Bangladesh crisis: India’s diplomatic dilemma and human rights concerns

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

India is confronted with a “Hobson’s Choice” in Bangladesh under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina Wajed of the Awami League. As the daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the nation’s founding father and its first president, Hasina has held the position of Prime Minister for over 20 years in total. Regrettably, both she and her political opponents are currently entangled in conflicts rooted in past disputes.

This is the Hobson’s Choice faced by both them and India. The term, meaning “no choice at all,” originates from Thomas Hobson, who in the late 16th and early 17th centuries provided carriage services between Cambridge and London. To address the issue of overworking his most popular horses, Hobson implemented a rotation system, offering customers the option of either taking the horse closest to the stable door or none at all. This practice, known as Hobson’s Choice, quickly came to signify a situation where no real choice exists.

A dark iteration of this dilemma shadows Bangladesh, where, as of now, 162 student protesters have been killed by gunfire and 532 others imprisoned. The country is suffering under what Ali Riaz, a political science professor at Illinois State University, describes as “the worst massacre by any regime since independence.” He remarked, “The recent atrocities reveal that the regime relies solely on brute force and demonstrates a complete disregard for human life.”

While the violence and bloodshed in Bangladesh may not directly affect India, the student-led protests sweeping the country are a significant sign of widespread dissatisfaction with a government that Narendra Modi firmly supports.

India has come to view Bangladesh through a simplistic lens. On one side, Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League are seen as champions of secular stability and strong ties with India. On the other hand, the opposing forces, represented by the ailing Begum Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the late Gen. Hussain Mohammed Ershad’s Jatiyo Party, and the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (Jamaat), the oldest and purportedly largest Islamic political party in the country, are viewed as pawns of Pakistani interests, fundamentalist extremism, and terrorist activities. They are accused of opposing Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 and aiding the Pakistani “Razakars” in targeting liberal Muslims and Hindus. Sheikh Hasina, who holds them responsible for the murder of her parents and siblings in 1975, clearly has not forgiven or forgotten this tragedy.

A report in the Harvard International Review highlights ongoing concerns about genocide, stating: “Though the Bangladesh genocide of 1971 is a historical event, its repercussions are still felt today. Genocide remains a continuing issue in Bangladesh.” Activists are pushing for Resolution 1430, introduced in the US House of Representatives by Representative Steve Chabot and his co-sponsors in 2022, to officially recognize the Bangladesh Genocide of 1971 and become law.

India officially denies any interference in Bangladesh’s domestic affairs, yet many Bangladeshis— possibly including Sheikh Hasina herself—perceive India’s Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, which facilitates Indian citizenship for Hindus who fled before December 31, 2014, as a form of indirect involvement. Additionally, the Hasina government’s job quotas for the relatives of the 1971 freedom fighters, which have sparked the current unrest, are viewed as a way to target and marginalize veterans of the anti-liberation, anti-India BNP, Jamaat, and Jatiyo Party.

Despite being a political irritant, the Jamaat has consistently garnered no more than five percent of the vote in any election. The extent to which Pakistan can meaningfully impact Bangladeshi society or politics through financial support or intelligence operations remains uncertain.

There are claims that the BNP, which is said to have been infiltrated by many freedom fighters, aligns itself with anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani sentiments. Deep Halder and Avishek Biswas, in their book Being Hindu in Bangladesh: The Untold Story, provide a detailed account of how pro-Pakistani elements managed to integrate themselves within the ranks of the pro-liberation fighters. Some freedom fighters and their Indian backers perceive the BNP’s pursuit of a distinct Bangladeshi identity—distinct from the Bengali identity with Indian associations—as a deceptive maneuver. Additionally, there are accusations that anti-India insurgents, such as Nagas and Mizos, received support during the BNP’s rule. Some Indians argue that a persistent streak of antagonism in Bangladeshi attitudes allowed for covert support for Indian rebels even during the Awami League’s tenure from 1996 to 2001, prompting India to respond similarly in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

A government accused of deploying not only its Rapid Action Battalion, the elite police unit, but also a faction of militant students from the Awami League’s Chhatra League against rival groups, underscores the vulnerability of Bangladeshi politics. Even Volker Türk, the UN human rights chief, has recently urged Sheikh Hasina’s administration to conduct an independent investigation into the “horrific violence.”

The intensity of the protests diminished significantly following the Supreme Court of Bangladesh’s decision to reduce the reserved job quota from 56 percent to seven percent, with most positions still reserved for the children and grandchildren of 1971 liberation war “freedom fighters.” Despite this, the Students Against Discrimination group continues to demand the lifting of the curfew, the restoration of Internet access, full democratic rights, and an end to what they describe as the persecution of students.

Muhammad Yunus, the 83-year-old Bangladeshi Nobel Peace Prize laureate and economist known for his groundbreaking microfinance bank that has helped lift millions of peasants out of poverty, has called on world leaders and the United Nations to take urgent action to end the violence in Bangladesh. Accused by Sheikh Hasina of “sucking blood” from the poor, Yunus has made his first public statement since the unrest began, insisting that investigations must be conducted into the killings that have occurred. He highlighted the worsening crisis in Bangladesh, noting that high school students have also fallen victim to the violence.

Both Prime Minister Modi and Sheikh Hasina must recognize that, given the communal tensions in South Asia, Indian support can be as detrimental to Bangladeshi politicians as American endorsements were to Asian leaders like Syngman Rhee of South Korea, the Shah of Iran, or Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines during the Cold War. Bangladesh cannot be limited to relying solely on the Awami League. For Indian foreign policy to be credible, it must maintain strict neutrality.