Indian Economy

[prasen9]

Why do we think Bangladesh will be the next Afghanistan and not the next Pakistan?

Is there a difference? Even if there is, does the difference matter?

If you think girls should not go to school after grade 6, then it does not matter. If you think contraceptives should be banned, then it does not matter. I could go on and on. But, maybe you can let us know if you agree that it matters or not. Mind you, I am not talking from a self-centred interest. My life will perhaps not be affected either way. But, I do care if large swathes of the human population have access to education, contractption, etc. I am talking about interest to humanity. The Taliban is orders of magnitude more draconian an administration than any in Pakistan has ever been perhaps. I do not forsee a Taliban in Bangladesh but who knows.

[jayakris]

^^^ I don't disagree with any of that. I have exactly the same feelings.

My question was on geopolitics, from India's standpoint. There seem to be no difference. These neighboring Muslim countries will all behave the same way to India if it is not a single person dictatorship (which itself would quite possibly be an anti-India dictatorship). These countries will not be a friend to us, and neither will they really appreciate anything India does. To them, India is a Hindu country and so automatically some sort of an enemy, and that is that. That is why I said just leave them alone to wallow in their own misery and not to meddle and try to make them friendly to us. It is not worth it. Any meddling will only increase the automatic anti-India feelings in the majority Muslim populations.

Speaking openly, that is what I feel. Religion itself is the issue, ultimately. That is why they are targeting the Hindus in Bangladesh, when those people had nothing do with any of what happened there in connection with Hasina.

I used to give Bangladesh the benefit of the doubt because they are Bengalis with a higher educational level, who know the history of India's helping in their independence and then largely staying away (rather than trying to dominate them like many other "liberating" countries would have done). But none of that is appreciated by the Bagladeshis either, as it appears. They are also just another Muslim country of people who fear the big brother next door who has a majority population of non-muslims.

Just stay away from these neighbors, even if we feel deeply about matters like the women's plight. We can't fix it for them. And don't do any fixing that only buys us more enemies.

Just be ready to do defensive (or even offensive) military action if any of these countries become dangerously close to being a complete toy of some superpowers. Deal with the superpowers directly; not through "sympathetic-to-India leaders" in these countries. Such leaders will only be disliked by the majority Muslim populations in those countries. It is not worth it. Stay away.

[prasen9]

That I fully agree with. I had liked your post in the last page.

Bengalis had higher educational levels but with all due respect a lot more of it was Kolkata-based and not Dhaka-based. The secularists in Bangladesh have been muzzled. This is the problem with majority rule I suppose especially if a country has a rise in fundamentalist religous groups who come into power.

[PKBasu]

The greater the proportion of Muslims in the country, the greater the likelihood and degree of an extreme Islamist government. I object to the blanket use of the term "dictator" to refer to Hasina. She was democratically elected 15 years ago, and won 3 more elections with varying degrees of participation by the electorate (the most egregious one being the latest one in January 2024). But 40% participation despite boycott calls by all the other parties suggests there is a deep wellspring of support for the Awami League, the founding party of Bangladesh -- despite the virulent opposition of BNP and Jamaat (who together embody the pro-Pakistan elements from 1971, and the disgruntled anti-Pakistanis from 1971-75, and their descendants, who have grown in number in the past 10-15 years amid anti-incumbency toward Hasina).

The elimination of Hasina, and forced marginalisation of the Awami League, will actually be very bad for Bangladesh in the short and medium term. Hasina appeased some Jihadi Islamists (Hafezat-al-Islam), but broadly kept the most extremist elements firmly in check. (This suited India, but was also a big long-term positive for Bangladesh). This was never easy (most Bangladeshi workers I talked to in Singapore and Malaysia, and taxi-drivers in NY, universally accused Hasina of "ottasar" -- atyachar -- against Muslims), but she remained firm -- and hence promoted the rapid economic development of her country. Now that the genie of Jihadism is out of the bottle, things will get progressively worse in Bangladesh. Internecine conflicts among extreme Jihadi groups will break out, a la Pakistan, if not Afghanistan.

I have seen how Malaysia (which was 52% Muslim sixty years ago, but is now about 65% Muslim) has steadily changed over the past 30 years. Muslim women are increasingly forced to wear hijab (called tudung in Malay), beginning with peer pressure in school and the workplace. (One Muslim woman colleague of mine at the sovereign wealth fund of Malaysia, where I was chief economist, was reported by another colleague for drinking wine on a flight to the US, and was sought to be reprimanded by the COO; I managed to reason with the CEO that this was free choice, and she shouldn't be officially reprimanded or suffer other consequences, but she soon got fed up and took up an academic opportunity in Japan). Indonesia has a different tradition (with Hinduism embedded in the legacy of Java, and Bali and west Lombok still predominantly Hindu), but is under tremendous pressure to Arabize too. As the Hindu proportion of Bangladesh's population diminishes, it will become increasingly extremist.

[prasen9]

Which depends upon the semantics of the term dictator. If the conditions are (a) total power in a country, and (b) obtained that by force, then obviously Hasina was elected fair and square. She became a dictator later in that she behaved in an autocratic way.

The rest I agree. Unfortunately.

[srini]

I feel the turmoil in Bangla can’t entirely be ignored. It’s no coincidence that Manipur violence happened after there was considerable migration from Myanmar triggered by military rule crisis.

I came across articles about pre stuffed ballot boxes being used for Bangla elections and Hasina rejecting sincere suggestions (including Indian government) for an independent election commission. The election in Bangla may be a sham but who really was her primary opponent , Khalida zia and her son right? UK has sheltered her son so UK not accepting Hasina’s request for asylum in UK is not surprising.

Looking at play books for various past protests that have taken place in India I think these student protests may actually have been funded by some governments.

I looked at two claims from Hasina as early as May.
1. She has hinted at a western government role (without explicitly mentioning US) by saying she was offered an easy reelection had she agreed for its military base in St Martin islands.

2. She claimed about conspiracy to create a christian state like east timor carved out of Bangla and Myanmar ( and in some articles they included India too)

All western nations have always been hypocrites, no outside country can try to eliminate a terrorist on their land ( even if the said terrorist organisations resort to bombing an Indian civilian aircraft hijacking a few more) but these governments should be thought of as well intentioned to dispose of an elected government by funding the unrest for some ulterior motive.Any cursory look at Bangla economy will tell Hasina’s administration has been good for the country. Yunus may be the face of interim government there for now but in due time the real face will emerge to claim the power and i fear it won’t be secular .

[jayakris]

How about India getting friendly with Yunus though? He may be better than whoever is going to replace him!

[Kumar]

What was the last armed or even student led revolution in any part of the world that would be considered as highly successful and has led to better quality of life for nation at large rather than just the leaders?

Did they also overthrow the supreme court justices that re-instated reservation? Why was Hasina blamed for supreme court action. Did she give away the reservation and take it away using supreme court?

[Rajiv]

Any cursory look at Bangla economy will tell Hasina’s administration has been good for the country. Yunus may be the face of interim government there for now but in due time the real face will emerge to claim the power and i fear it won’t be secular .

Yunus has been stridently expressing that India has been supporting a wrong leader in BD, so having reached this position on an anti India plank , it is hard to accept that he will change his position.
The other option ,BNP is fundamentally opposed to any Indian cooperation

The country is in its most distressing state since 1971 and in such a scenario there won't be any foreign investments, and as a result their Garment industry which has been the mainstay and the engine for their growth will imensly suffer ,in turn bringing more difficulties for the nation.

[jayakris]

Yunus has been stridently expressing that India has been supporting a wrong leader in BD, so having reached this position on an anti India plank , it is hard to accept that he will change his position.
The other option ,BNP is fundamentally opposed to any Indian cooperation

But we have no choice. If we are going to do anything, I think it should be pro-Yunus and pro-BNP.

Of course, leaving them alone to self-destruct is what I would suggest. But if we are going to meddle, it should not be against BNP, because I think that will only worsen things. Whether we like it or not, that is the group Bangladeshis want. Go with whatever the majority wants there. Trying to prop up an opposition to extremist factions has not been working anywhere. If it happens internally there, fine, but external meddling will never make it happen.

Sometimes the naive and simplest reasoning and logic are the best to go with.

