Bangladesh: Arc of Instability

 AS A STATEMENT that said very little but meant a lot, the Indian reaction to the Bangladesh Inter­national Crimes Tribunal (ICT) verdict handing out a death sent to deposed former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina could be considered compulsory reading for students of international relations. It offered no direct view on the sentence but promised to “engage constructively” with all stakeholders. “As a close neighbour, India remains committed to the best interests of the people of Bangladesh, including in peace, democracy, inclusion and stability in that country,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said on November 17 and has since of­fered no further observations or elaborations of the bland five-line reaction to the ICT ruling.

India did not reject the ICT order outright, nor did it criticise flaws in the tribunal’s conduct that included denying Hasina a lawyer of her choice, but it ignored demands that the Awami League leader be repatriated. The statement’s elliptical references to peace, democracy and stability offer sufficient hints that India does not feel that the politically coloured conclusions of a tribu­nal suffering from procedural and legal infirmities advance the interests of Bangladesh. The careful choice of words is a reflection of India’s unwillingness to endorse the actions of the interim gov­ernment headed by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. India’s frigid approach towards Yunus has seen him repeatedly lash out against Indian interests but his angry flailing has failed to move New Delhi which has kept him at arm’s length. Without passing an overt comment on the tribunal or its guilty verdict—being mindful that any remark might provide incitement for attacks on Bangladesh’s Hindu and Buddhist minorities—India has made it apparent that it feels the tribunal’s actions lack credibility.

The ICT’s proceedings against Hasina were no doubt laced with irony. The tribunal was set up by the Awami League gov­ernment to try and punish Jamaat leaders involved in atroci­ties during the country’s struggle for independence in 1971. The same tribunal was tweaked to try Hasina and close aides for alleged crimes against student protesters who overthrew her government in August 2024. The tribunal’s previous pro­ceedings led to death sentences, some of which were executed, against Jamaat leaders held complicit in partnering the Pakistan army in war crimes during its bid to crush the independence movement. But the composition of the three-member tribunal, the constitutional lacunae in referring Hasina’s cases, and the inert conduct of the ‘defence’ lawyer—who showed no interest in questioning the 50-odd witnesses—might have created an unintended problem for Yunus. Although he was quick to hail the ruling as evidence that even the high and mighty are not immune, most world capitals are likely to view the ruling with reservations. According to the website reporterpost.in, five Euro­pean rights and advocacy organisations strongly criticised the verdict, calling it a “politically motivated” ruling and urged ur­gent international intervention. The coalition says the ICT has “strayed from its foundational principles” and condemned the trials held in absentia as having compromised judicial indepen­dence and human rights norms. Human Rights Watch (HRW), while noting “enduring anger and anguish” in Bangladesh over Hasina’s repressive rule, said all criminal proceedings need to meet international fair trial standards. Meenakshi Ganguly, deputy Asia director at HRW, said, “Those responsible for hor­rific abuses under the Hasina administration should be held to account after impartial investigations and credible trials.” The United Nations (UN) also regretted trials being conducted in absentia and the award of death sentences to Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Kamal.

The frosty reception to the ICT order puts Yunus in a spot as the criticism comes from the international NGO-civil rights cir­cuit that has celebrated him in the past. But Yunus would need to keep in mind that the death sentence is strongly supported by student protesters who brought down the Hasina government. “The students want the sentence to be carried out and there are other implications too. The Awami League was to be banned till the trial was being conducted. But will the ban continue and keep the Awami League out of the elections that are to be held next year in February? That is also a relevant question,” Smruti Pattanaik, research fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) told Open.

The problem is that the absence of the Awami League from the election can further rob the electoral process of credibility in a situation where supporters of the former prime minister and those who oppose radicalisation of Bangladeshi politics by the Jamaat-e-Islami’s resurgence are keeping quiet due to the fear of reprisals. Conventional wisdom has led analysts to con­clude that the verdict and the demand for Hasina’s return places India in a tight spot. India’s ties with Bangladesh no doubt remain fraught but the death sentence has done nothing to enhance Yunus’ credibility. In fact, though he has joined the chorus for the verdict to be executed, Hasina’s return to Bangladesh—if it were to be considered—can only complicate matters and be a highly unwanted complication. As far as India is concerned, there is no question of giving up Hasina and Delhi will remind Bangladesh that authorities had found it expedient to facilitate her exit from Dhaka in the first place.

India’s carefully ambiguous articulation does not preclude deeper behind-the-scenes engagement with Bangladesh. The meeting of the Colombo Security Conclave in New Delhi days af­ter the ICT ruling provided an opportunity for National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval to exchange views with his Bangladesh counterpart Khalilur Rahman. India did not issue a statement and Bangladesh said key bilateral issues were discussed. The dis­cussion could have provided an opportunity to point out India’s red lines over reports of increased access of Pakistani agencies in Bangladesh and the negative impact of ill-considered state­ments on India’s Northeast. A book Yunus gifted to a visiting Pakistani general in October showed a distorted map that placed India’s Northeast as part of Bangladesh. The security scrutiny for Pakistani visitors to Bangladesh has been done away with and while the actual implications of the move are unclear, it is nonetheless a signal. Providing Pakistan the opportunity to run anti-India operations from Bangladesh will be considered a seri­ous violation of neighbourly relations. India retains leverage with important sections in Bangladesh, such as the army which does not appear to support the radical agendas of the student movement. The Bangladesh army has its factions but its lines with the Indian Army remain open. It will also be useful, feel some defence and security analysts, to keep Yunus and others off-balance by not refuting the possibility of covert counter-measures in case India’s point is lost on the current administration.

The unfolding situation in Bangladesh is a part of the wider arc of instability in India’s neighbourhood. The internal situations in Nepal and Sri Lanka remain fragile despite a semblance of normalcy with regard to re­lations with India. Relations with the Mal­dives have significantly improved, but an undercurrent of volatility is never far from the surface in the archipelago. There is a rela­tive stability in ties with China while hostili­ties with Pakistan can flare up any time. The situation demands more action away from the public gaze with a diverse range of stake­holders within the fractured societies in these nations. An assertion of India’s right to act in the event of its interests being violated needs to be made in a manner that is credible and forthright. The challenge is rendered more complicated by the meddling of other pow­ers like China and interventions by the US as in Bangladesh. The true extent of US interfer­ence in Bangladesh will be hard to assess but there is little doubt that Hasina’s abdication was welcomed by the Biden administration and Yunus was accorded a warm reception in Washington.

The next act in Bangladesh will revolve around the forthcoming elections though they are not a certainty. The absence of the Awami League from the fray may, paradoxical­ly enough, not suit the rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) of Begum Khaleda Zia. BNP might have hoped to be the natural beneficiary of Hasina’s ouster but the ground situation is com­plex and shifting. “The Jamaat could contest the election on its own rather than as an ally of BNP as in the past. It is unclear how Awami League voters, with the party excluded from elections, will behave. Some may vote for Jamaat and this can be unsettling for BNP,” says Pattanaik.

The wary relations between the Bangladesh army and Yunus, the inchoate agenda of the student protesters, and a vacuum caused by the Awami League’s exclusion from public life and Yunus’ own tenuous hold on office make predictions a mug’s game. Seen in totality, India is the only force with the ability to influence the actions of key players, a message that might become more apparent in the days ahead.