Bangladesh friendship Treaty, India's
1975 Farakka barrage project or India-Bangladesh land connectivity or Indian concerns on illegal immigration as well as sanctuary for North-East Indian insurgents in Bangladesh, amongst
several issues. Yet she received warm attention of successive Indian
Governments and many of her party associates enjoyed good ties in India.
During
her rule, Bangladesh had been a hotbed of terrorism and a major
launchpad for anti-India organised crime besides a safe sanctuary for secessionists and criminals from North-East India and other regions. Though professional incumbents driven cultural nationalism in its security forces did act as a degree of limited antidote but it was of little impact. An intense anti-India approach, though significantly subterranean, shaped BNP's geopolitics and security outlook in the region.
GENSIS OF ANTI-INDIA POSITION OF BNP AND KHALEDA
ZIA
Anti-India outlook, policies and actions of BNP or Khaleda Zia do not emanate from any personal preference.
Khaleda had inherited the political legacy and support base of Islamic
nationalists that her slain husband Zia ur Rahman, a former Martial
Administrator turned President of Bangladesh, had re-created and nurtured.
Rahman is considered a key architect of Aug 15, 1975, coup in which the
founder of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujib, was assassinated and the first democratically elected
government of the nation was overthrown.
Given the course of events at that juncture, it appears highly improbable that the 1975 coup could have taken place without the backing of Pakistani
deep state, and it’s the then patron, who was angered by the military victory of a Soviet leaning India. Within weeks of the coup, Zia ur Rahman had taken
over as Deputy Chief Martial Law Administrator to rise to the rank of Chief
Martial Law Administrator within a year. Within the next few months, he had taken as the President of the country in April 1977.
The
entire dynamics of these developments, involving conspiracies,
deceit and double dealings and assassinations, remain shrouded in mystery. But Zia ur Rahman's
Presidency itself was terminated by one such conspiracy when he was
assassinated in 1981 in an internal feud within the Bangladesh
Army. A group of mid-ranking Army officers led by Brigadier and Colonel rank officers had killed Zia in a circuit house in Chittagong in May 1981 at alleged instruction of the then GoC Chittagong. These officers were upset because Zia was sidelining professional officers who had fought Pakistan Army during liberation war to promote those who had fought on the side of Pakistan or who were deployed in Pakistan during the liberation war of the country. They suspected that he was doing so at behest of Pakistan Army. Lot of details in this direction are available on the web.
Zia was clearly nervous after grabbing power. His role in assassination of popular father of the nation was suspected. He lacked mass support and strong goodwill within the Bangladesh Army. Hence, he sought to establish a firm grip over the entire Bangladesh Army through a group of personal loyalists. He started positioning them at key positions by disrupting the existing professional hierarchy and the criteria. He undertook a large-scale purge of professional officers. This exposed whatever fig leaf existed to cover up his own nexus with Pakistan.
Once
Bangladesh had been liberated, a re-unification with Pakistan was never on agenda of either Bengali Islamists or Pakistanis. Crushing
defeat in 1971 had destroyed the very will and capacity of Pakistan to even imagine
something like this. The strong antipathy against Pakistan among Bengali masses was a reality. Memories of horror perpetrated by Pakistani Army were still fresh. But smarting
under that defeat, Pakistani deep
state is known to have invested a lot of energy in building an elaborate infrastructure cum network for irregular diffused covert war through subversion, radicalism, organised crime and terrorism. This was not possible without the patronage of a powerful global force. Besides, it had become indispensable for protection of military-mullah complex in Pakistan as well as retention of its relevance in larger geopolitics of the region. Dhaka was one of the earliest grounds where these capacities were tested.
On
the other hand, Bengali Islamists also knew that as controllers of an independent state, they had much higher authority at home and huge leverage abroad. To strengthen their grip over power through means fair and foul, they dismantled democracy, secularism and rule of law in Bangladesh. They also turned complicit in a larger empire of organised crime targeting India. Mercenary private goals of few probably converged with larger geopolitical and strategic objectives of bigger powers.
Hence, BNP has never appeared keen to surrender the freedom and sovereignty of Bangladesh. But it definitely redefined the national identity of Bangladesh and re-shaped its relations with the Pakistan and the wider world to promote and profiteer from Islamism at home and abroad.
Geopolitical assessments can neither afford the constraints of legal-
clerical rigor nor the luxury of flights of fantasy. These need to factor in both the
visible and the invisible factors to accurately anticipate emerging probabilities. However, a mere anticipation of a challenge or threat is insufficient to deal with the same. Hence building effective and sustainable capacities to prevent, preempt and deter real and potential challenges and threats become critical. Failure, negligence and even miscalculations fritter away precious energies, making a disaster
inevitable.
The 1975
coup in Bangladesh was a big failure for all those who had envisioned a composite humanism for
whole of South Asia. Where people of all faiths could thrive, despite the pain and trauma of the partition and Islamic identity of significant population could not be manipulated by extra
regional powers as part of their zero-sum geopolitical strategy to bleed the
entire region.
The agenda
of the dispensation that captured power in Bangladesh in 1975 was crystal
clear. Zia ur Rahman and his associates used their grip over state authority to coalesce together the so-called “Islamist nationalists”
from Army as well as educated and rich urban Bengali Muslims. Radical forces like Jamaat e Islami was also coopted to complete the troika of a political and ideological
support base for "Bengali Islamic nationalism". This was the only way the new
dispensation, lacking any electoral legitimacy and mass base, could appear credible. The
new political edifice, relying on emotive appeal of both "Islamic" and "Bengali" identities countered the Bengali cultural nationalism that Awami
League under Mujib had been espousing.
DEEP ROOTS OF ISLAMIC RADICALISM IN EAST BENGAL
East
Bengal or East Pakistan, or the current areas under Bangladesh, were not alien
to Islamic radicalism. Some of the worst pre-partition
riots on the subcontinent had taken place in Bengal. In 1941, Hindu population
in the current Bangladesh was around 28% which had come down to 22% in 1951 from where
it has dwindled to less than 8% by 2022. In the 1911 census, Hindu population in the current
territory of Bangladesh was around 40%. Hence, Hindus have been fleeing Muslim
majority areas of current Bangladesh for a long time.
Awami League led cultural
nationalist movement, that eventually succeeded in liberating Bangladesh, attempted to reverse this
trend. It sought to project a humanist, inclusive and indigenously
South Asian or Indian face of Islam where Muslims, despite being in majority
could live in harmony with Hindus within Bangladesh and a Hindu majority neighbor in the region. This was
a huge development in the larger context of civilizational war that had
been imposed on this subcontinent in the name of Islam by receding colonial
powers.
SUPPORT OF EXTRA REGIONAL POWERS TO RADICALISM
It is a well-known fact that throughout the last century, the most powerful super-power kept supporting
Islamic radicals and even Pakistani terrorist until United States itself faced 9/11 terror attacks. Their
reference to Pakistani terrorists in Kashmir as freedom fighters is well
documented and so was their design to cover up Pakistani role in 1993 terrorist
attacks in Mumbai. In retrospect it appears too naive in 1970s to assume that
either a vanquished Pakistan or its patrons would have accepted the rise of secular cultural
nationalism in Muslim majority Bangladesh instead of Islamic radicalism. The latter alone provided the raison d'être for creation of Pakistan, even if it had to be ruled by the military.
Secular
intellectuals of Bangladesh maintain that this is what explains favorable
press to BNP in the West even in recent years. Despite exposure of its
open collusion with radical and terrorist elements in the region. Many Awami League leaders,
including the ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina herself, have accused the opaque elements from the Western world of toppling her Govt in 2024.
As
President of Bangladesh during 1977-81, Zia ur Rahman had granted amnesty to
almost all the accused of 1975 coup, including the assassins of Sheikh Mujib and his
family. He had gone on to rehabilitate and accommodate the collaborators and proxies of Pakistan Army in Bangladesh who had killed local Bengalis. These included incumbents of Jamaat e
Islami and its offshoots like Al Badr and Al Shams, who were collectively called Razakaars.
These forces had specifically targeted Bengali Hindus to fan Islamic sentiments to marginalize the Bengali cultural nationalism. With the
backing of occupying Pak Army, they had killed a very large number of patriotic Bengali Muslims. Impartial sources place this figure at 300,000 to
500,000 but Awami League and its associate maintain that 3 million civilians
were killed by Pak Army and "Razakaars" during freedom struggle of that country.
Pakistan, despite the backing of the most powerful super-power, had been comprehensively vanquished in the regular conventional war at the hands of India in
1971. But the defeat forced it to explore a shift in strategy.
Since then it is believed to have attempted to build much stronger capacities in the realm of asymmetrical covert warfare by coopting both mercenary criminal groups and corrupt elements in politics, media, civil society and even criminal justice systems in the entire region and beyond, alongside terror factories that it created on its soil. Rise of Islamis was expected to fracture cohesion and amiability of Indian society at one end and dent the pace and quality of its economic, military and technological progress. Persistent terror attacks on civilians for over two decades, alongside proxy war in Kashmir and other governance deficiencies, are believed to have consumed a lot of national energy of India. The net result has been relatively lackadaisical economic and technological progress of the world's largest democracy with exceptionally talented human pool. The entire scenario does not appear outcome of natural evolutionary course of events in the region.
In newly liberated Bangladesh, emotive appeal of Islamic identity was exploited, alongside linkages with sections of Bangladesh Army officers. This helped recapture state power in Bangladesh, at least to a substantial extent, over-riding the sentiments of the majority and harness territory and systems of that state in larger indirect irregular warfare against India. Not only people of India, but even people of Bangladesh have also been turned into scapegoats for a larger geopolitical agenda to cripple optimal rise of India as a state and civilisation.
It is pertinent to note that Pakistani military establishment has never pursued any developmental goal for the people of Pakistan itself or bothered for their wellbeing. It would be naive to expect any such objective from them for people of Bangladesh or Afghanistan or any third country, where they are able to get a share in the state power or access to their territory and resources. Hate for Hindus and goal of subjugating non-Muslims to Muslim identity, by mass slaughters and mass rapes, provided such psychological euphoria to otherwise impoverished and lumpenised masses that they forgot about real governance issues. The resultant atmosphere provided both justification as well as opportunities for private mercenary and criminal agenda of so-called champions of Islam in South Asia.
Rampant corruption and fragile institution in different parts of the world offered them access to willing partners in spheres of politics to criminal justice system to media and civil society groups. Consistent preaching of hate towards Hindus on the other hand helped raise an army of energized Muslim youth to run a much larger machinery of organised crime. The entire dynamics in this direction is difficult to gauge but there is extensive credible research on the basis of open information that demonstrate linkages between terrorism and organised crime all over the world.
Hence, when a popularly elected government in Dhaka was overthrown in 1975 by a numerically smaller number of well-placed men in uniform, it may not have been outcome of local developments alone. A direct and brazen Military-Mullah takeover, on exact lines of Pakistan was difficult in Dhaka. Because culturally and academically Bengalis have been relatively more evolved people. Simultaneously, global geopolitical stakes were relatively lesser in this region resulting in lower compulsion to curb local aspirations. Hence, more indirect methods are required to control state power in Dhaka to demonstrate legitimacy of the Government.
But ultimately, the nascent nation of Bangladesh was
robbed of a popularly elected government in 1975. Its normal evolutionary
course, as a nation, was disrupted and distorted. In larger context, this amounted to reversing the march of this subcontinent towards composite humanism.
ROLE OF ZIA UR RAHMAN IN LIBERATION OF BANGLADESH
BNP
Supporters claim that it was Zia ur Rahman's announcement of liberation of
Bangladesh on March 27, 1971, from a radio station that had inspired Bengalis to fight Pakistan Army. This group has perennially tried to underplay the
role of Mukti Bahini and even Indian Army and often credited Bangladesh Army led by officers like Zia ur Rahman in winning the freedom for the country.
But many Awami League leaders
point out that Zia was only a major rank officer serving in the undivided Pakistan
Army. He had merely announced the message of Mujib Rahman and not his own. He had demonstrated loyalty to the politically elected leader of East Pakistan, despite being in the Pakistan Army. The same message had been announced on
the preceding day by Mujib’s political associate M A Hannan. What Zia did was courageous. But he was certainly not the leader of the liberation movement.
There are many indicators that Zia, as a disciplined soldier, had initially been a loyal officer of Pakistan Army. Just a day or two before his famous announcement, he had offloaded weapons on behalf of Pakistan Army that had been dispatched to kill Bengali civilians. But it were Bengali troops under him who had revolted, pushing a hesitant and reluctant Zia to break ranks with Pakistan Army or face lynching by the troops that he was leading. Hence, he suddenly switched sides on Match 25, 1971 more under pressure or fear rather than a pre-existing commitment to freedom of Bangladesh. Further, being located in Chittagong, he faced much lesser threat from Pakistan Army who were too thin in the area and lacked familiarity with the local terrain. However, important role played by Zia ur Rahman subsequently in the military war for liberation of Bangladesh cannot be discarded. Yet it would be grossly unfair to put him at the same pedestal as Sheikh Mujib.
SHEIKH MUJIB
Sheikh Mujib is unquestionably the biggest icon and architect of Bangladesh who had unmatched charisma. He was leader of Awami League Party that had won 167 out of 313 seats of National Assembly of undivided Pakistan in 1970. Yet Yahya Khan had refused to administer oath of office to Mujib, rejecting the poll verdict. Likes of Bhutto and other Western Pakistani cast racial slurs on him. One Col Maqsood of Pak Army was quoted as stating that it was better that Pakistan got partitioned instead of being led by "fish eating stinking Bengalis". This was the popular mood in West Pakistan where Bengalis were being derided over their language, food, music and identity.
There is huge literature about the level and extent of internal colonization of Eastern Pakistan by West Pakistan. Revenues earned from Jute exports of East Pakistan funded the lavish style of West Pakistani elite and military officers. Pak Army officers willfully killed, oppressed, insulted and assaulted Bengalis in East Pakistan without provocations. Mujib was initially demanding autonomy for East Pakistan, including linguistic and cultural freedom with his 6-point charter. But approach of Yahya Khan and West Pakistani politicians who mocked Bengalis and threatened flow of a river of Bengali blood on streets East Pakistan, amidst persistent humiliation of Bengali identity, compelled Mujib to call for freedom of his people through peaceful civil disobedience in March 1971. He was promptly placed in prison and charged with treason. It was his charisma and popular support that brought people on streets braving genocide and mass rapes.
The details of atrocities by Pakistan Army and its proxies are again well documented by many credible and neutral experts. A mere reading of these shall outrage normal human sensibilities. Millions of Bengalis were massacred and hundreds of thousands of women were raped and maimed by Pakistani troops and their troops. Such atrocities provided the foundation for unprecedented solidarity between Bengali Muslims and Hindus.
Awami League supporters specifically owned and practiced many of the local Hindu like practices, customs and traditions to demonstrate their defiance to West Pakistan. These included Alpanas or Rongolis, Bengali sarees and bindis of women to Bengali music and food among others. Once Bangladesh earned freedom with the help of Indian military intervention, Mujib focused on building his nation by carrying together all his people. He was repulsed by racialism of West Pakistan that he became determined to carry together his people with a secular identity and agenda of governance. Gratitude towards India, that had helped people of Bangladesh without any expectation and shedding blood of its soldiers, may have further helped him appreciate larger bond of humanism discarding the vulgar face of radicalism that Pakistan had demonstrated. He had laid special emphasis on upliftment of poor, especially farmers and industrial workers of his country, irrespective of their religious affiliations. But sadly, his faith in his ability to overcome prevailing obstructions was proven wrong. And he paid with his life.
Pro-BNP intellectuals describe Sheikh Mujib's formation of BAKSAL (Bangladesh Krishak Shramik Awami League) by amalgamating left leaning parties and forces and outlawing all other parties, as an attempt to monopolize control over state power. This was particularly viewed with suspicion by affluent Muslim elite in Dhaka as well as sections of Bangladesh Army. Even the protestors who burned his museum early this year derided both him and Sheikh Hasina as fascists.
There is an alternative point of view that both Mujib and Hasina should have destroyed the political base of Islamists instead of letting them thrive in political and social space and yet throw them out of electoral process. This built enormous pressure at one level and destroyed the requisite safety valve, causing a major political explosion. In case of Mujib, he paid with his life, in case of his daughter she barely survived and was compelled to flee. This is debatable and probably far too complex an issue to arrive at definitive conclusion in retrospect.
