One of the more fascinating theories in the Indian media on the fall of Sheikh Hasina suggests that Muhammad Yunus, an 84-year old economist branded as a “CIA agent”, has led the overthrow of the mighty Awami League in Dhaka and outwitted its biggest external supporter and the regional power, India.
Conspiracy theories have long enjoyed great currency in the Subcontinent. They don’t need proof and can’t be disproved. Rulers in South Asia have resorted to the “foreign hand” theory whenever they faced trouble at home.
Conspiracy theories were the staple of Indian politics in the second half of the 20th century. When she faced resistance against her authoritarianism, Indira Gandhi reflexively blamed the foreign hand, mostly the CIA. As she imposed Emergency in 1975, Indira Gandhi and her left supporters blamed the “fascists” at home and the “imperialists” abroad for trying to overthrow her “progressive” government.
One had thought that a “rising India” is now self-confident and secure in its own skin; and that it had overcome the impulse to blame the “foreign hand” for any unwelcome or unanticipated development. But the shock of “losing an ally” in Dhaka seems to have triggered a Delhi derangement.
Conspiracy theories pander to political prejudices and discourage common sense. They avoid reckoning with the causes of a political catastrophe staring in your face. You don’t have to be a geopolitical genius to recognise that Sheikh Hasina was increasingly unpopular. She emaciated her party and turned it into a personal fief. Repeatedly rigged elections, a hardening monopoly over power, a shrinking bubble around the great leader, and growing authoritarianism combined with post-Covid economic challenges were building up anti-regime steam in Bangladesh for a while. The student movement against quotas provided the final trigger for the political blowout.
We can certainly empathise with Sheikh Hasina for clinging to the conspiracy theory. For she might be in the very early stages of grief — denial — at the loss of power. It will be a while before she comes to terms with the sources of the tragic end to her extraordinary political career that has truly transformed Bangladesh. Hasina appears convinced that the US overthrew her because she refused to give America a military base. She is not the only South Asian leader who is blaming the US for losing power. Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, has been at it since he was defenestrated in a successful no-confidence vote in the National Assembly in April 2022. Like Hasina, Imran Khan also thinks his refusal to give a base (“absolutely not” were his famous words) was what turned America against him.
To be sure, the US military is looking for bases and facilities as it responds to the Chinese military challenge in Asia. But to suggest that the US so desperately needs bases in Bangladesh and Pakistan that it is organising coups would be outlandish. But then paranoia does not need evidence to thrive. The coup theory also gives too much credit to the CIA. The South Asian lore about the CIA’s prowess outpaces the agency’s capacity. Consider the following: The CIA could not organise the ouster of much-reviled President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela in the recent elections. The US failed to oust the communist regime in Cuba, in power for more than 60 years. Both are in America’s backyard.
The CIA is not the only one that inspires the feverish imagination of South Asian conspiracy theorists. Our own external intelligence agency, R&AW, is blamed these days for any regime change in the neighbourhood.
Whether they realise it or not, in blaming the “foreign hand”, the conspiracy theorists are indicting the Indian establishment for a major failure. If you say the CIA conducted a coup next door, right under India’s nose, which has a huge footprint in Bangladesh, you are accusing Delhi of missing the big moment in Bangladesh. A serious Indian post-mortem on the origins and evolution of the Bangladesh crisis and Delhi’s management would indeed produce valuable long-term lessons for India’s regional policy. However, it is important to remember that no power, global or regional, can control politics in areas of strategic interest. And no government, however resourceful, is immune to utterly misreading the ground situation in other countries.
Instead of taking comfort in conspiracy theories, the Indian strategic community must reflect on Hasina’s tragedy. As Shakespeare urged us in Richard the Second, “For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground/ And tell sad stories” of the fall of kings and queens.
Hasina’s story is about both triumph and tragedy. She survived against great odds, and saved the legacy of the nation’s liberation from Pakistan. Over the last 15 years, Hasina turned Bangladesh into a fast-growing economy and a “model” for other developing countries, including Pakistan to follow. She has also helped India and Bangladesh transcend some of the bitter legacies of Partition, settled the boundary dispute, ended cross-border terrorism, enhanced regional connectivity and boosted bilateral and regional trade. Like all tragic heroes, she had fatal flaws — the relentless determination to concentrate power in her hands and an inability to heal the deep political divisions in the country over its identity and history. Notwithstanding her tragic end, Hasina will go down as a truly historic figure in the evolution of the modern Subcontinent.
India has every reason to regret Hasina’s fall from power, but Delhi can’t be detained by what happened in the last few days. It must look ahead and cooperate with the new rulers in Dhaka to build on the solid foundation she constructed for the bilateral strategic partnership. Delhi must also signal empathy for the student movement that is seeking political liberalisation and wider economic opportunities. As it contributes to the immediate stabilisation of Bangladesh and its long-term rise, the US will remain an important partner for India.
Over the last few years, Delhi and Washington have moved closer to each other on South Asian issues. In the last few months, there has been an important effort to reduce bilateral differences on Bangladesh. Recall that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had introduced Hasina to President Joe Biden at the G20 summit in Delhi and encouraged Washington to reduce the political pressure on Dhaka. Despite the many questions about the January elections in Bangladesh, the Biden Administration offered to cooperate with the new government led by Hasina. The problem in the end was not between Delhi and Washington. It was about Hasina rapidly losing touch with her people. Even a massive collaboration between the RAW and the CIA could not have stopped the political clock that was ticking for Hasina’s unpopular rule.
Finally, the conspiracy theories in play today are unlikely to undermine the deep structural convergence between Indian and US interests in the Subcontinent and its waters. The current crisis in Bangladesh and the gathering storm in Burma demand more intensive India-US consultation and cooperation in the Bay of Bengal and its littoral.
The writer is visiting professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore and contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express.
