In the wake of the anti-discrimination student movement, Sheikh Hasina's sudden departure from the country following the anti-discrimination student movement left her party leaders and activists in a state of complete bewilderment. The top police officials, who had wielded significant power over the past three terms, were equally uninformed. This unexpected move sparked anger among Awami League leaders and activists, as well as regret among the police officers of that time.
On August 5, the day after Sheikh Hasina left Dhaka for Delhi, Kolkata's Anandabazar newspaper reported the discontent among Awami League leaders. The publication highlighted the frustration of those who had governed the country together, following the leader's directives meticulously. Despite their loyalty, the leader chose to leave with only her relatives, abandoning her party colleagues during a critical period. This decision left even her closest allies in the dark.
According to Anandabazar, Awami League leaders and ministers expressed their anger and sorrow, stating that prior notice would have allowed them to seek safe refuge. They questioned why the party leaders and activists were left to face the movement alone if the leader intended to leave the country. The Bengali newspaper also reported that at least six ministers and five central committee leaders of the Awami League criticized Hasina's series of poor decisions and stubbornness, which they believed endangered the activists. While ensuring her family's safety, she left her party members to fend for themselves in perilous times.
On August 3, when Chief of Army Staff General Walker declared that the army would not fire on students, Sheikh Hasina reacted with anger. She decided to confront the movement with the police and the Awami League's loyal forces, bypassing the army. This directive was communicated to all levels of the Awami League nationwide, emphasizing that the anti-discrimination student movement should be resisted at the ward level.
The following day, on August 4, Awami League cadres and affiliated organizations under police protection attacked the protesters with weapons. This day turned into a bloody chapter in Bengal's history, with hundreds killed in mass protests across the country. Awami League leaders and activists anticipated that they might have to continue dealing with the movement in this manner, following Hasina's instructions. However, this did not happen. Sheikh Hasina fled the country without informing her party leaders.
Hasina's arrogance, overconfidence, and single-mindedness blinded her to the intensity of the students' anger in the anti-discrimination student movement. Consequently, she made a series of poor decisions to suppress the movement. Most top party leaders were unaware of her plans. As the anti-discrimination student movement escalated into a mass uprising, many senior leaders advised accepting the students' demands and implementing necessary reforms, but Hasina ignored them. During this period, she relied heavily on four close associates: Awami League General Secretary Obaidul Quader, former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal, Private Industry and Investment Advisor Salman F Rahman, and her son, Sajib Wazed Joy. Her blind faith in these four men led her to disregard advice from other leaders, isolating her from the ground reality.
An Awami League leader, speaking anonymously to Indian media, claimed that this group of four was responsible for Hasina's downfall. The top police officials were also surprised and angered by Hasina's behavior. They were not informed of her departure and learnt about it from television. As Hasina's helicopter took off from Gana Bhavan, the IGP of Police, Additional IGP, and DMP Commissioner watched in astonishment, expressing their frustration that she had not communicated her final instructions to them.
Three weeks have passed since Sheikh Hasina sought refuge in India, yet the specifics of her immigration status remain undisclosed. Initially, it was stated that her diplomatic passport allowed her to stay in India for 45 days without a visa, as per the 2018 'Travel Arrangement' between India and Bangladesh. However, on August 21, the Bangladesh government revoked all diplomatic passports that were not associated with diplomatic duties, including Hasina's. This raises questions about the legality of her stay in India.
Despite the cancellation of her passport five days ago, the Indian government has yet to clarify her current immigration status. It is likely that India has alternative plans to accommodate Hasina. On August 16, during a press briefing, Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs, hinted at the existence of 'Plan B' or 'Plan C' when asked about the potential cancellation of Hasina's passport. Until these plans are revealed, uncertainty surrounds the conditions under which Hasina is staying in India.
Hasina's situation prompts several questions: Has she applied for political asylum, or is she being held in confinement? India must be aware that Hasina faces over thirty murder charges in Bangladesh. As a concerned Bangladeshi citizen, it will be a questionable hidden surprise whether the Indian Constitution permits sheltering a foreign national accused of multiple murders.
India finds itself in a complex situation regarding Sheikh Hasina, as political analysts suggest. The country is increasingly concerned about losing allies in South Asia, and the current scenario in Bangladesh exacerbates these worries. India's past actions towards Bangladesh and its people have fostered anti-India sentiments, a sentiment that has not developed overnight. This growing discontent can be attributed to India's underestimation of Bangladeshi citizens. Despite strained relations with the Bangladeshi populace, India has maintained strong ties with Sheikh Hasina and her party. Over the past decade, India has supported Sheikh Hasina's undemocratic government, benefiting from this relationship by labelling Bangladesh as a 'faithful neighbor' and 'best friend.'
Given this backdrop, it is expected that India will continue to support Sheikh Hasina during these challenging times. The pressing question is whether the interim government in Bangladesh will request India's assistance in bringing Sheikh Hasina back amid ongoing turmoil. Foreign Affairs Advisor Touhid Hossain hinted at this possibility in an interview with Reuters on August 15, stating that Bangladesh might request India's help under the 2013 prisoner exchange agreement if the Ministry of Home Affairs and Law decides so. This situation could potentially embarrass the Indian government.
However, the real question is whether India would indeed feel embarrassed. When Reuters approached India's Ministry of External Affairs, they declined to comment. Yet, insights from a former officer of India's intelligence agency, RAW, shared with the Indian Express shed light on the matter. He questioned whether India's interests align with handing over Sheikh Hasina to Bangladesh, suggesting that the validity of the prisoner exchange agreement is not the sole consideration. He emphasized that many in Bangladesh value their relationship with India, indicating that India still has significant support within the country. Another Indian defense official echoed this sentiment, stating that no country exchanges prisoners against its national interests, regardless of any agreement.
The recent statements by two Indian officials carry significant weight. Political analysts suggest that the interim government in Bangladesh may face considerable challenges in the near future. The remark "We have a strong side in Bangladesh," made by an official from "RAW," hints at a crucial implication. It likely refers to the loyalists left by Sheikh Hasina within various levels of the Bangladeshi government and society. This scenario could spell trouble for Bangladesh, as these loyalists might be used to destabilize the country, a pattern observed in other South Asian nations. However, it can be seen in the case of the US and Iran prisoner swap in 2016. Despite not having strong diplomatic relations, both countries agreed to exchange prisoners as part of a larger nuclear deal, showing that prisoner exchanges can sometimes serve as a tool for improving diplomatic relations even if they may not align with immediate national interests.
Given these circumstances, there is skepticism about whether India will facilitate Sheikh Hasina's return to Bangladesh. India must consider that providing refuge to someone accused of being responsible for the deaths of over 600 people during the anti-discrimination student movement could strain bilateral relations. If India genuinely seeks to foster friendly ties with Bangladesh, it must address this issue with utmost seriousness. Bangladesh consistently aims to maintain friendly relations with India, and it is crucial for India to evaluate whether harboring Sheikh Hasina aligns with this goal. Nepal granting asylum to Tibetan refugees would be the case to take into consideration, which strained its relations with China. Despite attempting to maintain friendly ties with both India and China, Nepal faced backlash from China for providing refuge to the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan exiles. This highlights the potential consequences of offering shelter to individuals linked to controversial or sensitive political issues in neighboring countries.
Sajibur Rahman... |
