For the last week, Bangladesh news, particularly on social media, has been abuzz with the defeat of Mamata Banerjee in the West Bengal legislative elections.
Although Mamata Banerjee’s fall did not come from the blue, as stories of blatantly partisan rule had somewhat preordained this, her defeat at the hands of a stridently Hindu party signaled to many, particularly in Bangladesh, a stark sign of an impending government that will represent fully the saffron government which rules in the centre.
Is this a fear in Bangladesh that a change in the government of a state in India will lead to repercussions that are detrimental to our country?
Is it fair to assume that the transition from an apparently minority-friendly government popularly assumed to be secular, to a party that openly embraces Hindutva as its creed and has no place for minorities (read Muslims) will bring serious consequences to Bangladesh?
Was Mamata Banerjee a factor to buoy friendly Indo-Bangladesh relationship in the period she was in power for the last 15 years?
None of the above, I am afraid.
These apprehensions result from a misconception that change in a state’s government can lead to change in a country’s domestic and foreign policy, including bilateral relationship. This is not the case.
An abiding concept in Bangladesh is confusion of India as a country with West Bengal, one of 29 states and territories of that country. In some sense this is a reality, because nearly three fourths of our land borders are shared with West Bengal; and much of our traffic and trade with India takes place with that state.
To many people, West Bengal represents India, and the government there represents the Indian government.
In a country with no states and a unitary government, sometimes it is hard for an average person in Bangladesh to comprehend what West Bengal as a state can and cannot do internationally.
For example, West Bengal cannot unilaterally enter into a cultural or trade agreement with Bangladesh, however much the Bengalis on both sides of the border want, without the involvement of the Indian government in framing and approving such an agreement.
It is a mistake to mix Mamata Banerjee’s apparent coaxing of the minorities in West Bengal for political reasons -- Muslims were considered to be her vote bank -- with love for Bangladesh. She fought tooth and nail with the BJP-led centre over the Teesta River agreement.
BJP’s win in West Bengal is one of several electoral successes that the party had in several Indian states this season. The party has succeeded in having total control of 16 states out of 29 -- four of which are neighbours of Bangladesh (Assam, Tripura, Manipur, and Arunachal).
This is by a party which debuted only in 1984. Since then, the party has gradually succeeded by proselytizing its strident ideal of Hindutva -- emphasizing Hindu civilization rather than religion alone.
Whether Hindutva is a culturally driven ideology or simply driven by religious identity is a debate I do not want to get into. But I do know that the success of this party has contributed to the gradual erosion of secularity from Indian polity and the rise of religious forces.
India today is not Nehru or Gandhi’s India. India today is more like what Savarkar, founder of Hindu Mahasabha, and Shayma Prasad dreamed of, and fought for -- an India founded on Hindu ideology and religion.
The BJP’s core strength lies in its ability to unify a diverse electorate under the umbrella of Hindutva (Hindu-ness) and “cultural nationalism."
By focusing on a unified Hindu identity, the party has successfully transcended traditional caste-based voting patterns that previously dominated Indian politics. The party’s significant milestones -- such as the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya -- are presented as a "cultural renaissance," resonating deeply with the party's core base.
These focal points have led to right-wing voters over the years through the length and breadth of India, from Northwest to Northeast. BJP won seats in faraway states like Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Manipur where the party was hardly known before. This has happened because the country has put on a more nationalistic identity advocated by Modi and his party, and distancing themselves from a secular society.
That secularism in India has eroded with the rise of the BJP is true, though the situation is nuanced. There is significant evidence to support this claim from multiple fronts -- legal, political, and social -- but it is also important to note that this process has complex historical roots, with the decline in religious freedom beginning before the BJP came to power.
But this tilt toward anti-secular politics has increased in the last two decades with BJP influence. Hate speech has risen targeting minorities. A staggering 98% of these hate speech cases targeted Muslims. A recent report in India also noted that 88% of these hate speech incidents occurred in states governed by the BJP or its allies.
This has been accompanied by a rise in mob violence and lynchings, often with what critics call a "culture of impunity" for such acts. BJP has actively promoted a theory of "true secularism" in contrast to what they call the "pseudo-secularism" of previous governments, which they claim favoured minorities at the expense of the Hindu majority.
Although the success of the BJP in West Bengal elections in and of itself should not be of concern to Bangladesh, the ramifications of this success in a large number of states amped by an ostensible growth of Hindutva that emphasizes a Hindu identity (cultural or religious) for Indians should be a concern.
If a BJP government will embark on such egregious conduct as “push back” of Muslims from neighbouring states to Bangladesh on allegations of them being Bangladeshis, the consequent reaction on our own conservative politicians (or religious radical elements) cannot be ignored.
Following the laws of motion in physics -- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction -- any rash rhetoric by the new leaders, whether to please their constituents or fulfill campaign promises, may lead to unwanted provocation on the other side of the border.
It will behoove all parties to control political rhetoric and not undertake provocatory actions within their territory that have serious consequences.
A big change in the governance of India should not alter a neighbouring country’s relations with India. But we do care about who governs the neighbouring states since political leadership in that country shapes and governs mutual relationships.
There is a human element in every relationship, even between countries. The leaders develop personal relationships which can resolve many disputes without contention. We should wish the new government in West Bengal all the best.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.