[prasen9]

Pro-Yunus, worth a shot. Not necessarily pro-BNP but working with BNP on what we agree in common, etc. That is what diplomats do. There are no enemies or friends you cannot talk to and agree and disagree and come up winners on both sides. Good foreign policy and good diplomats can do that.

[srini]

But we have no choice. If we are going to do anything, I think it should be pro-Yunus and pro-BNP.

It is the trap the governments sponsoring the Bangla unrest want neutral people like us to fall into.

But if we are going to meddle, it should not be against BNP, because I think that will only worsen things. Whether we like it or not, that is the group Bangladeshis want.

Its like saying Haryana and Punjab farmers represent the whole Indian farmers just because they could stage raucous protests and get their way. Fact is 95% of India's poor farmers were victims because NDA had to rollback farm bills but they didn't have the funds or might to stage rival protests in favour of farm bills.

India's toothless foreign policy which is a hangover from its post colonial days is still a drag on its self interests when governments in neighboring countries get thrown like this. Dalailama has been seeking asylum in India since Tibet was occupied by China and now i don't foresee any other country giving refuge to Hasina. Ironically she didn't dare to seek asylum in any of the 50 odd Islamic countries but sought asylum in a Hindu majority India. That is a testimonial to India's foreign policy acting against its own self interests in an unbelievably "Utopian" way!

Well i don't see us getting any benefit out of this oft repeated "Shooting yourself in the foot" policy debacles. But throwing Hasina under bus after some governments sponsored unrest will not make India deal favorably with similar other smaller neighbors' am not at all positive about this Yunus guy, who is just planted to conceal the real benefactor of these protests and will get revealed in due time.

[prasen9]

Supporting Hasina now gets us nothing. Foreign policy should be pragmatic. We need to try to figure out how we can have some influence with whoever is in power to the extent we can without giving up our interests, without giving up our morality, and without mortgaging too much of our future interests, thinking strategically and long-term. With that in mind, there is no value in supporting Hasina but maybe using her sheltering as a bargaining chip to get things from future Bangladesh governments may be a good idea. Does not matter who is supportin Yunus or whose puppet he is, etc. He is the leader of Bangladesh and we have much to gain by figuring out how to work with him and reduce anti-India sentiment or Hindu bashing in Bangladesh. There is nothing we lose by engaging with him and trying to extract the best we can.

[prasen9]

The greater the proportion of Muslims in the country, the greater the likelihood and degree of an extreme Islamist government.I object to the blanket use of the term "dictator" to refer to Hasina. She was democratically elected 15 years ago, and won 3 more elections with varying degrees of participation by the electorate (the most egregious one being the latest one in January 2024). But 40% participation despite boycott calls by all the other parties suggests there is a deep wellspring of support for the Awami League, the founding party of Bangladesh -- despite the virulent opposition of BNP and Jamaat (who together embody the pro-Pakistan elements from 1971, and the disgruntled anti-Pakistanis from 1971-75, and their descendants, who have grown in number in the past 10-15 years amid anti-incumbency toward Hasina).

To add to what I said above, there are two types of dictators. One is those who overthrow governments using power - typically military leaders. The others who win an election fair and square, and then turn into dictators. Hasina is the latter. The July'32 election that gave the Nazi Party the majority with Hitler as its presidential candidate was fair and square. After becoming president, Hitler made it a one-party state, etc. While the atrocities commited by Hasina and Hitler are nowhere comparable, both won elections. So, if we cannot call Hasina a dictator, we cannot call Hitler a dictator either. Hitler tried a coup but that failed. He came to power not by means of power. The '32 election was fair and he won subsequent partially free elections. And, he had significant support - sometimes absolute majority support - from the Germans. Still, I would call him a dictator and I think historians have called him so. Thus, my definition is that one who eliminates opponents and makes things effectively a one-party state with few checks against the abuse and misuse of such power and then uses and abuses such power is a dictator. Hasina checks every box of a dictator in the latter years.

[Kumar]

Indian diplomatic skills are practically non existent. We have penchant for choosing losing causes. I think Indira Gandhi for all her faults was probably lot more smarter and ruthless than any of the other PMs in her forEign policy.

Just seems like we don’t have the deep pockets or the smartness of china who is having a big influence with all of our neighbors. Is there even a single neighbor with whom we have great relationships? Even in Nepal a fully hindu country there are strong anti indian feelings