BENGALI ISLAMIC NATIONALISM
Simultaneously, credible inputs suggest that Sheikh Mujib's pro poor and somewhat communism like authoritarian approach invited disapproval of the capitalist West. Islamism was a good excuse to snuff out popular voices in society. It offered justification for both violent regime change as well as perpetuation of an unelected dispensation. Under Zia ur Rahman, Bangladesh was declared an Islamic republic in 1977 reversing the secular constitution adopted under Sheikh Mujib .
Zia and BNP appear to have perennially represented a component of
Bangladesh Army and society who have prided in their unique Bengali
"Islamic" identity. There are alternative points of view suggesting that Zia and BNP have never been radical Muslims. They had taken recourse to political Islamic more as an act of opportunism. They had grabbed power through military force and deceit and it was impossible to retain without invoking Islam or Islamist forces. Given the entire dynamics, they have no other alternative but to associate with Pakistan Army.
In this context, urban and elitist BNP's association with Jamaat, despite being paradoxical, is somehow comparable to Pakistan's Military-Mullah complex, where the two share a symbiotic relationship. Since
Awami League had strong support base among masses and it was always in a
position to mobilize people on the streets since the days of freedom struggle. BNP lacked both experience and capacity in this connection. Hence, it had no option but ally with Jamaat. This was the only way for it to challenge the nation-wide organisational infrastructure of Awami
League. Till date, Jamaat has enormous street prowess and committed following.
With nearly 4 to 5 % of total vote base, it is always able to bring down almost all its members on
streets to demonstrate strong mass support. Its members can unleash street violence to intimidate almost entire
citizenry. BNP with the help of Jamaat demonstrates significant mass support for the optics.
INFLUENCE OF PAK ARMY ON SECTIONS
OF BD ARMY
A
significant section of military officers of Bangladesh have
always shared a close nexus with Pakistani Army and even some of its Western patrons. This is despite consistent humiliation of Bengali officers by their Punjabi counterparts prior to liberation of the country. Following 1975 coup and until 2008, when Sheikh Hasina returned to
power, Military exchanges between Pakistan-Bangladesh Armies were regular. These had helped forge closer associations between officers of the two armies. Simultaneously, these had offered opportunities to Pakistan to
create pockets of support and networks of influence in the Bangladesh Army.
Further, a section of Bangladeshi Generals, following independence, always perceived India as the biggest
threat to security and sovereignty of Bangladesh. This was on account of its sheer geographical proximity and size. Since, Bangladesh was in no position resist any Indian pressure on its sovereignty and security, rapprochement with Pakistan and support of China appeared a pragmatic national security strategy for them. Hence, they pursued closer association with both Pakistan and China and possibly others. United States does not appear to have invested much energy to understand issues in Bangladesh and more often its junior functionaries have been swayed by Pakistani agenda. A section of Bangladesh Army officers have always fancied privileges and powers enjoyed by their counterparts in Pakistan. This has only helped Pakistani agenda.
On principle, this group of Bangladesh Army officers seemed driven by the assumption that following independence of their country and resultant geographical distances with Pakistan had eliminated the space for conflict with that country. Simultaneously, Islam offered a stronger bond and common identity. Whereas a bigger neighbour like India posed consistent threat. On the other hand, Pakistan and its patrons with their network of associates and partners, offered multiple opportunities for both private and national gains. The same could also help Bangladesh navigate better both in the Western world and oil-rich Islamic nations.
Ideologically, Islamism, involving aspiration for territorial expansion at the cost of Hindu majority India was not something entirely new that BNP or sections of its military had invented suddenly. Many Bengali Islamists who were fighting for Pakistan prior to partition of India were advocating the same. Recent call by extremist leaders to takeover of North-East India is reiteration of what Islamist Maulana Bhashani had advocated it in 1920s and 1930s. He used to describe the entire undivided state of Assam as lebensraum (natural habitat) for Bengalis Muslim.
A practical justification for such idea emanates from the fact that total habitable landmass available in Bangladesh has been far too little for its people. Whereas North East India had been thinly populated. Hence, a steady influx of illegal Bangladesh immigrants under Pakistani rule as well as during BNP-Jamaat rule may have been part of this unwritten strategy to alter the demography of bordering parts of India before its eventual take over. There are multiple indicators that these illegal immigrants have been attempting to virtually overwhelm the entire society in a well-coordinated manner. It also appears that this strategy has expanded to create pressure points or pockets of supports in multiple other parts of the country where such illegal immigrants have captured community lands and local resources.
Similarly, safe sanctuary and support that was offered to secessionist groups from North-East India under BNP-Jamaat or military rule confirms the larger Islamist agenda of destabilization of North East India. Leaders of many of insurgent groups from Northeast India were believed to have shared a nexus with Pak ISI. Some of these got exposed in media. The most notable was a prominent Northeast insurgent leader who was caught in a South-East Asian capital while travelling from Karachi on a fake passport at a time when he holding peace talks with India.
Today, it has been comprehensively established that the dynamics of armed insurgency in North-East India was never entirely indigenous. Without external support from Pakistan and other forces, as well as local corruption and safe sanctuaries in Bangladesh, insurgency could never have erupted and sustained in NE India. This was part of a much more comprehensive infrastructure for an all-out diffused irregular covert war to bleed and cripple India. Indirect control or influence over state machinery of Bangladesh enabled the Pakistani military establishment to use the territory of former for both strategic goals and mercenary agenda.
During non-Awami League rule, Bangladesh Army was known for carrying out military exercises targeting India and indirectly referring to India in somewhat derogatory language. Most Indian strategic experts never took it seriously. They maintained that Bangladesh Army had to justify its existence and India being the only major neighbour, it generated a perception of threat to Bangladesh. Hence, Bangladeshi military exercises were geared against India.
