Ali Riaz

In the backdrop of Sheikh Hasina taking shelter in India after being toppled through a mass uprising, the question that has been assailing everyone since 5 August afternoon is how India will take this sudden change in Bangladesh and how it will react. Even if Sheikh Hasina had not taken shelter in India, these questions would arise. But by taking shelter there and with no possibility of her going anywhere else any time soon, this question has gained even more urgency over the past three days and a new angle has been added. The question is, what decision will India take regarding Hasina?

There is no reason to believe that India's policymakers would be able to grasp the public rage that lead to the downfall of the government to which they had lent unstinting support over the past one and a half decades, to which they served as a catalyst to establish and uphold an autocratic rule. After all, over the past years, particularly mid-2023, Indian policymakers very clearly understood that the people's support was not the mainstay of Hasina's rule. But even so, for the sake of Indian interests, from analysts to policymakers, they all wanted to keep Hasina at the helm at any cost. They did anything and everything possible to this end.

It is not that India was only aware of the detachment between Sheikh Hasina and Awami League with the people. Even in 2018 it was clear to the Indian establishment that "Awami League has assiduously subverted democratic norms and institutions" and that in a fair election "Awami League will be reduced to an embarrassing minority in the next parliament" (Pinak Ranjan Chakrabarty, Observer Research Foundation, 9 September 2018).

Despite this state of affairs, India bound Bangladesh in an unequal relationship to ensure it own trade and geopolitical interests and to keep Bangladesh within its sphere of influence. And the role of its main puppet Sheikh Hasina and Awami League is no secret.

This mindset was not restricted to policymakers alone. To my mind, the perception of those in India who carry out research on Bangladesh, with a handful of exceptions, were more driven by nationalist chauvinism than ignorance. In play behind this perception of Indian journalists and researchers regarding Bangladesh, was the hope that Bangladesh as a state and the people of Bangladesh, generation after generation, would remain eternally grateful to India for Bangladesh's independence, and it would only be Awami League and its leader Sheikh Hasina who could ensure this gratitude. This perception was so deeply embedded in the mind of everyone in India, regardless of party, that they did not realise that gratitude was the most painful cross to bear.

Sheikh Hasina's downfall is evidence of the unsubstantiality of their policy and mindset. But instead of acknowledging this reality, the stand adopted by the Indian policymakers and news media is alarming. They are spinning a narrative that this mass uprising is a rise of the Islamists. The Kolkata-based newspaper on 6 August ran headlines, "Pro-Jamaatis on rampage, Hasina resigns and comes to India, Bangladesh in control of army. This is not just the stand of one newspaper alone. For the last few days the Indian TV talkshows and YouTube clips have been singing to the same tune. The outburst of violence in the post-uprising situation, the attack on minorities and the absence of law and order that is being seen, is a matter of concern.

Even the police of West Bengal are not swallowing the exaggerated stories being churned out by the Indian media. In a statement made on social media on 7 August, it was said, "The manner in which certain TV channels are reporting on the present situation in Bangladesh is very overtly communal and contrary to the Indian Press Council rules." A report in India Today on 6 August even termed this mass uprising as a conspiracy of China and Pakistan and this same narrative has been touted by discussants on various platforms.

There is a long history of labelling all forces in Bangladesh's politics, other than Awami League, as backed by Pakistani ISI. The 21 July Times of India editorial read that the growing anti-Awami League public unrest is creating a security threat to India. It said that the last thing that India needs is a pro-Pakistan government in Bangladesh in the post Awami-scenario. New Delhi should reach out to all parts of Bangladesh's politics in order to safeguard its strategic interests, the editorial said.

The Indian media had its narrative prepared even before Hasina fell from power. The government there and even the opposition are spinning out the same narrative. An example of this is foreign minister Jaishankar's address in the Lok Sabha on 6 August and the questioned raised by Congress leader at the all-party meet -- that the matter of involvement of foreign quarters cannot be discarded.

It is clear that these issues are being raised in order to question the legitimacy of an interim government in Bangladesh. Such discussions are an attempt to influence western countries. By promoting the narrative that there is a government backed by extremist forces is Bangladesh, could possibly succeed convincing the West to take time to observe the situation, thus delaying in the new government in receiving economic assistance. This would undoubtedly lead to instability in Bangladesh. This attitude of India will instigate a section of the deposed Awami League to render the country unstable. In a video message to the thousands and thousands of party workers who Hasina abandoned and fled, Sajib Wazed Joy said, rise up with courage, "we are here". That certainly is not a call to take part in a peaceful political process.

We have not forgotten how at the final stages of the movement, Chhatra League and Jubo League were given arms to crack down on the movement. It is easy to understand how these are being used now or who these will be used unpolitically in the future. There is no reason to believe that the Indian government and its policymakers are doing all this without understanding these matters. From such words and deeds it is evident India is taking up all sorts of strategies to ensure the situation after the fall of Hasina remains in its favour.

Sheikh Hasina's presence in India adds to these circumstances. It is taken more or less for granted that Hasina would go to India after fleeing from Bangladesh. And it is not simply that India is a neighbour. The presence of India's security advisor Ajit Doval at the airbase and their discussion indicates that India still gives importance to Hasina and considers her as an actor in Bangladesh's politics. It is nothing new for autocratic leaders to flee and take shelter in other country in the face of revolutions, mass uprisings, military coups and civil wars. But there is no precedence of such persons virtually being officially accorded a "reception" at the airport. Sheikh Hasina is the fortunate one to receive such a reception. It is the India government that set this example. The significance of this step is obvious from the fact that India did not give asylum to Sri Lanka's former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Afghanistan's former president Ashraf Ghani.

Sheikh Hasina did not seek asylum in India.The Indian government said they are giving her time to take a decision. No one knows how long this will be while Hasina seeks asylum in various countries. There is no reason to have much hope in such efforts. The countres of the West will not give her asylum. The alternative could be the Gulf countries. But if the US gives out indirect signals, it is hardly likely that these countries will be very eager either. And certainly Pakistan's Newaz Sharif would not be a consideration.

Sheikh Hasina has not only been deposed, but in the last days of her rule there had been extensive killings. One of the major tasks of the interim government would be to bring to justice all the human rights violations that have taken place over the last 15 years, the killings, the enforced disappearances, and to try all those complicit to these acts. From that angle the Bangladesh government can ask India to extradite Hasina to Bangladesh. This can be done under the agreement signed in 2016 between Bangladesh and India.

There is scope to approach to the International Criminal Court regarding Sheikh Hasina. Tom Kean of the International Crisis Group told the BBC correspondent that if the International Criminal Court investigates the recent events in Bangladesh and starts a trial process, that would create different circumstances. A civil initiative had been taken from Bangladesh before she fell from power. Now the Bangladesh government can officially start this process. Are the Indian policy makers taking this in cognizance?

* Ali Riaz is distinguished professor of the Department of Politics and Government at the Illinois State University in the US, nonresident senior fellow of the Atlantic Council, and president of the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies.

* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir