As Bangladesh prepares for an interim government with microfinance pioneer and Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus at the helm, Veena Sikri, India's former high commissioner to Bangladesh, spoke to moneycontrol.com. She emphasised that the recent turmoil, which led to the removal of Sheikh Hasina Wazed as that country’s prime minister, is not merely a result of the students' quota reform movement. Instead, Sikri views it as a Jamaat-e-Islami-led upheaval, potentially backed by Pakistan, China and Western nations. India's future relations with Bangladesh will hinge on the new leadership and the country's stability. India will need to manage this situation carefully, maintaining good relations while addressing border security and potential unrest, Sikri said.
Did anyone in India foresee this turmoil in Bangladesh?
Let me say that the suddenness of what has happened is for a very specific reason. Although what has happened now—with the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the subsequent events—has been linked even worldwide to the students' quota reform movement, this change, the regime change operation has nothing to do with the quota reform movement. And I think the students' protest has to be seen as entirely separate from the regime change and forcing Sheikh Hasina to step down and leave the country. I think they're two entirely separate events. The reason that I'm saying this is because the students' reform movement is not a new one.
They first protested against the quota being given to children of freedom fighters, etc. They first protested against the quota in 2018, six years ago, when Sheikh Hasina was, of course, still the prime minister, and in 2018, she accepted that request. She abolished the quota system. For the last six years, there's been no quota in Bangladesh for any of the students. So to say that today they want to change her for a demand on the quotas, I don't think this actually can be of any relevance. And then, not only in June of this year, two months ago, when somebody went to the high court in appeal and the court reversed her order and restored the quota, Sheikh Hasina appealed in the Supreme Court. When she went to appeal to the Supreme Court, some of the student groups joined her. As you know, in the students' movement there is not one monolithic hierarchical movement, no. They have separate coordinators who belong to different universities, etc. The fact is that some of the student groups supported her. In any case, the decision of the Supreme Court came on July 21. And they said, yes, we will cut the quota to only 5 per cent for children of freedom fighters and 2 per cent for others.
So the quota reform movement has met its demands. What was it after that? Some students had indeed died in violence by the police and Chhatra League (the youth wing of Hasina’s Awami League) and others. And when that happened, the Islami Chhatra Shibir, the students' wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami (an outfit in Pakistan that was opposed to the partition and active in Bangladesh), and the others stepped in and took over completely.
I mean, when I saw the visuals of the last two days when Sheikh Hasina was asked to leave the country, somebody is destroying, bringing down the statue of Sheikh Mujib (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, considered the founder of Bangladesh, and the father of Sheikh Hasina), somebody is bombing his home, and now Hindus are under attack.
The 140-year-old house of Rahul Anand in Dhaka has been burnt to the ground. None of the students are doing this. But Muhammad Yunus is saying this is a celebration. I think this is the point. This is a takeover of the student reform movement by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Islami Chhatra Shabbir. Now, whether that could have been foreseen, I don't know.
Do you think the student protests alone led to this, or do you see the involvement of major powers like China, Pakistan or the US?
No, the protests were usurped by the Jamaat-e-Islami, I think. The violence that has now been unleashed in Bangladesh is definitely not by the students and has nothing to do with the students' protest. The decision to ask Sheikh Hasina to go is something internal. And now you've seen what's happened after that.
There's no police anywhere. Even the diplomatic area is not being guarded anymore by the police. I'm worried that even at the border, some of the posts are now lying abandoned. So what is happening within Bangladesh is to be seen.
There is talk that there was definitely some group within the army, maybe a Jamaat-supported group or a pro-Jamaat group within the army, that has engineered all this. Definitely, you will see support from Pakistan because they've always been in touch with Jamaat-e-Islami for the last 50 years and more. I mean, it's always been the same.
Maulana Maududi created the Jamaat-e-Islami and the two wings, one in Bangladesh, one in Pakistan, and of course, there's one in India also. So, I think that is definitely one group because for the Jamaat-e-Islami to act like this, there has to be support within the army. Otherwise, the army would be out, isn't it? But the army is not out.
Now who is behind the Jamaat-e-Islami? There is Pakistan. There is certainly China. The way they treated Sheikh Hasina when she went there in July definitely showed that they no longer supported her at all. They invited her to their home but then they didn't give her any meetings. She just had a most perfunctory meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping. They didn't give her any financial assistance. So much so that she left and came back a day early.
Now, I was always wondering: Why did this happen? Why did the Chinese behave like this? What made them suddenly change their minds on Sheikh Hasina? Maybe this was already in the works because the students' movement was a completely peaceful movement at that time, completely non-violent. When she came to India, when she went to China, there was nothing. In fact, the policemen were standing there on the streets and the students were doing a peaceful march.
Clearly, the planning is there. And now, when you see Dr Muhammad Yunus coming as the interim government head, who is behind him? I mean, he's always been supported by the Western countries. This is a repeat of what happened in Bangladesh in 2007-08. At that time, it was an identical situation, except that the previous prime minister, in that case, was Begum Khaleda Zia, and at this time it was Sheikh Hasina. It was absolutely an identical situation. Then, too, the West brought in Muhammad Yunus, and at that time, he even tried to create a political party and to take over and maybe become prime minister. But there was no resonance from the people at all. Within three months, he gave up the effort to form a political party and left. He said I'm not going to be in politics anymore.
Khalida Zia is released and the new government includes the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Jamaat-e-Islami and other forces. Should India be concerned?
