Devirupa Mitra 
New Delhi: The sudden fall of Sheikh Hasina after 15 years as prime minister has generated a sense of disbelief, relief and euphoria in Bangladesh.
Across the border, however, there is a conspicuous silence. India, which surrounds Bangladesh on three sides, has maintained a studied reticence for over 24 hours as it grapples with the fast-changing developments, trying to understand the new polity and its attitude towards New Delhi.
As Hasina made India her first pit stop while awaiting clearance from the UK, Bangladeshis were keenly awaiting the first official response from New Delhi.
The reticence was explained, as per Indian official sources, due to India taking time to assess the ground situation in Bangladesh as it faced the dilemma of a trusted ally being removed from power. There was also uncertainty about how long Hasina would stay on in India.
The ongoing parliament session was another factor, with Indian external affairs minister S Jaishankar preparing to first brief opposition parties and then making a statement on the floor of the Lok Sabha.
But, there is broad consensus that India, like Bangladeshis themselves, was caught off guard by the speed of the change in Dhaka.
Former Indian ambassador to Bangladesh, Deb Mukharji remarked that he had commented earlier that the only way that Hasina would go was through an arm takeover.
“But, nobody is ready for what has happened so far. So we have to just keep quiet and wait for things to settle down,” he said.
The reports from Dhaka indicated that Hasina’s departure was sudden. She had been adamant till late morning on Monday that the security forces, including the army, had to use force against protestors who had broken curfew.
However, the heavy toll of over 100 deaths on Sunday had apparently dampened the army’s willingness to fire on their own people. Ultimately, the army appeared to have orchestrated her exit, which proceeded smoothly once she was convinced there was no other choice. She didn’t even have time to record a farewell speech, which she had wanted to do.
Smruti S Pattanaik of the Delhi-based think tank Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses stated that she always believed that removal of “such kind of leader was possible only through a third-party intervention, and that is the army”.
As an astute observer of Bangladesh, she had closely followed the Quota reform movement, noting its ups and downs as the government used force, imposed curfews, banned mobile networks, deployed the army, and saw the Supreme Court reverse an earlier judgment.
She questioned whether the previous Bangladeshi government had a reliable feedback loop in place if it believed the Supreme Court ruling had quelled the movement. “I was very surprised that Sheikh Hasina government didn’t get adequate intelligence on the nature of the protests, that it was more than just about quotas”.
While Indian diplomats monitored the developments closely, Pattanaik concluded, “They probably did not anticipate that the end would come so soon.”
Since Hasina returned to power in the 2008 elections, both the UPA government under Manmohan Singh and the NDA government under Narendra Modi have worked to strengthen their ties and advance numerous items on the bilateral agenda.
Despite Dhaka’s concerns about a significant trade deficit, economic connections have deepened. India remains Bangladesh’s largest export destination in Asia, with approximately $2 billion worth of Bangladeshi exports in 2022-23.
From finalising the land boundary agreement to signing the transit accord, the Hasina-led Awami League government has reciprocated the gesture. The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had described Bangladesh as the “key pillar” for his government’s “Neighbourhood first” policy.
In September of the previous year, Bangladesh was the only South Asian country specially invited to the G-20 summit held in Delhi. Additionally, just six weeks ago, Hasina visited Delhi as the first foreign dignitary of Modi’s third term as prime minister.
Throughout the last three general elections, India – along with China – provided diplomatic support to Hasina’s controversial strategies, even when two of the contests were officially boycotted by the principal opposition party.
In contrast, the United States and other Western countries had always challenged the democratic legitimacy of Hasina’s government due to doubts about the fairness of the elections.
According to prominent observers in Bangladesh, India must recognise that the movement that ousted Hasina was driven by the common people of Bangladesh.
“My message will be that this is a people’s revolution,” said Shafqat Munir, head of the Bangladesh Centre for Terrorism Research at the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security. “It is not a revolution by a party or the radicals or anything like that. This is the people’s revolution. It is largely a student’s revolution. It is also a secular revolution which is for Bangladesh”.
He emphasised that the “perception that India’s relations with Bangladesh is through the Awami League needs to change”.
Retired Bangladesh ambassador to United States, M Humayun Kabir observed that quota reform movement has been unprecedented in his country’s history. “I am now 73 years old. I have been an activist since the 1960s, taken part in the liberation war of 1971, the nineties movement against Ershad. I have not seen anything like this ever,” he told The Wire from Dhaka.
He also noted that while Bangladeshis “didn’t like that you have too much association with Sheikh Hasina obviously”, but they also know the reality that India is the next-door neighbour.
“There are sentiments, but if Indian government understands what is going on and if they honour the aspirations of the common people in this country as they have done in 1971, I think things could become better,” he said.
