India had urged the United States to ease pressure on former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who resigned and fled to India in the face of a mass uprising on August 5.
Indian officials began to lobby their US counterparts to this end a year ago, reports the Washington Post citing US and Indian officials.
US diplomats had publicly criticized the 76-year-old Sheikh Hasina for imprisoning thousands of rivals and critics before the 12th national parliament election which was held on January 7.
The Biden administration had imposed sanctions on a Bangladeshi police unit under Hasina’s command, which was accused of extrajudicial abductions and killings. Additionally, it had threatened visa restrictions on Bangladeshis involved in undermining democracy or committing human rights abuses.
In a series of meetings, Indian officials urged the United States to soften its pro-democracy stance.
They argued that if the opposition were allowed to win an open election, Bangladesh could become a breeding ground for Islamist groups threatening India's national security.
“You approach it at the level of democracy, but for us, the issues are much, much more serious and existential,” said an Indian government adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks.
“There were a lot of conversations with the Americans where we said: ‘This is a core concern for us, and you can’t take us as a strategic partner unless we have some kind of strategic consensus.’”
Ultimately, the Biden administration significantly reduced its criticism and set aside threats of additional sanctions against Hasina’s government, disappointing many in Bangladesh.
It was a calculated decision that had little to do with Indian pressure. Many details of the bilateral discussions and US deliberations have not been reported previously, said US officials.
Now, with protesters defying the army’s curfew and marching on Hasina’s official residence, forcing her to flee to India, policymakers in both New Delhi and Washington must reckon with whether they mishandled the situation in Bangladesh.
“There is always a balancing act in Bangladesh, as there is in many places where the situation on the ground is complicated and you want to work with the partners you have in a way that is not inconsistent with what the American people expect,” said a US official, who like several others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s diplomatic sensitivity.
In the months leading up to the January election, divisions emerged within the US government over how to handle Bangladesh.
Some US State Department officials, including then-Ambassador Peter Haas, advocated for a tougher stance against Hasina, especially given President Joe Biden's campaign promise to restore democracy, according to those familiar with the matter.
Haas, who has since retired, declined to comment.
Other US officials believed that further alienating Hasina and jeopardizing the safety of US diplomats, including Haas—who had received threats from Hasina’s supporters—would yield little benefit.
Some White House officials also considered the downside of antagonizing India, which made a series of appeals to the US that it moderate its pressure on Hasina, including when Indian Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh met with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in November in New Delhi, according to the people familiar with the matter.
Indian national security adviser Ajit Doval also played a key role in presenting the Indian case during a visit to Washington that autumn, one of those people said.
“The US approach to Bangladesh was always one that tried to both be consistent with our values — and we spoke about those publicly on many occasions — but also pragmatic about the reality that the situation in Bangladesh was very complicated and that there were a number of interests that we had there and that other countries had there,” said the US official.
“We needed to try to find a constructive way to engage with that administration, as we do in all places. So our policy was much more about trying to strike a balance between both of those things.”
For India, the dramatic events in Bangladesh have highlighted its decade-long commitment to Hasina, despite her increasing autocracy and declining popularity.
For the United States, the episode has highlighted a growing dilemma: While India is seen by the Biden administration as a crucial partner in countering China, India itself is increasingly viewed by its smaller neighbours in South Asia as a meddling, aggressively nationalist power under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In January, after Hasina claimed victory in a one-sided election with many of her opponents in jail or in hiding, Indian officials endorsed the election results, fueling calls from the Bangladeshi opposition for a boycott of Indian imports.
Last year, in the tiny Indian Ocean country of the Maldives, Mohamed Muizzu rose to power as president by campaigning on an “India Out” platform.
And in Sri Lanka, anti-Indian sentiment flared this year after Modi claimed on the campaign trail that his opponents gave India’s rightful territory cheaply away to Sri Lanka.
“The US has built its relationship with India and has this tendency to defer to its wishes in the region, and probably nowhere was that more evident than Bangladesh,” said Jon Danilowicz, a retired US diplomat who served as deputy chief of mission in Dhaka.
“But the risk is like Iran 1979: If you’re seen as colluding with the dictator, when the dictator falls, you’re left playing catch-up.”
Now, Danilowicz added that New Delhi and Washington have to show some humility and acknowledge they got Bangladesh wrong by not siding with the Bangladeshi people and their democratic aspirations.
US officials have strongly disputed the characterization that they were swayed by Indian lobbying.
Blinken had led efforts to reduce violence and encourage a fair and free election in its run-up, said a State Department official.
“Both Sheikh Hasina herself and opposition leaders said the Secretary’s steps reduced violence,” the official said.
“After the elections, which were neither free nor fair, some criticized the US for not imposing more restrictions on Bangladeshis, falsely attributing this to Indian influence.”
After Hasina’s ouster, which followed weeks of unrest and the deaths of hundreds of protesters, Indian officials have publicly shifted their approach and expressed readiness to work with the new leadership.
Last week, Modi sent his “best wishes” to Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Prize-winning banker who took charge of Bangladesh’s interim government, even though he criticized India for backing Hasina.
Yunus has called for new, free and fair elections once stability is restored in Bangladesh.
The State Department endorsed Yunus, with spokesman Matthew Miller saying the United States hoped to see “the Bangladeshi people decide the future of the Bangladeshi government.”
Aside from the United States, India had simultaneously warned other Western governments about the dangers of the opposition Bangladeshi Nationalist Party (BNP) returning to power.
As India faces with the sudden loss of one of its closest allies, Indian foreign policy circles and media are rife with speculation that Washington may have orchestrated Hasina's removal, given her long-standing frosty relationship with the United States.
However, US officials have steadfastly denied the claim.
Others in New Delhi say India was to blame for propping up an autocrat for so long.
A former senior Indian national security official stated that, in theory, supporting Hasina made sense, but New Delhi failed to understand the situation on the ground.