However, Pakistani influence over sections of Bangladeshi Army/Security officers always had the potential to disturb internal security of that country. In one of my media interviews in 2023, I had called upon secular-cultural nationalists to be careful of this aspect. I remember the famous interviewer asking counter questions but virtually dismissing my assessments.
Nevertheless, a high percentage of Bangladeshi soldiers still derive pride in legacy of their freedom struggle. Excesses committed by Pak Army to impose their linguistic and racial superiority over Bengalis remains etched in consciousness of Bangladesh. A majority of Bangladesh Generals prefer to be professional soldiers. None in recent decades serve a
better example in this direction than the then COAS Gen Moeen U Ahmed in 2007. He avoided all temptations of a
direct takeover when the then Caretaker dispensation of Iajuddin backed by outgoing PM
Khaleda Zia had collapsed. Despite being an appointee of Khaleda Zia and
Tarique Rahman, he refused to be a party to rig polls. He rather oversaw
preparation of fresh electoral rolls, elimination of bogus voters, removal of
local ruffians and compromised civilian officers as well as all
those, including Tarique Rahman, who could interfere with free and fair polls.
December 2008 polls were probably the fairest election in the history of
Bangladesh. It had seen return of Sheikh Hasina with a thumping majority. But the Army Chief had quietly gone home on retirement after doing his job for the country. On the other hand, Hasina, soon after her return to power, had faced a precarious threat from
suspected Islamist elements within the Bangladesh Military. They had engineered a
massacre of personnel of Bangladesh Rifles to induce a mutiny against newly elected Govt sometime in early 2009. Scores of soldiers
had been killed. There existed a serious threat to Hasina's life and her regime. But
she had handled the situation with exceptional courage and grit to emerge
stronger.
But the current caretaker regime's proximity to Pakistani military establishment has been more than obvious. They appear to be expelling professional and cultural nationalist elements from all key positions in the security forces of the country and inducting a large number of even untrained incumbents with hardcore Islamic orientation or Jamaat cadres and install them in key positions. This is likely to destroy the professional character of security forces of Bangladesh. It may be a precursor to forcibly alter the character of Bangladesh state and society to make it more Islamist and anti-Indian.
ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE ABOUT FREEDOM STRUGGLE
While
BNP-Jamaat and Awami League have represented exactly opposite points of view and thus shared extreme hatred towards each other. These differences are not simply ideological. Sheikh Hasina and Awami League members and leaders believe that BNP and Jamaat have killed their blood relations, who include father and siblings of Hasina. Similarly, Khaleda and or Rahman suspected Awami League role in killing of Zia ur Rahman and now many BNP leaders who were hanged in pursuance of court verdicts. These differences have turned so intense that Hasina described BNP-Jamaat as Razakaars and the current caretaker Govt, for the first
time in history of Bangladesh, is seeking to change the very
narrative about Sheikh Mujib led freedom struggle of the country.
The
current caretaker dispensation stretched its disdain towards rule of law, democracy and minority rights to destroy even the
legacy of father of the nation. Early this year, they razed to the ground
residence turned museum of “Banga Bandhu” Sheikh Mujib at 32, Dhan Mondi in
Dhaka in full presence of security forces. There are already demands to remove secular word from the Constitution of Bangladesh and declare it an Islamic republic once again.
Caretaker
regime appears to be systematically attacking every symbol of freedom struggle
of Bangladesh. Its backers have called for even dropping the current national
anthem of the country penned by Rabindra Nath Tagore. People chanting “Joy
Bangla”, the slogan that had united Bangladeshis in their freedom struggle,
have been attacked. A narrative is being built to paint Sheikh Mujib as fascist villain and power grabber whereas Zia ur Rahman,
husband of Khaleda Zia, and Islamists as real liberators and saviours of
Bangladesh.
SPATE OF RECENT VIOLENCE
On
December 26, 2025, the spokesperson of India’s Ministry External Affairs quoted
a figure of 2900 violent attacks against Hindus and other minorities.
Knowledgeable elements within Bangladesh maintain that the actual figure may be
in excess of 4000 as there is massive under reporting. The country has
witnessed a frenzy of Islamist attacks throughout the nation. These are
inadequately reported due to absence of media presence in many inaccessible
remote places as well as undeclared media censor. Awami League activists have
also been targeted, and many are running for their lives. Muslims seeking to
report or resist attacks against Hindus have been specifically
intimidated.
‘The
Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council (BHBUC) had reported 2,442
incidents of violence against religious and ethnic minorities between August 4,
2024, and June 30, 2025. These included murders, rapes, vandalism of places of
worship, forced evictions besides attacks on minorities. The report cites that
within the first fortnight of ouster of Hasina, 2,100 incidents violent
incidents had been reported between August 4 and August 20, 2024. These
included 1,769 communal attacks.’ Some impartial Hindu NGO activists during
private conversation on Jan 01, 2026, have placed the total figure of those
killed during caretaker regime to anywhere between 3000 to 12000.
Simultaneously, they claim that over few hundreds of thousand Awami League
activists and supporters have been detained with figure of daily arrests
touching three to four thousands. Even though many inconsequential detainees
have also been released, prisons of the country are far too over-crowded. They
lament hostility of global and Western NGOs and media that highlights only
excesses committed by Hasina Govt.
