Of the total population of neighbouring Bangladesh, 96.4 per cent of the people profess Islam as their faith, while a small minority of 14 per cent covers Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and others. The population of minorities in Bangladesh has shrunk progressively under the harsh impact of earlier military and quasi-civilian dictatorships.

It is, therefore, worth noting that the present Bangladesh Awami League dispensation in that country, under the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, has emphasised the designation of Bangladesh as the people’s republic rather than an Islamic one.

This is a significant statement of political and social intent by the Awami League, because it encapsulates the course of secular governance which the party intends to adhere to during its present and hopefully future tenures in office. It is also a bold declaration of defiance by Ms Hasina against the assorted jihadi and fundamentalist forces which have made Bangladesh their home under the political umbrella of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) headed by Begum Khaleda Zia. Ms Hasina knows what she is up against because it is no secret that Ms Zia and the BNP command significant support and adherence amongst the radical and fundamentalist elements within the country, including sections of the country’s police, paramilitary as well as the armed forces. The entire Liberation War of 1971 in Bangladesh is sought to be depicted as a mere misunderstanding between the senior and junior members of the same family, i.e. the Punjabis of West Pakistan and the Bengalis of East Pakistan, cleverly exploited by wily Hindu outsiders to tear the Muslim homeland of Pakistan apart.

The BNP is externally supported by the Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan. Even though in accordance with the shadowy rules of the game such support will always remain plausibly deniable, it provides operational resources for surrogates like the Islami Chhatra Shibir, the BNP’s student front of political storm troopers for street warfare.

India must note the possibility of a spillover into its territory of the fallout from the ferocious street clashes in Dhaka over the prosecution of Razakars and other religious extremists as war criminals for the most abominable atrocities against the Bengali people during the War of Liberation in 1971.

This is important because an insidious counterpoint to “peace within Bangladesh” calling for an end to the war crimes trials in Dhaka is being increasingly raised by certain elements in India as well, particularly where strongholds of the minority community constitute strategic electoral pivots. These are dangerous portents, which must be checked at the earliest.

India understands that a secular Bangladesh is in the larger interest of this country as well. The ongoing turmoil and violent street confrontations in Dhaka and elsewhere between the Awami League and its opponents are centred on the preservation of secularism, which distinguishes Bangladesh under the government of Ms Hasina from more fundamentalist Islamic regimes elsewhere, especially across India’s western borders. As she articulated during her speech in Dhaka on March 24, honouring the Friends of Liberation War “…we recommit ourselves to noble ideas and principles — equity, democracy and democratic practice, inclusive development, social justice and rule of law.”

India can obviously do nothing intrusive or obtrusive in any way — that would be the height of folly. However, there is also much that India can, should and must do, beginning with powerful projections of support from civil society in this country for liberal elements in Bangladesh battling fundamentalist organisations in that country, especially the Jamaat-e-Islami. But mere ideological support is not enough, and there has to be other more concrete manifestations of Indo-Bangladesh cooperation.

Prominent amongst these will have to be a revisit to the agreements proposed earlier on sharing the waters of the Teesta River, which was an important issue on the bilateral agenda in the run-up to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Bangladesh in 2011 until catastrophically torpedoed by the perverse obstructionism of a myopic chief minister.

Indeed, it may not be totally incorrect to surmise that the sheer geopolitical symbolism of the Teesta would possibly outweigh the actual volumes of its riverine flows in terms of an Indian outreach to Bangladesh.

It is, therefore, essential that India takes the initiative and conveys its readiness to revive talks with Bangladesh on the Teesta issue. In addition, there are many other economic and cultural issues which India would do well to focus on. Practitioners of economic, business and corporate matters are hard-headed and hard-nosed. They are generally uninterested and uninvolved with geopolitics or broader national interests.

Once again, the People’s Republic of China holds up a model for India in the context of Bangladesh, all aspects of which should be analysed carefully by political, economic, corporate and strategic stakeholders in India. Chinese business practices are ruthless and can be even unethical when required. But they all adhere to an overall strategy that is underwritten and often subsidised by the Chinese government. India and the Indian business class are well aware of this. But India will always lag behind in this respect, unless it adopts a similar hearts and minds strategy in respect of its smaller neighbouring countries along the periphery of India.

In a country that is overwhelmingly Islamic but where the liberalism of Bengali culture has strongly influenced the inflexibility of religion, the average citizen of Bangladesh sees no contradictions in the perception of a secular Islam. Ms Hasina is under siege and requires support, assistance, and, above all, understanding from India to contain the threat from the BNP and the Jamaat-e-Islami fronting for their puppet masters in Pakistan.

(The writer is a former Chief of Army Staff and a former member of Parliament)

Ends/AMA/16/04/13