Political arrogance: lessons from Dhaka for New Delhi

Dhaka is not far from New Delhi. The political turmoil and subsequent events in Bangladesh are a time of reflection for India, which had seen the fate of Sri Lanka before; any aggressive move by the ruling government is short-lived, no matter how powerful it is projected to be.

From day one in power, the government led by Sheikh Hasina had been engaged in a politics of vengeance, targeting political opponents of her Awami League Party using state machinery. Many were put behind bars, while top leaders of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami were executed on charges of sedition, and the government crushed opposition protests to ensure her invincibility in power.

Sheikh Hasina’s term in power was seen as all arrogance. She did what she wished, with least thought given to either the opposition or other parties. However, Bangladesh’s history is not without troubles and turmoil. In fact, it was formed after a bloodbath. Just as Pakistan was born after independence from British rule in 1947, Bangladesh had been part of Pakistan, known as East Pakistan.

It split into East and West due to its diverse linguistic, cultural, and geographical diversity. It was the imposition of Urdu on the Bengali-speaking people of East Pakistan that primarily sparked unrest. What began as political unrest over language, which was later resolved by granting official status to the Bengali language in 1956 after much furore, continued to smoulder with the political significance of East Pakistan seeking autonomous governance, eventually culminating in its independence from Pakistan in 1971.

A similar kind of political power-grabbing can also be found in India. Since the Modi government took power in 2014, it has been exerting its dominance over all democratic institutions, undermining the constitutional values based on the country's diversity and federalism.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been projected as the icon of a united India, seeking to identify the country with a single dogma through slogans like ‘Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan’ and ‘One India, One Election.’ This notion completely disregards the country’s diversity, which is its foundation. The North, South, East, and West of India each have their own unique identities based on culture, geography, and language. Any attempt to disrupt this equilibrium could result in chaos. Despite this, the ruling BJP, which is a political offshoot of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), continues its divisive politics, focusing on religion, faith, and language.

This dominance of the BJP over the country, idolizing Narendra Modi as its core figure and often identifying him as a special envoy of God, is seen by many as a sign of his exerting autocratic authority, with the potential of leading to a democratic crisis similar to that seen in Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina was heavily criticized for her cronyism, favoring those who bowed before her while disregarding others, whom she accused of anti-nationalism, labeling them as Razakars and linking them to Pakistan, in her pursuit to remain uncontested in power.

The recent comment by India’s Home Minister and right-hand man of PM Modi, Amit Shah, that Modi will rule the country beyond 2029, is an example of how confident the BJP is about their strategic moves. The second term of Modi’s rule has been criticized for the excessive use of central agencies to target and undermine opponents, either compelling them to accept BJP dominance or crushing them in Modi’s pursuit of invincibility.

Unemployment was the trigger for the latest unrest in Bangladesh that ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from power. The lesson for India is how long a government can keep a large portion of its population at bay without addressing their key issues. Modi's India is not immune to the problems seen in Hasina's Bangladesh. Unemployment among youth is also a significant economic challenge in India, among other grave issues. However, the government is confident that it can overcome any obstacle, even if it takes a serpentine form, by using its key weapon: religion.

The underlying message appears to be that the current Modi regime views itself as indispensable, a sentiment reminiscent of Sheikh Hasina’s increasingly insular leadership style in Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh, Hasina’s administration has faced accusations of undermining democratic processes. Her recent re-election, under circumstances deemed lacking in credibility, has drawn criticism for its lack of transparency and fairness. This situation mirrors concerns within India about the current government’s approach to democratic norms and electoral integrity.

In India, similar apprehensions have been voiced regarding the Modi administration’s grip on power. There are worries that the Modi regime, with its stronghold over institutions such as the Election Commission, might undermine democratic processes. Recent judicial decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling on electoral bonds, have offered some reassurance to critics and to the people at large, yet scepticism remains about the fairness of electoral practices.

The political environment in India reflects a growing unease within the opposition and among democratic institutions. With an increasingly assertive opposition and visible discontent within the judiciary and bureaucracy, there is a palpable tension between the ruling party and other democratic stakeholders. The Modi regime’s response to criticism has often been dismissive, with allegations that it seeks to suppress dissent and control independent voices through digital platforms.

This situation has led to fears that India might be veering towards an autocratic model similar to that observed in Bangladesh under Hasina’s rule. Critics argue that the Modi government’s approach to governance—characterized by self-promotion and dismissiveness towards dissent—bears striking similarities to the traits seen in autocratic regimes. This includes a disregard for international standards and a tendency to label critical voices as destabilizing.

The broader concern is that such political arrogance could erode democratic institutions and processes. The Modi administration’s dismissive attitude towards dissent and its focus on consolidating power have raised questions about its commitment to democratic principles. There is a growing call for vigilance and a reaffirmation of democratic values to prevent any backslide into authoritarianism.

In light of the political unrest in Bangladesh and the ongoing debates in India, it becomes clear that democracies must be vigilant against the dangers of centralizing power and stifling dissent. The events in Dhaka serve as a sobering reminder of the perils of autocratic propensity and the importance of maintaining robust democratic institutions.

India’s political landscape is at a critical juncture. The Modi government’s actions and policies are under scrutiny, and there is a pressing need for democratic institutions to assert their independence and uphold accountability. The lessons from Bangladesh’s current crisis highlight the need for a balanced approach to governance, where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few and dissent is not suppressed.