Though
state authorities have denied figures of arrests and killing but there is no
credible data available in this direction. Ahmadiyyas, Buddhists, Christians,
and indigenous peoples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts have also faced violence
and discrimination. Homes, temples, and places of business have been routinely
destroyed, looted and vandalised. Desecration of Hindu idols have become a
norm. A minor sample of hate and intolerance towards free speech was manifest
in burning down of independent media house like “Prothom Alo’’ that had been
equally critical of Sheikh Hasina under her rule.
On
lines of Pakistan, Blasphemy accusations have been levelled over private
disputes and social media has been used to mobilise and trigger mob violence. Recurrent killings of Hindu men in most brutal and barbaric ways as well as rape and atrocities on women continue to be reported. Caretaker Govt has made too few arrests and always seeks to downplay the scale of the violence
while outwardly reiterating its commitment to protect lives.
FORMER PM HASINA CANNOT ESCAPE THE BLAME
Ousted
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina cannot escape the blame for the situation in which
Bangladesh finds itself today. She blundered on certain cardinal principles of
statecraft and security even though her administrative efficiency had pushed
Bangladesh to unprecedented levels of economic growth, which was 6.38% annually
during 2009-2023. This had significantly bolstered per capita income of people.
Simultaneously, Bangladesh had risen in HDI global rankings from 147 in 2008 to
129 in 2024.
Some
argue that such output was still sub-par compared to potential of that country.
But anything comparable had eluded Bangladesh on account of persistent
turbulence or direct and indirect Islamist and military rule since 1975 until
2008, with an intervening lackadaisical five- year tenure of Hasina from 1996.
Her supporters claim that 1996 tenure of Hasina was inconsequential due to
stronger grip of her political opponents on most key institutions of the state. But
since 2009, she had attempted to systematically rid many institutions of
BNP-Jamaat influence to push the agenda of governance, generate jobs and improve quality of lives for the masses. But still it was insufficient.
Amongst
charges of personal excesses, cronyism, autocratic arrogance and brute
manipulation of institutions to secure electoral victories, especially in 2018
and Jan 2024 polls, Hasina and her associates had failed to anticipate consequences of many of their actions. These include prowess of her rivals as well as
threats to her regime. They also miscalculated the wider acceptability and
sustainability of the instruments that Awami League was using to retain power. She
physically eliminated many of her key rivals by engineering capital punishment
to them through not so credible judicial process. Imprisonment of political
rivals before polls on questionable grounds undermined sanctity of her
electoral victories. Probably whatever she did was required for building better governance but the instruments that were used lacked political sophistication and wider acceptability among people.
Bangladesh
needed high quality statesmanship to dismantle the overall infrastructure of
organised crime, radicalism and institutionalized corruption that had always
fed her political-ideological opponents. She fell short on that. In
between, she had also dabbled with Qoumi Madrassas to apparently wrest at least
a component of support base of Jamaat and BNP. But the move backfired. Many
of the products of these very Qoumi Madrassas were at the forefront of student
agitation that overthrew her regime.
In course of my observations at the
platform of a Kolkata based think tank last year, I had emphasized the
constraints of existing political system in addressing the emerging governance and security challenges which eventually resulted in crisis in
Bangladesh. It included lack of any credible opposition to Hasina within and
outside the party.
I have always argued that great statespersons must fade out
after one or two tenures in all democracies. They must nurture a worthy protege and create a culture of credible leadership. This is
critical for not only their personal image or the way they go down in the history but also the credibility and
sustainability of their larger goals and vision for their people. Probably this is too idealist to expect
in the prevailing global environment where likes of Lincoln or Garibaldi or
Gandhi or Sun Yat Sen or Mandela no longer exist.
Many
external geopolitical factors also added to disadvantage of Sheikh Hasina. But poor
statesmanship and her inability to surround herself with right advisors had
pushed her into an ivory tower where she got far too detached with the reality to assess impact of her own actions.
This engineered a number of miscalculated decisions and questionable activities
on her part. Her underhand dealings with few not so reputed businessmen
particularly tarnished her image.
In
the process, she squandered away a wonderful opportunity that fate had offered
her to re-script the very destiny of the country for whose liberation her
family had shed so much blood along-side sacrifices of thousands of
Indian soldiers and millions of Bangladeshis.
Nevertheless,
Sheikh Hasina has been a brave statesperson who attempted something extremely
difficult. Personally, she appeared incorruptible. She kept her children out of politics even though her son rendered few services towards the end of her tenure but only on pro bono basis. She tried to protect her support base among freedom fighters by granting some entitlement to their progenies in the form of reservations. This triggered student movement. Probably, instead of choosing an easier option she could have been more innovative and visionary at one level and yet pragmatic to deal with mass psychology on the other.
Sheikh
Hasina's failure should serve as a lesson for all powerful statesmen all over
the world. Luxuries of normal human frailties and psychological weaknesses like
political narcissism, vanity or intolerance to well-meaning powerful ideas or
favouritism may not have much consequences for entitlement driven politicians
in stable polities. But these are dangerous and simply unaffordable for
statespersons saddled with formidable threats and challenges, especially if
they aspire to rewrite fate of their people and their nation. Enormity and
intensity of threats posed by subversion, radicalism, organised crime and irregular warfare
in this region is far too formidable especially in face of equally formidable challenges of governance. There are no readymade solutions to
these. But this is an opportunity for genuinely great statespersons aspiring to etch their name in history through their vision, innovation and leadership as well as courage to stand apart from the crowd.
BNP'S IMMINENT RETURN TO POWER IN 2026
As Bangladesh braces towards the forthcoming polls scheduled on February 12th this year, BNP’s return to power and election of Tarique Rahman as Prime Minister is foregone conclusion. The election appears only a formality aimed at acquiring a facade of legitimacy. Politically the most powerful force and real liberator of Bangladesh, Awami League has been thrown out of electoral arena through a ban. Only some last-minute miracle can derail BNP's return to power.