Look, what concerns India is the views of the government. India and Bangladesh are the closest neighbours. We have a 4,000-kilometre border with them, more than with any other country. Obviously, we do want very close relations with them. Economic connectivity, people-to-people, everything. Building bridges, building community projects, railway cooperation, trade and investment.
There are a large number of Indian companies present in Bangladesh. We do want that, but we have to see the response of the government.
There's a public statement, I think, Muhammad Yunus told somebody, Yes, I have been asked and I have accepted. But what is it that he was asked what has he accepted? We don't know yet.
So I think that it's a question as to what the government is over there, the lack of government at the moment, but whenever the government is formed, what do they want? I mean, India will always be committed to good relations with Bangladesh. There is no doubt about that, but you cannot have this wanton destruction, the attack on Indian interests, the attack on the very deliberate and wanton killing of the people there. I mean, how are you going to deal with that? Certainly this violence, this wanton violence and destruction that has been unleashed against all, particularly against the Hindu community, but in general, it's a completely violent situation.
India investing heavily in Hasina and lacking a working relationship with her opponents—will the new leadership view India as a rival?
I want to say very clearly that yes, we had a close relationship with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina because of shared interests. Sheikh Hasina was committed to the development of the country. She was committed, she wanted Bangladesh to be a prosperous country. She committed her every effort to developing the country, to building up the bilateral relationship because she knew that it was in the best interest. She respected India's security concerns and never gave support to the Ulfa (the separatist group United Liberation Front of Asom) and other groups who were being supported by earlier governments. It was mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual benefit.
So, it is not a question of us being or not being considered a rival, we were always in touch with all groups.
When I was there as high commissioner, the prime minister was Begum Khaleda Zia. And we were fully in touch with her people. With Khaleda Zia, it's herself. I've had so many meetings with her. I've had meetings with all the ministers of government. I had very good relations, I travelled all across Bangladesh. And I also kept in touch with the Awami League. So India has been willing to be in touch with all shades of opinion. It is not a question of having any favourites. I have had meetings with the head of the Jamaat-e-Islami who was a minister at that time.
I was invited to their iftar parties. I've had relations with all parts of the society. All shades of opinion, all political groups… Everything. I think all my successors, everybody does that. You stay in touch with everybody. You actually talk to everybody. With the government of the day, which is where you have to do all your work on building up bilateral relations. Of course, we do that. With Sheikh Hasina, we got a very good response, and we have built up bilateral relations very strongly. But we want to keep that strong. It's not that we're giving up on it. If somebody else comes to power, we're not going to say no. We're not going to say we want to give up on bilateral relations.
Do you see China and Pakistan exploiting the current situation in Bangladesh?
Exploiting or creating? First, they have created the situation and in fact, in this case, probably China, Pakistan and the Western countries. What the share of each is, I don't know. But, of course, you do know that under the Democrats (in the US), many people support the G2. So China and the US being on the same page is not to be ruled out. But I think that it is a question of first, since they have created a situation, well, they will certainly try to exploit it. Yes.
As Hasina is out, will it be a big foreign policy challenge for India? What should be New Delhi’s response?
The USP of a constitutional democracy is a peaceful transfer of power. The elections were held in January. The BNP refused to take part, had every option of taking part, but they refused.
After the elections are over, you are raising the questions. That isn't very fair, is it? You didn't take part, number one. Number two, the Jamaat-e-Islami did not take part in the election because they were debarred by the high court, not by the government, but by the high court. Because they had a problem in recognising the Constitution of Bangladesh as being higher than the constitution of their political party. It's a religious factor. So these two parties did not take part. There were many observers from many countries, including India, who said, yes, the election was fine. Now you want to create regime change through the street protests.
Obviously, it is a challenge to India's foreign policy. Because we don't expect regime change to take place this way. And as a democracy matures, you want democratic institutions to get stronger and stronger.
India's wish for Bangladesh is always stability, democracy and continued development. Under any regime, we would like these three factors to continue. We want it to be stable. We want democracy to prosper. And we want continued development, including bilateral relations and everything else.
Given the closeness with Sheikh Hasina, how will Yunus treat India if he takes over?
Well, first of all, he had not yet been announced as the head of the government. Right now, we are in touch with the chief of army staff for all our requests and considerations. But should he be the head of government, we will certainly be in touch with him.
But I do not know about the understanding of the present situation that is there. Because he has described all these events as celebratory. He has blamed India consistently. He blamed India for supporting Sheikh Hasina. I hope that when he is the head of government, he will work towards good relations with India. I sincerely hope so. And I can assure you that if he works towards good relations with India, there will be a very good response from our side.
Should India collaborate with Gulf countries to bring political and economic stability to Bangladesh?
Yes, I think that given the situation, how it's deteriorating so fast, I think it's in the interest of all the countries that have good relations with Bangladesh—Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates... All governments in Bangladesh have had good relations with these countries. Certainly, it is in everybody’s interests that all of us work together to make sure that there is a return to peace and stability in Bangladesh.
Given the close ties between India and Sheikh Hasina, could the government have done more in quietly persuading her to allow more space for opposition politics that could have provided an outlet for other views?
Look, I don't want to pass comments on anybody else's form of governance. There is no end to it. But certainly, if you talk about a person who has already done 20 years in government, looking to the fifth term overall, then there is a strong anti-incumbency that does build up. I mean it's inevitable everywhere. From there you get all the discussions, the unhappiness, etc., etc.
So certainly, I think that being in touch with the views of the people is important for any government. Not just your own supporters, you have to be in touch with the views of all people to take on board wherever the views are relevant and continue with your own governance and persuade all communities and groups to come along with your development. That's the only comment I can make because I don't think there's anything more to be said.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
