On 5 August, the second anniversary of the July Mass Uprising, fugitive former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has been convicted of crimes against humanity, delivered public political and anti-Bangladesh provocative remarks during a virtual interaction with international media in New Delhi, India. Her remarks, followed by an angry reaction from Bangladesh, have once again heightened tensions in the diplomatic relations between the two countries.
Just days before this interaction, the Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Committee of the Indian Lok Sabha itself had stated in its report that Sheikh Hasina would not be allowed to carry out any kind of political activity using Indian territory.
Even so, it is surprising that Sheikh Hasina was able to virtually address the international media from there and make such remarks. How was this possible without the consent of the Indian government?
India’s leading newspaper, The Indian Express, published an editorial stating that although India’s decision to provide Sheikh Hasina refuge may be justified on the grounds of the unfairness of the legal process, allowing Indian soil to be turned into a political platform is problematic
Before the interaction between Sheikh Hasina and the media, organised by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia (FCC) in Delhi, Dhaka had already brought the matter to India’s attention through diplomatic channels. Humayun Kabir, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs, met with Dinesh Trivedi, India’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh, and conveyed a clear message: a fugitive accused who has been sentenced to death by a Bangladeshi court should not be given the opportunity to engage in politics or create instability while sitting on Indian soil.
Bangladesh expressed its expectation of India’s cooperation on the matter.
Despite this, the FCC went ahead with the interaction between Sheikh Hasina and the media. This was in no way expected. Although New Delhi’s position regarding Hasina’s press conference is that India does not endorse her remarks.
Following the interaction, Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an angry reaction, saying, “At a time when the people of Bangladesh are observing the second anniversary of the July Revolution, Sheikh Hasina’s interaction on Indian soil is an affront to Bangladesh’s sovereignty and a grave insult to the martyrs of the July Revolution.”
The ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), opposition Jamaat-e-Islami, and National Citizens Party (NCP) have also expressed anger over the incident. The issue has also drawn criticism in the Indian media. India’s leading newspaper, The Indian Express, published an editorial stating that although India’s decision to provide Sheikh Hasina refuge may be justified on the grounds of the unfairness of the legal process, allowing Indian soil to be turned into a political platform is problematic.
This incident has come at a time when New Delhi is trying to rebuild relations with Dhaka after a year and a half of tensions with the interim government led by Professor Muhammad Yunus.
We were seeing signs of new possibilities emerging in the post-election period for rebuilding bilateral relations between the two countries, restoring commercial momentum, and addressing long-pending issues such as electricity, water sharing, and border management. At the same time, the Indian government has invited Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, in his capacity as chair of BIMSTEC, to the outreach session of the BRICS Summit to be held in India. Diplomacy experts believe that, at such a promising juncture, this move from New Delhi could once again create mistrust and suspicion in the relationship.
Bangladesh has always believed in the principles of mutual trust, respect, dignity, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. But are these values being reflected on India’s part? On the one hand, India has been dragging its feet on handing over a convicted fugitive, disregarding the 2013 extradition treaty; on the other, allowing more than a thousand fugitive leaders, activists, and military officers of the banned Awami League to use Indian soil to pursue conspiracies against Bangladesh can in no way be regarded as the conduct of a good neighbour.
Indian policymakers must understand that they need to build a long-term, strong, and stable relationship with the elected government of Bangladesh, a democratic and sovereign neighboring country of 170 million people. Allowing a rejected and court-convicted authoritarian leader and her supporters to conduct anti-Bangladesh political activities would hinder that effort.
Given the global and regional realities, Bangladesh and India are indispensable to each other as neighbours. Therefore, if New Delhi wants to sustain this new beginning in relations, it must adopt a pragmatic approach to this issue.