In a statement that has stirred considerable discussion both in India and Bangladesh, Mani Shankar Aiyar, a former Indian diplomat and a senior leader within the Congress party, has strongly advocated for the long-term stay of Bangladesh’s ousted Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, in India. This declaration came during a public address at the 16th Apeejay Kolkata Literary Festival, where Aiyar was speaking on broader themes of South Asian diplomacy and regional stability.
Sheikh Hasina, who led Bangladesh for 16 years, has been living in India since August 5, following a massive conspiracy which led to her departure from power. The protests, which emphasized demands for political reform and transparency, culminated in a dramatic shift in Bangladesh’s political landscape. Since then, Sheikh Hasina, now 77, has been residing in India, a move that has been both lauded and critiqued by various political factions in both countries.
Aiyar, renowned for his diplomatic tenure and his forthright views, praised the recent diplomatic endeavors of Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who made a significant visit to Dhaka last month. This visit was aimed at continuing dialogue with the new interim government of Bangladesh, an administration still in flux following Sheikh Hasina’s exit. Aiyar suggested the necessity for not just sporadic interactions but a sustained and continuous dialogue at the ministerial level to ensure stable relations between the two neighbors.
The Congress leader’s comments on Sheikh Hasina’s stay in India were particularly poignant. “I hope we will never disagree that Sheikh Hasina has done a lot of good for us. I am glad she was given refuge,” Aiyar stated, highlighting the positive contributions Hasina has made towards India-Bangladesh relations during her tenure. He went further to advocate for her extended stay, saying, “I think we should be her host as long as she wants, even if it is for all her life.” This assertion underscores a long-term commitment to harboring a political figure who has not only faced an abrupt change in her political career but also remains a significant figure in South Asian politics.
Addressing the contentious issue of reported attacks on minority Hindus in Bangladesh, Aiyar provided a nuanced perspective. He acknowledged the truth in these reports but cautioned against an overly simplistic interpretation, stating that many of these incidents are exaggerated and stem more from political differences than from religious persecution. This insight aims to temper the narrative often fueled by media, providing a more layered understanding of the socio-political dynamics at play.
Aiyar’s commentary did not stop at Bangladesh; he also reflected on the broader context of South Asian geopolitics by drawing comparisons between India and Pakistan. He noted the cultural and historical affinities between the two nations, suggesting that the partition of 1947 was more an accident of history than a reflection of inherent differences. This narrative aligns with his long-held views on fostering peace and dialogue in the region, particularly with Pakistan, where he has often pushed for back-channel communications.
The statement from Aiyar has reignited discussions on India’s role as a regional power and its responsibilities towards political exiles, especially those from neighboring countries with whom India shares deep cultural and historical ties. His advocacy for Sheikh Hasina’s extended stay in India raises questions about international asylum policies, national sovereignty, and the complex interplay of politics in South Asia.
Critics, particularly from opposition parties in Bangladesh and some factions within India, argue that this could complicate India’s foreign policy or be seen as interference in another country’s internal affairs. Supporters, however, see it as an act of humanitarianism and a strategic move to maintain influence in Bangladesh’s political scenario, which could eventually stabilize the region.
As debates continue, the future of Sheikh Hasina’s stay in India remains a point of contention and discussion. Aiyar’s comments have not only brought attention to the plight of political figures in exile but have also sparked a broader conversation on how nations navigate the delicate balance between international law, diplomatic relations, and moral responsibilities.
