Can India and Bangladesh Reconcile Amid Alleged Anti-Hindu Violence?

India and Bangladesh: Can They Mend Ties Amid Rising Tensions?

Last Monday, Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra casually sported a tote bag with the legend "Palestine" emblazoned on it. Expectedly, the Bharatiya Janata Party leaders, displaying Pavlovian reflexes, slammed her for what they called "minority appeasement." To address concerns about human rights violations, particularly in the context of India and Bangladesh, the next day, Priyanka showed up carrying another tote bag that was critical of the alleged genocide against minorities taking place in neighbouring Bangladesh.

What is the extent of genocide unfolding in Bangladesh? Is it similar to what is taking place in Gaza or what happened so many years ago in Bangladesh, largely against the Hindu population? What do we know of the extent of violence other than what has been raucously peddled on social media?

While figures of death are conservative – some claim that only two people have been killed – there have reportedly been many cases of arson of Hindu properties in Bangladesh. What is worse is that this deepening chasm between the two communities in Bangladesh became a reason for supporters of this regime change to ease out many Hindus, who were perceived to be members of the ousted Awami League government, from jobs as professors, teachers, and more. These allegations of violence and retrenchment peaked after the August 5 coup, but in the imagination of those who want to see the relationship between India and Bangladesh through the prism of a communal divide between Hindus and Muslims, it carries on. This is the reason why Priyanka Gandhi had to carry a tote bag highlighting a legend demanding an end to human rights violations against Hindu and Christian minorities to mollify majoritarian impulses in India.

While it's true that the many scars of the bloody partition of 1947 and the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh have not healed, it is possible to sense a desire for peace when the people are not provoked by a party in power. To reiterate, hatred and animosity perish when the concerns of the government and political parties are not anchored in violent divisiveness.

However, the past does not leave the violence-racked country of Bangladesh. More than the violence of the partition that left hundreds of thousands dead, the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 proved to be so gruesome that it made people forget the happenings of 1947. The Pakistani army was adamant about preventing the emergence of Bangladesh, and their supporters were keen that Eastern Pakistan should remain part of Pakistan. Their contention was that if the Bengalis were so fond of their language and culture, then they should have remained with the Indian part of Bangladesh, as 1947 allowed that option. This narrative was directed at the Hindus who decided to stay back in Eastern Pakistan and wanted a future political order that accommodated their cultural and religious beliefs. The Pakistani army believed that the support for the formation of Bangladesh was coming from the Hindu elite. The liberation force, Mukti Bahini, was also Hindu-dominated. The Pakistani army believed that the Hindus were the ones who wanted to break away from Pakistan.

What followed was a calculated genocide against the Hindus, including intellectuals. In a matter of 8 months, 2 weeks, and 6 days there were 3 million fatalities. Besides, there was sexual violence—there were allegations of mass rape of Hindu women—and ethnic cleansing. Hindu women were treated as war booty by the Pakistani army. Most of the 10 million refugees that came to India were Hindus. Bangladesh represented an unfinished business of religion-based partition. It’s a different matter that the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, managed to emerge triumphant, but supporters of East Pakistan, represented by Jamaat-e-Islami, still continue in their effort to turn Bangladesh into a society that is more Islamic than Bengali.

For 15 odd years, Sheikh Hasina resisted these forces with the help of India, and New Delhi was amply rewarded by this relationship. The coup of August 5, 2024, which saw Hasina’s untimely exit to Delhi, has brought back memories of an eastern neighbour who was hostile to India and took orders from Pakistan. Ever since Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus came to power, there has been a palpable shift in foreign policy. India is no longer the center of Dhaka’s world. For instance, Pakistan has inched its way back into Bangladesh’s good books. The Indian company Adani Group, which supplied power to the neighbouring country, finds its supply contract in doldrums. There is a possibility that the contract may be annulled. What’s really happening to Bangladesh, where even after the August coup, 600 odd Durga Puja pandals were set up and only a few were vandalised?

India and Bangladesh: Can Relations Survive Growing Strains?

This writer spoke with a retired diplomat deeply invested in good ties with India to share his views on what he thought of the violence rocking Bangladeshi society and how Hindus are holding the wrong end of the stick. This conversation took place after the visit of India’s Foreign Secretary, Vikram Misri, to Dhaka, where he raised the issue of rising radicalism in Bangladesh and violence against Hindus with his counterpart and Chief Advisor, Muhammad Yunus. The precipitating factor was the arrest of a priest belonging to ISKCON, Chinmoy Krishna Das, on charges of sedition. His arrest saw the vandalisation of three temples in Chattogram. Das’s bail has been denied by the Chattogram court. Meanwhile, another Hindu priest has been arrested without any charges.

The former diplomat claimed that it is difficult to feel any communal tension in Bangladesh. “I have covered over 250 kilometers around sensitive areas of Dhaka, including Mirpur, but find nothing.” He was of the view that there was a mismatch between what the Indian media is reporting and what is happening on the ground. He was of the view that Indian investment into connectivity could come to grief in the coming days due to “India’s aggressive ways” and unwillingness to accept this change.

Another foreign policy expert, equally committed to restoring good ties between India and Bangladesh, claimed that New Delhi should recognise that this is a generation that has a different view about the country and how it came into being. According to him, this generation cannot remain grateful to Delhi for its independence, which the country got in 1971. “What has been bothering them is the fact that India was party to the hijacking of their democracy by ousted PM Sheikh Hasina.” As India is seen to be in cahoots with Sheikh Hasina, this former diplomat alleges that the entire charge of subverting democracy falls on New Delhi, too. “It was fine to give refuge to Sheikh Hasina, but why is she being allowed to issue statements and engage in politics from Delhi?” These are uncomfortable questions, the answers to which must be found soon by the government in Delhi, lest the situation in the neighbourhood spins out of control.