Kabir had suggested that template for India’s reaction should be its earlier statement on the quota reforms movement that it was the “internal matter” of Bangladesh.
“I think if it still thinks that it is an internal affair and doesn’t put too much of colour into that, I think that will give some clarity to the unfolding scenario and as it happened in Bangladesh, and then I don’t believe that our relationship with India will transform or change too much,” he said.
This sentiment was echoed by Debapriya Bhattacharya, a former Bangladeshi ambassador and distinguished fellow at Dhaka-based Centre for Policy Dialogue.
“Let me step back a bit. In the initial reaction to the recent events, India said that this is an internal matter for Bangladesh. I think that is the right thing to say. So it remains our internal matter,” he said.
However, Bhattacharya noted that India may have concerns as it had “invested heavily in the immediate past government, on a prime minister who had very questionable democratic legitimacy.”
The growing influence of China would have also been an input in India’s calculation in boosting ties with the Hasina government, he said.
“But the point is that bilateral relationships cannot remain hostage to one single party—because in a democratic system, parties will come and go.”
He observed that at one time, the Bangladesh government, regardless of its nature, was “very comfortable with the Congress in power.”
“But the people of India have chosen a different government, and Bangladesh has learned to live with the change of government. So similarly, India has to learn to live with the change of governance and whatever may come as a result of people’s will,” Bhattacharya told The Wire.
Munir expressed a similar stance. “India needs to align with the people of Bangladesh and convey that it seeks a productive and constructive relationship with the next government. It must honour the aspirations of the Bangladeshi people,” he told The Wire.
For India, the relationship with Bangladesh is viewed through two primary lenses: national security, due to concerns over insurgency in its northeastern states, and connectivity, encompassing both physical infrastructure and energy links.
The Chief of the Bangladesh Army, Waker-Uz-Zaman, had listed the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Jamaat-e-Islami, and Jatiya Party as the parties consulted for the interim government, with the Awami League notably excluded.
Mukharji, who served as India’s envoy from 1995 to 2000, remarked that India had faced difficulties with the BNP when it was in government. “We had tried to work with them, but were slapped back”.
Bangladesh President announced late on Monday night that BNP leader Khaleda Zia, who had been jailed for last six years, would be released. Her son, Tarique Rahman, who has been in exile in London since 2008, is also expected to return to Bangladesh soon, as per a senior BNP party leader.
The inclusion of the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islam, with its perceived Pakistan links, in talks for the interim government raises red flags in India.
Indian institutional memory constantly recalls the sensational seizure of weapons at Chittagong port which were allegedly intended for the separatist insurgent group ULFA, during the BNP-Jamaat coalition government.
Pattanaik stated that while India had kept some doors open to the BNP over the past 15 years, it is the “Jamaat of which India is very, very apprehensive”.
Bhattacharya, who was also concerned about the deterioration of law and order due to the power vacuum, said that he does not “underplay that concern,” but emphasised that these issues must be addressed through ideological and value-based politics.
He observed that such views could not be suppressed in a modern society, so democratic and progressive forces needed to confront them politically.
“Take, for example, your own country. You have gone through this whole experience as well, and only through your recent national election have we seen how people have reacted. If you can place trust in your own citizens, you should also trust the citizens of your neighbour,” said the former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the World Trade Organization and UN offices in Europe.
As Bangladesh awaited the formation of the new interim government, social media was filled with posts about violent actions by mobs targeting facilities associated with the Awami League, statues of Bangladesh’s founder Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Hasina’s father, as well as attacks on religious minorities.
The New Age reported that the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council stated that numerous Hindu houses and businesses were subjected to communal attacks in 20 districts on Monday.
Munir said that there should not be any space for tolerance of violence and harassment against minorities. “If there is any anti-Hindu element or violence, the government should step in. we don’t want this. The students have also said this”.
The student coordinators of the anti-quota movement also made repeated appeals in media throughout Monday night against violence targeting minorities.
“We, the protesters, have united to protest against the fascist government. There is no grouping or division among us. We are against any kind of religious incitement, sabotage or division. We will prevent any such attempts,” said Nahid Islam, one of the key organisers in Dhaka on Monday.
The Bangladeshi analyst, Munir said the interim government should give confidence to India. These are all well-meaning civil society people who would also want a productive relationship, constructive relationship with India”.
The path forward, as per Ambassador Kabir, is that India should rectify the perception among Bangladeshis that New Delhi has gained more than Dhaka in trade, political access, and connectivity. “Let’s see how we can make it more mutually beneficial so that people in Bangladesh can fully appreciate the advantages,” he said.
In a similar vein, Bhattacharya noted that Bangladesh has not received equitable treatment on issues such as multimodal transport systems, water sharing, trade, investment, and finance. “India needs to tackle these very valid concerns,” he added.