How India’s majoritarian politics drive its lazy and dismissive commentary on Bangladesh

With the breathing space after the first few days of the tumultuous political events that resulted in Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fleeing the country on August 5, Bangladeshis began looking at what the world was saying about the momentous events in their country. And what they have seen, heard and read in the media of their closest neighbour has been disquieting.

Indians, who played a big role in helping them win their independence, have not just been unsupportive about a protest movement but also expressed their disapproval of the protests against the autocratic Awami League government in myriad forms. While the Indian government has been muted in its comments, the dominant strategic commentary and analysis has been contemptuous and dismissive of the movement to restore democracy.

Bangladeshis have taken to social media to express their outrage about attitudes in India, describing the commentary as ill-informed and the response of both mainstream and social media as vitriolic. They have very good reason for their anger.

Bangladesh, like most other neighbouring countries, scarcely features in the Indian media (with rare exceptions). The country appears, if at all, in copious coverage of bilateral issues and high-level political visits or during times of turbulence – political and natural – most often with little or no context.

As a rule, Indian journalism spends far more space covering American politics than any of the neighbouring countries. The media responds to the disinterest that Indians exhibit in the neighbourhood, but also feeds it by failing to report on the regional countries and its peoples, except in modes of trite comparison. The eruption of coverage and commentary since the ouster of Sheikh Hasina reflects this.

A piece of commentary that has invited particular attention is by Brahma Chellaney, an Indian geostrategist and columnist, in the American media outlet The Hill, titled “A quiet military coup in Bangladesh”. A point-by-point rebuttal of this piece, critical of the ignorance of the writer, has been widely circulated by Bangladeshi academics, journalists and others.

It is worth examining some of the major themes Chellaney’s commentary contains, not just because of the anger it has evoked but because it contains many of the proclivities that define the Indian intelligentsia’s response. These are also being echoed, in much cruder form, in the wider public arena of social media.

A popular and widespread protest that dislodged an authoritarian government – for which Bangladeshi youth paid for with hundreds of lives – has been largely dismissed pejoratively by Indian commentators and the country’s mainstream media. The protest movement was dismissed as an army coup, an Islamist conspiracy and there are dire predictions about where it is headed. Their concerns regarding Bangladesh remain framed in terms of the current majoritarian politics within India.

Long-term neglect

But let us go back to the last few years. Despite a steady stream of well-documented and substantiated criticism of the growing authoritarianism of the Sheikh Hasina government, these developments found scant in the media in India: the unaccounted disappearances, the violence of the Rapid Action Battalion that has been widely criticised for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, the cases against political opponents and critics, the violent reprisal against student protests and the erosion of the democratic space.

Partly a matter of wilful neglect and partly because Hasina was projected as a friend of India, that was all that mattered. The media not only failed to make the distinction between India and the Indian government, it also failed to make the essential distinction between the job of the government and that of the media.

As Hasina quietly went about quashing dissent inside Bangladesh, establishing de facto one-party rule and building a cult around herself and her family, she was valorised within India by its media. In this context, the events of August 5 were viewed in India as shocking, sudden and wholly unexpected.

The deposition of an elected prime minister (even one with a flawed mandate) is an extraordinary event – but not quite as stunning or unanticipated for those who have been following events in Bangladesh. While few could have predicted the exact course of events, it was evident that the increasingly violent suppression of democracy was going to have consequences.

For those who have paid scant or cursory attention so far however, the developments have come as a complete surprise and shock. Devoid of context and an informed understanding of the opposition building up against Hasina, it has been easy to fall into the army coup narrative. A burst of ill-informed and lazy opinion that passes for strategic thinking has erupted from the talking heads who inhabit Indian media space.

In their telling, the student and youth movement that had popular support throughout Bangladesh, the high cost in lives lost and the resistance and protests in different forms over many years were all merely part of an elaborate army plot to assume the reins of power.

