'Bangladeshi Hindus Hope Jamaat Does Not Come To Power'

'Many senior Bangladeshis feel Bangladesh will fall into anarchy if the Jamaat becomes an important part of a future government or has disproportionate influence in the government.'

As Bangladesh heads toward elections on February 12 that many citizens hope will be their first meaningful democratic exercise in over a decade, a parallel and darker reality is unfolding on the ground.

Attacks on religious minorities -- particularly Hindus -- have increased, fear has seeped into everyday life, and the resurgence of the Jamaat-e-Islami has triggered widespread anxiety across large sections of Bangladeshi society.

For a nation born out of a bloody liberation war in 1971 with secularism as one of its founding pillars, this moment represents not just a political transition but an existential test.

The interim dispensation in Dhaka led by Chief Advisor Professor Mohammed Yunus, the sidelining of the Awami League, and the growing street-level influence of Jamaat have created an atmosphere of uncertainty and silence.

Many Bangladeshis -- journalists, professionals, students, and minorities -- are reluctant to speak openly, worried about reprisal.

Hindus, already numerically vulnerable, find themselves increasingly under siege, their insecurity often dismissed or politically rationalised even as incidents of violence continue to surface with alarming regularity.

For India, the developments across its eastern border carry profound strategic, moral, and civilisational implications.

New Delhi enjoyed close ties with former prime minister Sheikh Hasina's government for over a decade before her ouster, but today it faces a far more complex landscape: A possible Bangladesh National Party return, the rising clout of the Jamaat-e-Islami with its openly regressive and anti-secular ideology, and growing Western involvement in shaping Bangladesh's political future.

In this interview with Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff, national security expert Nitin A Gokhale, a seasoned observer of Bangladesh, shares first-hand impressions from the ground, assesses the fear gripping Bangladeshi society, examines the Jamaat's renewed momentum, and reflects on what lies ahead for minorities, democracy, and India-Bangladesh relations at this critical juncture.

'India would like the BNP to come to power'

What were your observations when you went to Bangladesh?

First, I feel the Bangladeshis are excited about the elections. They feel that they are getting a chance to participate in the first free and fair elections in the last 10-12 years.

According to them previous elections were rigged in favour of the Awami League of Sheikh Hasina, the then prime minister of Bangladesh. Many young people will be voting for the first time. A lot of people are likely to return from abroad to just vote.

The Awami League has been banned from contesting the elections so how can we call this a free and fair elections?

We can't. But this is the decision that the interim government of Bangladesh run by Yunus has taken. The BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) says that it is not a party to that decision, but it is Professor Yunus's government that has taken the call. So they lay the blame on Professor Yunus.

Historically, India never had good relations with the BNP, especially with the late Khaleeda Zia, its leader. So, how you think things will change on the ground?

For the last 15 years India had a good run with the Bangladesh government when Sheikh Hasina was running the country. BNP was in an on and off relations with India.

'Jamaat inspired by Muslim Brotherhood'

BNP is a mainstream party and is not a party like the Jamaat-e-Islami, which has a regressive streak in its DNA. The Jamaat derives inspiration from the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. Therefore, India would like the BNP to come to power (rather than the Jamaat-e-Islami).

Didn't the BNP take an anti-India stance in the past when it ruled Bangladesh?

Yes, they did. Between 2001 and 2006, they were in coalition with the Jamaat-e-Islami. The Jamaat was then considered an out and out anti-India party.

They also opposed the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. Their view on women's role in Bangladeshi society is very regressive and that is anathema to India.

Many senior Bangladeshi elements in society feel Bangladesh will fall into anarchy if the Jamaat becomes an important part of a future government or has disproportionate influence in the government.

'Hindus live in fear'

What about the Hindus of Bangladesh? Are they in a very vulnerable state now? We read every day about attacks on them.

I did not go out of Dhaka as I had limited time. But, yes, they are under attack and are living in fear.

Jamaat leaders brush off the allegations or whitewash it by saying Hindus are attacked in Bangladesh because they are supporters or office-bearers of the Awami League at the local level. They are not attacked as Hindus.

Is that an excuse?

Maybe, but the fact is they (Hindus) are under siege in Bangladesh currently.

How are Hindus living in Bangladesh now?

They are living in fear and hoping for the best that the Jamaat does not come to power or become a power unto themselves.

What is the truth about the Jamaat's popularity?

There is no doubt that the most discussed subject in Bangladesh today is the resurgence of the Jamaat.

Jamaat leaders told me that they may swing a surprise in the elections given the resurgence and traction they are getting in Bangladesh.

The most educated people and saner elements are very uncomfortable if this happens. They live in fear that the Jamaat will come to power.

