Religious minorities have been targets of mob violence in Bangladesh in recent weeks as well as in the past. The need to protect religious minorities in that country has been noted by the Union external affairs minister in the Lok Sabha, reminding the interim government in Dhaka of its obligation to protect all citizens regardless of religious identity. While this statement is commendable and appropriate, a cynical reading might suggest that it was also made to distract from the serious crisis of foreign policy engendered by the ignominious overthrow of India’s close ally, former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
The parliamentary statement is all the more valuable for its contrast with far more vocal and vehement concerns expressed publicly, including by the prime minister, regarding the well-being of a particular religious minority, Bangladesh’s Hindu community. (The noteworthy actions of Bangladeshi students and civil society in protecting minority places of worship and neighbourhoods hardly gets the same attention). Repeated mention of Hindus under attack coupled with demands that the Indian government do something about it effectively elevates the protection of Hindus living outside India to a core principle of state policy. This is significant and disturbing.
Were Hindus targeted by mobs in the recent upheaval? Without question. Was this a violation of their human and civil rights and entitlement to protection under Bangladeshi laws? Yes. Is it likely that perpetrators of this violence will ever be brought to justice? Unlikely. So, shouldn’t India be concerned?
First off, a brief reminder of the terms under discussion. Any responsible government should be concerned about the welfare of its citizens living overseas irrespective of their religion. An excellent example of this was the Indian government’s actions during the first Gulf War, when an emergency airlift was arranged to get Indians out of Kuwait. Looking after its citizens is a fundamental responsibility of any government, wherever they might be residing. But Bangladeshi Hindus are not Indian citizens.
The next, and more important, term to consider in the current context is People of Indian Origin (PIOs). In everyday usage, this term includes both former citizens who have become naturalised in another country as well as non-citizens who trace their ancestry back to colonial Indian territory. A recent example of the government aiding PIOs under threat was its assistance to the long-resident Sikh community in Kandahar.
Concern with PIOs dates back to the effort to protect the Fijian Indian community after a military coup in 1987. Rajiv Gandhi’s strong expression of concern for Fijian PIOs, coupled with active diplomacy by his government following the coup, marked a departure in prevailing foreign policy. This shift was extensively commented on at the time, as the vulnerable populations in question were not Indian citizens. Their forebears had moved to Fiji as indentured labourers and had remained there after their contracts ended. The Indian government expressed active concern for the safety of these people of Indian origin, making no distinction between PIOs of different religious backgrounds.
Fiji was a turning point, as it overturned independent India’s long-standing practice of adopting a hands-off policy towards overseas populations (bracketing the special case of Indians living in apartheid South Africa). The acme of this policy of indifference toward the diaspora was former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s reaction when PIOs (referred to as ‘Asians’ at the time) were expelled from Uganda in 1972.
She made clear that India was not going to be a “dumping ground” for African PIOs and affirmed that it was the responsibility of the United Kingdom to help their overseas subjects. After much delay, the UK and its white settler allies reluctantly absorbed most of the expelled Ugandan Asians to the considerable economic benefit of these countries, it might be added. ‘Asians’ included Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, and others. Neither putative ethnic origin nor religious identity were sufficient to lead to more than expressions of concern from the Indian government.
Finally, coming to the Hindu community. Calls for protection of non-citizen Hindus in Bangladesh marks a further departure in this evolving practice. Although, since Fiji, there is precedent for raising concerns about non-citizens of Indian origin facing political turmoil, Hindus have not been singled out as a special category of PIO. In this respect, we have a new moment in Indian external relations. Repeated calls for protection of the Hindu community in Bangladesh have identified Hindus as a special and superior category of PIO (using the term in its broadest sense since the official definition of a PIO actually excludes persons who are citizens of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Iran, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, or Nepal). Such a development is, of course, entirely consistent with the discriminatory provisions of the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
So, should India be concerned? Answering ‘yes’ to that question speaks to the international community’s obligation to be concerned with the well-being of minority populations anywhere in the world. However going beyond this concern exposes a new turn in foreign relations. Hindu populations are found around the world, including in the Caribbean. If citizenship is no longer a meaningful boundary, will the government feel obliged to intervene on behalf of Guyanese Hindus the next time there is a coup in Guyana? Or consider Nepali Hindus. Will India speak up on their behalf when they are habitually mistreated in well-to-do Gulf kingdoms? There is an inherent limit to such a blatant display of contradiction and double standards. As long as India actively discriminates against its own religious minorities – who are legal citizens – it remains vulnerable to the charge of extreme hypocrisy with every call for the protection of Hindu non-citizens living in other countries.
This moment marks the meeting of two vectors. Professional media pundits who rant about the plight of Bangladeshi Hindus expose the extent to which a majoritarian ideological agenda has become mainstream thought. For the external affairs ministry, raising these concerns deflects attention away from the collapse of its policy towards its eastern neighbour. Hence, expect more concern expressed for the plight of Hindus in Bangladesh: distraction may be the only instrument left in the foreign policy toolbox.
Itty Abraham is professor at the School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University.
