Governance vacuum: Bangladesh's government must settle into its role

On Monday, a tribunal in Dhaka proclaimed a sentence of death in absentia on former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for ordering a crackdown on anti-government protests last year. Those protests grew after the crackdown, reaching an intensity that was sufficient for the Bangladesh Army to withdraw its support of the Awami League government; Ms Hasina abandoned the capital and has since been living in India. She has condemned the sentence, calling the tribunal a farce and insisting that the new establishment in Dhaka instead bring charges against her at the International Criminal Court at The Hague if they want to demonstrate that they are not politically motivated. There are elements of truth on both sides: The tribunal was without doubt politically slanted, but Ms Hasina’s actions during the protests, and before, are certainly deserving of investigation and condemnation. But the immediate problem for New Delhi is that this verdict throws up a new diplomatic quandary as it tries to repair relations with its eastern neighbour. The death sentence has made returning Ms Hasina impossible; but it has also made drafting a response to increasingly urgent extradition requests from Dhaka more difficult. Previous such requests have been ignored in spite of the existence of an extradition treaty between the two nations.

 

Bangladesh has witnessed another spurt of violence around this verdict, leading the interim government under Mohammed Yunus to deploy hundreds of soldiers from the paramilitary Border Guard in the capital. The fact is that the new establishment’s attack on its predecessors has not been limited to Ms Hasina and her immediate circle but has expanded into a broader attempt to eliminate the Awami League and all it stands for. This is as doomed to failure as Ms Hasina’s own efforts to stamp out the Opposition were. The League itself must be granted the space to exist, grow, and campaign while the network of intimidation and extrajudicial killings that had built up in its long rule are dismantled. Instead, as Bangladesh human rights groups have pointed out, extrajudicial killings continue under Mr Yunus’ regime, conducted by the same police and paramilitary organisations that Ms Hasina had suborned.

 

There has also been an upsurge of Islamist sentiment and intimidation that must be addressed. Hindus and Christians have both been targeted in recent attacks. Some in Bangladesh have also highlighted the return of gang warfare, which had been largely stamped out in the past decades. These are all signs of deteriorating governance, and the responsibility must be borne by the interim leaders of the nation. From New Delhi’s perspective, this makes it both more difficult and more urgent to come to a new accommodation with Dhaka. India needs to ensure that this chaos does not bleed across the frontier, cause an increase in cross-border terrorism, or lead to a flow of refugees. For these very practical reasons, a pragmatic reconciliation with the new regime must be promoted. Without supporting its actions or its ideology, a mutually beneficial path forward that ensures these core Indian interests are protected is vital. Dhaka can take the first step by not turning the death sentence against Ms Hasina into another stick with which to prod New Delhi.