Elections have rarely been free, fair and inclusive in Bangladesh. In this context, call for inclusive elections by Tarique Rahman appears only a posturing. All key institutions of state have already been taken over by the current caretaker regime through loyal cronies. The current dispensation itself appears a proxy of Islamic nationalists led by BNP and Jamaat rather than an independent entity. The current dispensation has repeatedly confirmed that Awami League, which has always enjoyed support base of almost 40% of the total electorate even during the worst of its times, shall not be allowed to contest the forthcoming polls.
Rahman own track during his mother’s regime in 2001-06 does not inspire much of a hope for either better governance or restoration of a stable democracy or even good ties with India. During that period, Rahman had gained an infamy for brazen interference in governance process. He was known for openly insulting senior functionaries of the state and did not spare even the then Army Chief. His collusion with organised criminals, radicals and their external Islamist patrons like Pakistan were well documented.
Rahman has been a shrewd strategist who is credited with scripting the downfall of Sheikh Hasina. He is believed to have harnessed the longstanding links of BNP as well as Pakistani military in the West to unleash sustained propaganda over there to discredit Sheikh Hasina Govt. This eventually culminated into the toppling of Sheikh Hasina regime through street violence which is suspected to have been orchestrated by external forces. Simultaneously, he managed to keep alive the support base of BNP and Jamaat in Bangladesh, with backing of external and internal support, defying sustained attacks by Sheikh Hasina dispensation.
Given the prevailing internal equations in Bangladesh, BNP and Jamaat are expected to do their best to eradicate Awami League both politically and ideologically. This is the only way they can capture and retain power in Bangladesh. They may even kill more Hindus in Bangladesh fan Islamism and may provoke Hindu majority to India to shore their support base in the country and gain sympathy and support of so-called Muslim nations and extra regional powers. Subsequently, differences may arise even between them but only after the threat from Awami League subsides.
The course of events in short to medium term in Bangladesh does not augur well either for its people or the region. It will test the mettle of even the best among geopolitical strategists to alter confrontational outlook of Bangladesh towards India. Given the open association of India with Sheikh Hasina, and BNP's own constituency within and outside Bangladesh, there exists very little space for any major shift in its outlook towards India.
Nevertheless, one can hope against hope that age and experience may have mellowed Tarique Rahman. Better sense may inspire him to act with maturity, statesmanship and Bengali liberalism. Failure of Sheikh Hasina is an opportunity for him to go down in the history as architect of a prosperous and stable Bangladesh, provided he focuses on best interest of his country and prioritizes on governance and developments. There will be enormous pressure on him by external forces that would like to keep Bangladesh into perpetual turmoil to further geopolitical agenda. Forces like Jamaat would like to extract their own pound of flesh. Hence, his task may be too well cut out.
PRIORITIES FOR INDIA
The above observations demonstrate that what we have been facing in Bangladesh amounts to sustained irregular and diffused war against democracy, humanism and comprehensive development of this region. A combination of factors are responsible for the same.
There had been a great humanist vision behind the liberation of Bangladesh and forces spearheading the same. They have demonstrated that they aspired to better the plight of people of that country and enhance the security quotient of the entire region. However, their strategy and institutional capacity to deal with complex governance and security challenges have appeared quite deficient and even counter productive.
There should be clarity on the Indian side that any instability and turmoil in this region impacts not only people in that theatre but security and progress of India as well. The developments in Bangladesh have already disrupted the accelerated economic
progress of that country and relative social tranquility that it had experienced under Hasina Govt. But the course and trajectory of current events under caretaker regime have potential to vitiate stability and security environment in the entire region.
While India has never claimed anything akin to Monroe doctrine, it has always demonstrated a special stake in stability and security of all its smaller neighbours and respected their territorial integrity. On the other hand, every major power has walloped both land and resources of smaller and weaker neighbours around them. Being located in a difficult region, where 25% of human race survives on just 3.5% of total land mass on this planet, and that too with negligible natural resources, India has only appeared keen to ensure that territory of none of its smaller neighbours is used for anti-India activities to retard or cripple its own aspirations for growth and progress as a distinct civilisation and state.
Pakistan has been a thorn in the flesh in this direction. Its very existence, identity and outlook has been shaped by irreconcilable hate towards India. Its very creation and existence appear part of a larger geopolitical agenda of extra regional powers to keep India bogged down in social, political and military conflict through a variety of conventional, sub-conventional, gray zone and irregular diffused wars and conflicts. India has to devise innovative ways and means to eliminate this all-round threat in the foreseeable future. Muslims have to be on the Indian side in this quest for elimination of xenophobic, radical and medieval barbarism in name of Islam.
Successive Indian Governments have been generous to assist smaller neighbours in moments of distress and otherwise. May be the larger objective has been to convert them into outposts of national security of India. Internal stability and tranquility of these states become important for this purpose. Deficiently governed unaccountable regimes have potential to turn them into a launchpad for hostile activities by hostile third powers or non-state mercenary entities. Hence, bad governance, instability and turmoil in the region negatively impacts security of India.
I have highlighted significance of secularism in Bangladesh in the context of radicalism and sustained terrorism in name of Islam by Pakistan. Given the larger tectonic shifts in the global geopolitical equilibrium, where United States no longer appears all that favourable towards India and Chinese strategic psyche is such that it is bound to do everything possible to keep India engaged in avoidable conflicts, a hostile Bangladesh can be seriously problematic. It can open up yet another front for irregular war.