Bangladeshis value their language, their culture and the secular nature of society. Therefore, they are afraid that Bangladesh should not turn out to be a regressive society.

'It is the West who back the Jamaat in Bangladesh'

India can do business with the Taliban in Afghanistan, so why not with the Jamaat in Bangladesh in the future?

Jamaat is keen, but from the Indian side, India has made it clear that it is not likely to see the Jamaat as a friendly neighbour as their policy does not gel with India's.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, India says it is dealing with the Taliban because they are Pakistan's nemesis. It is strategic and political expediency.

Does the Jamaat not know that it was Pakistani forces that raped Bangladeshi women and killed their men during the liberation war?

Jamaat was complicit in it. They have never apologised for their reprehensible role. Moreover, they are known to be opposed to any prominent role for women. Their chief has said that women are unfit for leadership because they are made differently.

Their stand is clearly anathema to a large population of Bangladesh. On the other hand, Jamaat says that a large section of the Bangladesh population supports them because they are untested and uncorrupt. They say they are a disciplined party and therefore they will rule Bangladesh in a better way and give good governance.

Who is backing the Jamaat internationally?

Not so surprisingly, it is the West who back the Jamaat in Bangladesh. It is the USA and the UK who are pulling the strings in Bangladesh right now. I have written an article (external link) on this.

What advantage can the Jamaat bring to the US and UK?

They see the Jamaat as easy to manipulate and handle rather than an established and bigger political party like the BNP. They tried with the BNP, but they did not get that comfort level they wanted. Therefore, they have chosen to fund and encourage the Jamaat and use Bangladesh as a base against China in the neighbourhood.

What about Bangladeshi society that fought for a secular Bangladesh in 1971?

To my knowledge, they constitute a larger majority of people of Bangladesh. But most of them are silent and living in dread because Jamaat people have made inroads into the lower echelons of the police or bureaucracy. And nobody wants to confront them or criticise the Jamaat openly.

Why does India get dragged into controversy in Bangladesh?

This happens to any big power in any region of the world.

'India became an easy target because...'

In this case because India had chosen to support the Awami League through all these years and they very clearly said which side they were on. We never kept in touch with the other side, so India became an easy target. They play up in Bangladesh that India was more pro-Awami League rather than pro-Bangladesh.

What about the opinion on the street?

I have been going to Bangladesh on and off from 1986 and for the first time I saw fear among the people.

Bangladeshis are very loud and openly express their opinion.

This time, however, I saw that they were very cautious and not willing to be quoted or to speak on camera.

They feel that if the Jamaat comes to power, then it will be the nemesis of Bangladeshi secular society, but nobody was openly willing to talk on this issue.

They have resigned themselves to fate by stating if the Jamaat has to come they have to come.

That is the sad part I noticed on my visit.

What about the media?

Newspaper owners and a lot of journalists were mostly Awami League supporters in the past or had fallen out with them. But none of them want to speak against the Jamaat.

Do you feel Sheikh Hasina and Indian intelligence failed to see that the situation would go so bad in Bangladesh?

Hasina became overconfident and arrogant during her rule.

'India didn't anticipate such upsurge'

Our agencies surely knew about the deteriorating situation in Bangladesh and the increasing opposition to her, but clearly India didn't anticipate such a kind of upsurge.

We could have done nothing much because India thought of extending its good run with Hasina as that was the only option.

The other option was not acceptable to New Delhi, like hobnobbing with the Jamaat or other non-secular forces in Bangladesh.

Do you think it is good policy to keep Sheikh Hasina in India? Do we officially admit that she is in India?

Yes, we admit she stays in India.

We have never abandoned our friends.

Take the Dalai Lama. He has been living here for the last 60 years.

She has the right to be here, although the Bangladeshi interim government keeps demanding her and her followers' repatriation. That is a problem and right now things are in a mess.

Can we say Bangladesh is a divided society now?

Not divided, but a society living in fear.

The core element or support of the Jamaat -- may be 5 to 10 per cent -- may be intact, but they are going all out to woo or force others by allurement or fear to support them.

The more dominant streak of secular forces are not very vocal or vehemently pushing back against the Jamaat, which allows the Jamaat to create a narrative that they are on the upswing.

'They are rewriting the history of Bangladesh'

What about Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who led his country to independence from Pakistan's clutches?

Today they have completely erased his memory from Bangladesh.

It is the fault of Professor Yunus who as interim head of the country allowed Mujib's memorial to be vandalised.

They are also changing textbooks from where Mujib's name is being erased.

They are also denying the history or what happened during the Liberation War.

Does it mean the new government will not even teach future generations of Bangladeshis as to how they got independence from Pakistan?

No, they will not teach that, they will likely change the textbooks. That is the sad part.

They are rewriting the history of Bangladesh.