In a recent interview with the Press Trust of India (PTI), Prof Muhammad Yunus, the Chief Adviser of the interim government in Bangladesh, made a significant remark, stating that India would be mistaken to view all political parties other than the Awami League as Islamist or radical. This statement carries weight, especially given India’s ongoing concerns regarding the political landscape in Bangladesh. Media outlets, particularly India’s Anandabazar newpaper, seem to echo these worries, and their recent report suggests that Delhi’s South Block is uneasy about Yunus’s potential ties with Islamist groups, raising questions about the evolving political dynamics in Bangladesh.
The narrative emerging from Indian media, particularly Anandabazar, reflects the deep-rooted concerns within Indian political and diplomatic circles. The report from Anandabazar cited sources from Delhi’s South Block who expressed apprehension over Yunus’s interactions with political figures linked to Islamist ideologies, such as Jamaat-e-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam. According to this report, Yunus has successfully engaged in dialogue with most political parties in Bangladesh, with the notable exception of the formerly ruling Awami League.
Delhi’s concerns about the potential rise of Islamist forces in Bangladesh are understandable, given the region’s complex history and the challenges posed by radical ideologies. However, the focus on this issue, particularly in the Indian media, risks overshadowing the more pressing concern of Bangladesh’s increasingly autocratic former government
The backdrop of these concerns can be traced to India’s historical stance on Bangladesh’s political landscape. India has long been a supporter of the Awami League, primarily because of its secularist credentials and its long-standing alliance with New Delhi. The possibility that other political forces, particularly those with Islamist inclinations, could rise to prominence in Bangladesh is seen as a threat to India’s interests in the region.
The question arises whether India’s continued support for the Awami League is sustainable. In recent years, the Awami League has faced increasing criticism for its autocratic tendencies. The report points out that India’s media, especially outlets like Anandabazar, have failed to scrutinize the Awami League’s authoritarian drift adequately. Instead, they focused on the potential rise of Islamist forces, ignoring the more immediate reality of a government that has increasingly alienated its people.
During Sheikh Hasina’s regime, Bangladesh has seen growing social conflict, particularly concerning minority rights, freedom of expression, and democratic governance. Reports of political repression, extrajudicial killings, and the suppression of dissent have become common. Despite these issues, India has maintained its support for the Awami League, possibly due to concerns that a more Islamist government could take power if the party were to fall. Yet, this stance comes at a cost: it risks alienating large segments of the Bangladeshi population who yearn for political change and democratic reform.
Anandabazar’s reluctance to address these concerns in its coverage reflects a broader trend within the Indian media, which has tended to focus more on the perceived threats of radical Islam than on the ousted government’s authoritarian practices. If India wishes to maintain its influence in Bangladesh, it may need to rethink its approach to the political situation there, including re-evaluating its unwavering support for the Awami League.
The core of Delhi’s concern seems to lie in the potential rise of Islamist political forces, with Yunus allegedly playing a role in facilitating this shift. Anandabazar speculates that Yunus’s meetings with Mamunul Haque, a leader of Hefazat-e-Islam, a group perceived by India as extremist, have raised alarm bells. The report implies that by engaging with figures like Haque, Yunus might be providing a platform for Islamist ideologies to gain more traction in Bangladesh’s political sphere.
This concern is not unfounded. If parties like Jamaat-e-Islami or Hefazat-e-Islam gain political power, there could be significant shifts in policies related to education, gender equality, and cultural practices, which would likely exacerbate social tensions in Bangladesh. Minority communities, in particular, would feel vulnerable, as would secular activists and proponents of more progressive policies.
However, it is crucial to examine whether these fears are grounded in reality or are simply speculative. While it is true that Islamist parties like Jamaat and Hefazat have a considerable following, they do not command a majority in Bangladesh. Yunus’s meetings with these groups could be viewed as a pragmatic attempt to engage with all political forces in the country, rather than an endorsement of their ideologies. Given the complex political situation in Bangladesh, Yunus may be trying to build a broad-based coalition that includes various political factions, including Islamists, in order to foster stability and prevent further polarization.
Anandabazar’s report reflects a broader narrative within the Indian media, which often frames political developments in Bangladesh through the lens of Islamist radicalism. This focus, while not entirely unwarranted, overlooks the more nuanced realities of Bangladeshi politics. The Awami League, once seen as a bastion of secularism, has increasingly adopted autocratic measures to maintain power. India’s continued support for this regime, coupled with its media’s tendency to focus on the threat of Islamist parties, risks deepening divisions between the two nations.
Rather than stoking fears about the rise of Islamist parties, Indian media could play a more constructive role by examining the root causes of political instability in Bangladesh. The Awami League’s authoritarian tendencies, its suppression of dissent, and its failure to address the concerns of ordinary Bangladeshis are all contributing factors to the current political impasse. By focusing exclusively on the potential threat of Islamist forces, Indian media outlets like Anandabazar risk missing the larger picture.
Moreover, by framing Yunus’s actions as a potential threat, Indian media may be undermining efforts to foster political reconciliation in Bangladesh. Yunus, a Nobel laureate with significant international standing, has the potential to play a positive role in Bangladesh’s political future. His efforts to engage with a broad range of political actors, including Islamists, could help bridge divides and promote a more inclusive political environment. However, this potential is unlikely to be realized if Indian media continues to portray him as a threat.
Delhi’s concerns about the potential rise of Islamist forces in Bangladesh are understandable, given the region’s complex history and the challenges posed by radical ideologies. However, the focus on this issue, particularly in the Indian media, risks overshadowing the more pressing concern of Bangladesh’s increasingly autocratic former government.
If India wishes to maintain its influence and foster stability in Bangladesh, it may need to adopt a more balanced approach, one that recognizes both the risks posed by Islamist groups and the dangers of supporting an authoritarian regime. Rather than viewing Yunus’s actions through a lens of suspicion, India could benefit from engaging more constructively with him and other political actors in Bangladesh who seek to promote democracy, stability, and inclusivity.