While we may not see return of status quo ante of pre-2007 era, when 40 odd terrorist groups were operating on Bangladeshi soil alongside unrestrained illegal immigration and a host of other crimes. This is largely because the very nature of irregular warfare and organised crime have also evolved. But the ongoing attempts to re-kindle anti-India sentiments and destroy rule of law and internal security shall definitely complicate security challenges, causing avoidable sufferings for people, even if it enables some to privately profiteer.
Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 had offered a big respite to India from provocative actions from East Pakistan. But this was short lived. Following military coup in 1975 and intensification of covert proxy war by Pakistan, the territory of Bangladesh was once again used to destabilize the whole of North-East India for decades. But relatively longish tenure of Hasina since 2009, despite all its flaws, ensured end of sanctuaries for the secessionists and criminal groups from North East India among others. But some of the core elements of these radical groups were believed to have crossed over to West Bengal, vitiating the security environment there. These challenges may further exacerbate in near to medium term future.
Further, unlike any other older civilization, India has a unique benevolence or softness embedded in its DNA when it comes to dealing with outside world. In this connection Indian EAM has been quoted in media of having conveyed a
message to Bangladesh that 'India's growth lifts this region'. He later cited how India helped other neighbors while they were distress on account of Covid or natural calamities or debt trap diplomacy. What he said was no ritual.
Spectacular rise of Bangladesh over one decade was largely on account of its closer linkages with India. India has granted tens of billions of dollars worth Line of Credit to Bangladesh besides supplying over 1.16 GW cheaper power, favourable water deals as well as Land Boundary Agreement of 2015 when India ceded 111 enclaves in return for 51. The territory that India received was only 40% of what it had conceded. There may not be any example of a more powerful neighbor making such unilateral concessions to a smaller neighbor. Instead of gratitude, the radical forces representing the current dispensation has been threatening to cut off Siliguri corridor to take over whole of North East India.
While Indian EAM's message should make some impact on Bangladesh but given the psyche and outlook of BNP-Jamaat, as well as larger dynamics in the region, it may be insufficient. Goodwill, generosity and good intent in itself have never been adequate to earn respect and cooperation in geopolitics. Fear -tangible and real - always induces greater love. Time always the biggest healer if the outcome leads to wider well-being.
While India should never seek reciprocity with smaller states, and must never antagonize the whole of Bangladesh under pressure of Hindutva groups seeking to ape intolerance on lines of hardline Islamists, it must not never succumb to a blackmail or threat either from any external forces. Until recently, the Western powers and Russia have been receptive to Indian concerns on abuse of territory of smaller South Asian states for anti-India activities. But China has built a unique capacity, both in terms of diplomatic skills as well exploitation of its enormous all-round comprehensive strengths, to generate dependence of warring groups in foreign lands to achieve its commercial and strategic goals.
Independent write ups have reported it from Myanmar to Sudan to DRC and Nigeria to a host of other states from Africa to Central Asia to even Latin America local groups who cannot see eye to eye with each other are dependent upon the Chinese engagements for their own survival as well as workable understanding with the rest. This is a brilliant capacity in the realm of security and covert warfare that no major power is known to have ever developed or possessed.
India has to be more innovative. Instability in Bangladesh can turn into a multi-edged weapon against both masses in Bangladesh as well as India. Its concerns in Bangladesh cannot be restricted to security
of minorities. While minorities are important and their security is hallmark of internal stability of that country and, given the unique dynamics of the region, it also implies absence of animosity towards India. But Indian approach has to be much more broader and strategic covering security of all citizens as well as accommodation of strategic and long-term security concerns.
India must radicalism for sake of its own security. But at the same time, it must thwart attempts to box it into a Hindu only nation. Some hostile geopolitical forces have perennially sought to bring India at the same pedestal as Pakistan by describing India as Hindu nation and Pakistan as Muslim nation to deride superior moral identity and outlook of the world's largest and the most diverse democracy.
Indian state has to be cognizant of strategic and
tactical goals of extra regional powers in the region. Any hostile presence or activity at Cooks island and Chittagong port or Cox's Bazar can adversely impact military-strategic security of India. There are indicators that extra regionals powers are seeking a foothold at these locations.
Negative public sentiments against
India in Bangladesh or unrestrained illegal immigration from there have been impacting our internal
security in a variety of ways. For example, Bangladesh was far more populous than Pakistan in 1947 and it remained so until 1971.
Today Pakistan has 50% more population (255 million plus) than Bangladesh (177
million). Intriguingly, the population growth rate of Bangladesh has remained low since 1990s and yet 2/3rd of people have remained young since the turn of the century. This is simply not possible.
It is clear that large scale illegal immigration has been taking place from Bangladesh since too long. In early 2000s, media guestimates had placed the
number of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India at more than 50 million. This
figure at current is guesstimated to be anywhere between 120 to 150
millions. Accelerated economic development in Bangladesh under Hasina Govt had significantly curbed the level of illegal immigration. But revival of Lebensraum strategy, amidst economic downturn in Bangladesh, shall reverse that trend.
Hence, Indian stakes in Bangladesh are much more comprehensive and strategic. These require deployment of a variety of complex, subtle and yet effective instruments alongside much stronger all round institutional capacities. I shall not like to spell out further details in this
direction. Instead of just tactically responding to crises like what we are facing in Bangladesh, our governance and security strategy requires much greater fusion and innovation to optimize the quality of economic growth, technological innovation, social-national cohesion as part of comprehensive national power. In the prevailing global geopolitical-security environment, it appears an existential necessity for security, stability and evolution of India as a state and distinct civilization. *********************************