In fact, the army’s refusal to fire on unarmed protestors – in effect flouting the directions of Sheikh Hasina – was certainly a factor that precipitated the prime minister’s departure. It is certainly true that the army’s role is significant – and one that the interim government will be aware of. But to interpret a widespread political movement as a military coup exhibits a lack of understanding of Bangladesh as well as India’s strategic interests.

The Islamic trope

In tandem with the narrative of the army coup is one claiming that the entire protest is underpinned by an Islamic or terrorist plot. While members of the student wing of the conservative Jamaat-e-Islami undoubtedly took part in the protests, the movement – national in character – encompassed a broad spectrum of participants and opinion and was, at its core, secular.

However, within the mainstream Indian narrative, there is no distinction between the protesting students and the Jamaat-e-Islami nor any difference between the Jamaat-e-Islami and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, or between Islamic conservatives and those it claims are terrorists. While such erasure of distinction may be useful in scoring polemical and political points, it certainly cannot stand in for strategic analysis.

While this article cannot go into the issue of Islamisation within Bangladesh and its dangers, the facts on the ground demonstrate how blinkered the outlook in India has been. The Jamaat-e-Islam, which is being touted as a danger for India, has courted and been courted by both major political parties in Bangladesh over the decades.

In Indian commentary there has been little or no mention of the rise of the Hefazat-e-Islam, a political formation with roots in the Deobandi movement, and an organisation that, Bangladeshi analysts say, Sheikh Hasina has courted. There has also been little to no reporting on Hasina’s attempt to pander to conservative Islamic groups through measures such as changes in the law, the education syllabus and even offering them political support.

The dangers of the suppression of democratic political space that enabled fringe and rabid elements to seize the foreground has also not been examined by Indian commentators.

Selective outrage

Bangladeshis have also been deeply discomfited by the selective outrage demonstrated within India that has focused almost exclusively on the eruption of violence against Hindus following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. While the heinous attacks should have been a cause of concern to everyone, the failure of Indians to take cognisance of the hundreds of deaths preceding this anti-minority violence has left Bangladeshis feeling that the only Bangladeshis that their neighbours care about are those from the minority Hindu community.

This coupled with the misinformation and disinformation being spread, not just on Indian social media but through some mainstream media, have added to Bangladeshi concerns. According to the Bangladeshi factchecking site Rumor Scanner, 72% of the accounts spreading fake and misleading information about communal violence in the country claimed to be based in India.

Commentators in Bangladesh, while refuting this disinformation, have been forthright in acknowledging the real incidents of violence against Hindus in the country. Civil society groups there have also stepped up to counter the violence and protect Hindus.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the outrage against attacks on Hindus is being viewed in Bangladesh at the same time as a steady stream of attacks on Muslims in India carries on, with little comment from most Indians or the government.

Within India there has also been a distinct attempt to portray the protest movement as regressive and contrary to the values of the Bangladeshi freedom struggle. As proof of this, Indian commentators pointed to instances of vandalism of memorials to the country’s founder, Mujib ur Rahman – Sheikh Hasina’s father. In reality, this was actually an expression of anger about the cult built around Mujib’s family (not his values), which sought to portray anyone who disagreed with them as a razakar or traitor.

These misguided views have been deeply hurtful to Bangladeshis who have widely celebrated this moment, describing it as a second Independence, albeit one that has taken place entirely on their own terms.

However, Bangladeshis should also know that such commentary does not speak for all of India. There is a small but articulate strand of critical thinking within Indian mainstream media – for example these three opinion pieces here, here and here – that have called out the Indian government’s policy towards Bangladesh. Support for the struggles of Bangladeshi’s is also more widespread than social media can capture.

Bangladeshis today are jubilant, but also anxious about their future. Paying more attention to events there would be one way for India to offer greater respect to our neighbours and also create the critical understanding that is necessary for both Indians and Bangladeshis to flourish.

Aunohita Mojumdar is an Indian journalist and former Editor of Himal Southasian currently based in Bangalore.

Also read:

Bangladesh: How safe were Hindus under the Awami League?

View from Dhaka Tribune: 10 things about a Bangladesh in transition that Indians should know