It was last month, as protests swept Bangladesh and bodies lay on the streets, that then-Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina hastily boarded a helicopter. She was unaccompanied by any political aides and did not tell any of her senior ministers she was leaving. In a matter of hours, she touched down in neighboring India, where she has been ever since.
The protests that led to Hasina’s downfall had quickly escalated from student demonstrations on campuses to a nationwide mass revolution, with hundreds of thousands calling for her removal and the return of democracy. Hasina’s government responded with an onslaught of violence and bullets, leaving hundreds dead and thousands injured.
Hasina’s decision to flee on Aug. 5 after protesters stormed her residence was greeted with jubilation across Bangladesh, but in the corridors of power in New Delhi, the collapse of Hasina’s regime was seen as nothing short of a disaster.
Illustration: Mountain People
India has long been seen as Hasina’s greatest ally. She was given refuge in the country once before, in 1975, after her father, the freedom fighter founding father of Bangladesh Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was assassinated and she stayed in exile in India for more than six years, along with her husband and children, before returning to Bangladesh in 1981.
Hasina’s close personal ties with India’s Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress Party helped Bangladesh become New Delhi’s closest and most loyal regional ally. At the same time, it gave India a crucial foothold in their often-unfriendly neighborhood and kept Bangladesh away from China’s clutches. Both in her first term from 1996 to 2001 and then again when she was re-elected in 2009 onward, Hasina began to grant India influence through economic and security cooperation, including access to crucial waterways and allowing Indian businesses to do lucrative deals in the country.
In return, India not only turned a blind eye as her regime became increasingly oppressive and autocratic, but Indian officials and ministers were also accused by the international community of actively intervening in Bangladesh’s affairs to help keep her in office, as well as pressuring other countries to accept her leadership.
India used its close relationship with the US to ease pressure on Hasina before the election early this year, diplomatic sources said.
In the months in the run-up to the election, US Ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas and US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu began a concerted campaign to try to ensure the polls were free and fair.
However, after intervention by India, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly told Haas and Lu to “knock it off with Bangladesh,” dealing a blow to opposition parties that had hoped for US support.
Hasina was easily returned to power amid widespread allegations of rigging.
The unconventional nature of the relationship between the two nations over the past 15 years gradually became a source of consternation in Bangladesh.
“The Indo-Bangladesh relationship essentially became a relationship with one individual and one party,” Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies senior fellow Shafqat Munir said.
In a view echoed by several analysts, Munir called on New Delhi to review its approach to Bangladesh in the wake of the people’s democratic movement that brought down Hasina.
An interim government, led by the leading economist and Nobel prize winner Muhammad Yunus, is now in place, promising widespread reforms and accountability for the actions of Hasina’s government. Nonetheless, Yunus has emphasized it faces monumental challenges and it is likely to be months before elections are possible.
“There is now a need for India to accept that Sheikh Hasina is gone, she is history, and the relationship has to be completely reset and rebooted,” Munir said. “Relationships between countries cannot be hostage to the vicissitudes of changing governments.”
One issue threatening to cast a further shadow over the India-Bangladesh relationship is the ongoing presence of Hasina in India. Though her family say it is only temporary and there has yet to be an official extradition request from Bangladesh for her return, there are growing calls from activists and political opponents for her to be brought back.
More than 100 cases alleging the former Bangladeshi prime minister played a role in murder and abduction have been filed against Hasina, and Bangladesh’s international crimes tribunal is investigating her on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in connection with the killings that took place during the recent protests. Hasina’s government had previously denied any human rights abuses. The Bangladesh government has also revoked the diplomatic passport that Hasina used to travel to India.
This week, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party Secretary-General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir made a direct plea to India to send Hasina back, and alleged that Hasina was using her haven in the country to attempt to thwart the interim government and democratic movement in Bangladesh.
“It is our call to you that you should hand her over to the government of Bangladesh in a legal way,” Alamgir said. “The people of this country have given the decision for her trial. Let her face that trial.”
Ali Riaz, a political scientist specializing in Bangladesh at Illinois State University, said India was also having to grapple with the embarrassment of a “serious intelligence failure” that meant the collapse of Hasina’s regime caught it off guard and left it unprepared for the significant regional setback and the rising anti-India sentiment now rife in Bangladesh.
“India pursued a very myopic policy with Bangladesh by putting all their eggs in one basket with Hasina and her party, instead of having a state-to-state relationship,” Riaz said. “As a result, India is now in a precarious situation of its own making.”
In the weeks since the collapse of Hasina’s regime, the response of the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to events has made little reference to the push for democratic reform by the new regime and has instead expressed “deep concern” at the instability and the threats faced by the Hindu minority.
This was emphasized again this week in an official statement released by Modi after a phone conversation with US President Joe Biden. While the US readout of the interaction made no mention of Bangladesh, the Indian side said the leaders had discussed the need for the “early restoration of normalcy,” and law and order.
The comments were poorly received over the border.
“We’re not trying to restore normalcy,” one Bangladeshi commentator said. “We’re trying to reclaim democracy.”
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS