Ranjana Kumari, activist.

By Kumkum Chadha
NEW DELHI, Jul 13 2026 (IPS)

To say that the men scored over women yet again would be an understatement. To say that the women lost and men have won would be an oversimplification and to say that political manoeuvring, intrigue and deceit outdid half of India’s population would be stating the obvious.

So, what is the story? Or the plot with its twists and turns? Or the game that women lost even before they started playing?

Rewind to three decades when the women of India woke up to what today is branded as political empowerment.

In this context the one name that stands out is that of Parliamentarian Geeta Mukherjee, who chaired the Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine a Bill seeking reservation of seats for women in Parliament and state legislatures: 33 percent to be precise.

It was in 1996 that a legislation for this was tabled in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament

We are into 2026, and the women of India are still fighting for legitimacy in political power, relentlessly demanding what is their due.

The Women’s Reservation Bill has been tabled in Parliament several times – five times, to be precise.

Its history and the twists and turns that come with it are telling. Add to the mix the interesting questions that its tumultuous journey has thrown up. But more importantly, what has this unfulfilled dream done to the dignity of women of the world’s largest democracy? Simply put, it has left them hanging, staring in the dark with a ‘will it? will it not?’  question. As things have panned out, the future holds little hope.

Rewind to the Constituent Assembly that adopted the Constitution of India in 1949. Of its 389 members, only 15 were women. There were questions even then, but they were different.

If a woman member feared that reservation would mean restriction and, hence, exclusion of women from general seats, another member asked quite pointedly: “Were women not led by the heart, and was politics not a matter of the mind? Even as the heart versus the head debate dogged minds, the issue remained unresolved.

Some fifty years later, in 1996 to be exact, it was Sushma Swaraj, then a Parliament Member and later India’s foreign minister, who resurrected the issue. She told Parliament that only 6.5 of the 543 members in the Lower House of Parliament were women. Without saying it in so many words, she indicated that the situation was dismal and the future bleak.

Swaraj’s words were prophetic. The future was indeed bleak because three decades on, the women continue to fight for what should rightfully be theirs.

When the Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1996 and later in 1998 and 1999, the men kind of ganged up to ensure that a smooth passage was thwarted. On all three occasions, the Bill lapsed upon the dissolution of the Lower House in Parliament.

However, in 2008 another route was adopted and this time around it was introduced in the Upper House of Parliament.

This obviated the possibility of a lapse given that the Indian Parliament is structured in such a way that the Lower House has a fixed five-year term while the Upper House is a permanent chamber which is not subject to dissolution. Unlike the Lower House of Parliament, Bills tabled in the Upper House do not lapse.

That notwithstanding, the smooth passage of the Bill in the Lower House still remains a question mark, and that too a big one, staring at women in the face.

All through this rigmarole what stood out and continues to is the contempt and disregard men have for women in this part of the world.  And these are no ordinary men but those who have been elected to work for the welfare of the people, men and women alike. Therefore, when they speak of women in disparaging terms, one stops to ask: have we actually progressed or do we continue to be a regressive and male-dominated society – one where men outside and fathers, brothers and husbands at home continue to call the shots?

Even as the answer is obvious, one’s soul may cringe at the manner in which lawmakers inside Parliament have targeted women during the several debates on reserving 33 percent of seats in Parliament and state legislatures.

Sample this: During a 1997 parliamentary debate, two leaders, both from the backward castes, opposed reservation even as they demanded what was termed a “quota within quota” for women. Decode this and it means that within the 33 percent reservation ensure a certain representation for the other backward castes, Dalits and Muslim women.

In the Indian context, the untouchables are called Dalits, while the Other Backward Castes, or OBCs as they are popularly known, represent the marginalised. The Muslims comprise the minorities in India.

But back to the debate in Parliament when these two leaders spearheaded the anti-reservation campaign under the garb of protection for women from the marginalised and backward castes.

They use “choicest phrases”, if one can use the term, to denigrate women segregating the elite and educated from the rural and the unversed.

 Calling them par-kati mahilayen, roughly translated as ‘short-haired and elite’, a former Union Minister, Sharad Yadav, from the state of Bihar, threatened to consume poison if a Bill was passed without proper caste representation. His take: women who are privileged, urban and elite do not understand the struggle of their counterparts living in far-flung rural areas.

To quote him: “Like Socrates, who died consuming poison fighting for principles, I am also willing to die fighting for principles.” Given the male mind-set, such a statement may well be interpreted as if it is women’s reservation, and it will be “over my dead body”.

A former Chief Minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, from the state of Uttar Pradesh, had another fear. Way back in 2010 he had told his constituents: “The kind of women who will enter Parliament… The wives and daughters of officers and businessmen, who invite whistles from boys…” He also said that rural women would be left out because they are “not that attractive”.

Another leader, a former Union Minister and Chief Minister, Lalu Prasad Yadav from the state of Bihar, said that India being a “male-dominated society”, to use his exact words, women vote according to the political diktat of the family. In other words, they are incapable of thinking and choosing independently and are a rubber stamp of their husbands: “My own wife votes according to my diktat,” the former Chief Minister had then said.

In later years, Yadav anointed his wife to succeed him when he was jailed in a fodder scam.

For the record, Lalu Prasad Yadav, who has served as Chief Minister of India’s populous state of Bihar and also as Union Minister, was convicted in a fodder scam and charged with syphoning off huge amounts from the animal husbandry department. This followed his resignation. Not the one to cede political space to anyone outside the family, Yadav named his wife, Rabri Devi, as his successor. That Devi was uneducated and could not even sign her name did not matter considering she was her husband’s proxy.

The first woman to head the state of Bihar, Devi ruled the state not once but three times over.

That notwithstanding, it is true that in India men dictate where and how their wives, mothers and sisters, or rather all the women in the family, should vote. This is one of the reasons why En bloc voting is a rule rather than an exception among women in rural areas.

However, by 2023 the power of the women’s vote dawned on political parties, particularly under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has launched several welfare schemes for women while heading the Government in India.

Unwilling to lose the momentum of emerging as a votary for women’s rights, the Modi Government brought in the Reservation Bill, which was passed in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament, both grudgingly and willingly.

With this, history took a half-turn: a half-turn because even while the Bill mandated a 33 per cent reservation, it was tied to a distant future, namely the upcoming census and subsequent redrawing of electoral constituencies or delimitation as it is better known and understood.

Ostensibly, it was a step forward, but in reality, it was an idea stuck in time. Linking reservation to the Census and delimitation that would follow was talking of a distant future because there is neither clarity on when the Census will take place nor a clear date, rather year, when the delimitation will take effect. Hence, the passing of the Bill remains a cosmetic measure and one on paper.

The truth of the matter is that men are reluctant to cede political space to women. Yet for any political party to oppose a  reform like political empowerment for women is clearly counter-productive. No party can be seen as being a roadblock to women’s progress and risk being perceived as anti-women.

Therefore, while each party professes support for the issue and the cause, the real story is that they do not want to see reservation being a reality. The answer is simple: if 33 percent reservation for women becomes a law, then it is the men who will have to give up their seats to make way for women. In a patriarchal society like India, this seems like a pipe dream.

Having said that, it is ironic that every political party has committed to providing reservation in their political manifestos but no party has budged an inch to work towards this welfare measure. If anything, they have consistently worked against the Bill becoming a reality.

Fast forward to 2026 when the Government brought in the Women Reservation Bill in Parliament yet again through a special session of Parliament. But, this time around, the motive was suspect. The move was sudden and came at a time when the state elections were underway. Therefore, there was more politics than good intent that was attributed to what the Government wanted to showcase as women’s welfare.

What made it worse was that the Government tagged another bill with the women’s reservation bill: delimitation.

For the uninitiated, delimitation is the process of redrawing the boundaries of electoral constituencies. By this principle, seats for Parliament and states would be reallocated on the basis of the latest census, which is yet incomplete.

The Government’s bid to club delimitation with the reservation bill was decried. Opposition parties slammed the Government for making women a scapegoat and “using women” for a political end.

To quote an Opposition MP, Mahua Moitra, the Government’s move was “delimitation wrapped in a saree”. What she meant was that the Government is firing from the shoulders of women to push through legislation which otherwise would be opposed tooth and nail.

It is pertinent to mention that the opposition-ruled states are against delimitation, as it erodes the political power of those states that have fewer numbers in terms of population. With the voting numbers stacked against the Government, the Delimitation Bill would have hit a roadblock  in Parliament. Hence, the Government linked the two Bills. The logic: delimitation would ride piggyback on the Women’s Reservation Bill. The women’s vote being very important in elections, no party would like to be seen as opposing women’s reservation.

However, the Government’s calculations went haywire and the Opposition unitedly voted against the Bill. The result: What seemed achievable fell through.

As an opposition member of Parliament, Sushmita Dev explained, “We are not against women’s reservation. But what is a betrayal is the Government riding on the shoulders of women to push delimitation. Why link delimitation with women’s reservation? Why bring in politics? Why push an agenda? Why not given women the dignity they deserve?” is what she asks.

Politics apart, women who have been fighting for women’s empowerment for decades see this slugfest between the Government and the Opposition as “a lost opportunity”. To quote activist Ranjana Kumari, Founder of the Centre for Social Research: “The defeat of the Women Bill in Parliament compels deeper reflection on the state of India’s democracy. There is a gap between intent and action. The political parties must take responsibility and move beyond tokenism. Globally, gender quotas have demonstrated that change is possible when backed by political commitment and clear design. India stands at a similar crossroads.”

Kumari has been in the forefront of the women’s reservation movement in India.

It is at this juncture that one needs to stop and ask: For how long will the women of India keep knocking doors? For how long will political parties and politicians continue making them scapegoats to achieve their political goals? Why is their due being denied to them time and again? Why do they continue to be victims at the hands of men who are politically powerful?

Why does politics get the better of women? Why is their future being linked to complicated legislative processes? Why are they being subjected to political juggernauts?

Too many questions but one straight and simple answer: The men of India, as in many other parts of the world, want women to continue being subservient and remain second class in a world where half the sky is theirs.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Binalakshmi Nepram. Credit: Nobel Women Initiative

By Kumkum Chadha
NEW DELHI, Jan 27 2026 (IPS)

It was Christmas eve: some two decades ago. Binalakshmi Nepram was a witness to the killing of a 27-year-old.

In utter disbelief, she saw a group of three men dragging the victim from his workshop. Within minutes, he was shot dead.

“Every day three or four people are shot dead in Manipur’s ongoing conflict. Thousands have died and many women widowed and children orphaned. And those who survive look into a scarred future. This must end,” she said.

When Nepram contributed 4,500 Indian rupees to buy a sewing machine for the victim’s wife, Rebika, the intervention was just the beginning. Since then, there has been no looking back. The date is etched in Nepram’s mind and psyche: December 24, 2004.

Now, two decades later, when she was unanimously elected Vice President of the International Peace Bureau, it was a befitting tribute to her crusade for peace: a recognition of the work her organization, the Manipur Gun Survivors Network, has done to rescue and uplift women from the trauma and agony that they face because of armed conflict.

Nepram has been at the forefront of providing the necessary healing touch to those affected by the violence perpetrated by mindless individuals.

She has also co-founded the Control Arms Foundation of India to focus on gender-based violence and end racial discrimination in India.

Currently, Nepram is chair of the Rotary Satellite Club of International Peace, an initiative that led to the establishment of the International House of Peace in Japan. She is also an associate at Harvard University and she is researching and leading work on Indigenous approaches to peacebuilding to help resolve some of the entrenched global conflicts.

“Good research should be the foundation of good policies and social action,” she says.

A globally recognized Indigenous scholar and a peace builder, Nepram is the first Indigenous person from the Indian state of Manipur to be appointed to this prestigious post. In the past, she has served on the IPB Board for two terms. As Vice President, she will hold this position until 2028.

With 400-member organizations spanning 100 countries, the International Peace Bureau or IPB is a Nobel Peace Laureate; 14 of its officers have been recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Founded in 1891, the IPB is one of the oldest Peace Organizations. It was awarded the Nobel in 1910.

Hammering a vision of a world without war, the IPB focus is on reducing funding for the military sector and disseminating those funds for social projects.

In her role as Vice President, Nepram would focus on strengthening global coalitions for peace and disarmament.

Peace, for Nepram, is not a project but a lifetime commitment. Her firm belief: “If wars can be engineered, we can also engineer peace.”

In an exclusive interview with IPS, Nepram spelled out the various dimensions of her work and what she plans to in her new role at the International Peace Bureau.

Excerpts from the interview:

IPS: What does this election mean?

Nepram: My election as Vice President of the International Peace Bureau is a historic one because it is the first time that anyone from India or my home state, Manipur, has been elected to this post. It means the growing recognition of our role, especially women-led peacebuilding—whether at home in Manipur, Northeast India or around the world—that we have been honored by the international community.

IPS: What would be your focus areas?

Nepram: My focus areas will include building a more peaceful world where people treat each other with love, respect and dignity; reducing wars and conflicts in biodiversity hotspots where Indigenous Peoples live; and the inclusion of women and Indigenous Peoples in peace talks, peace mediation and negotiations, as this is, as of now, missing.

IPS: What needs to change and has remained neglected?

Nepram: What needs to change are the mindsets of  people, policymakers and nations who believe in “war profits.” As of now, many “wars” in our homes, regions and nations are “engineered” for profit and power. Pitch this against the hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians who pay the price by way of their homes being burnt and many of them being displaced. In this context my own hometown, Manipur, stands as an example, particularly since 2023. But change will come; it must come and it will come once realization dawns.

IPS: How will your election help your people and the cause you are fighting for?

Nepram: Manipur has been in a state of violent conflict since the 1970s. Nobody has been able to work genuinely to bring peace in my state for decades. I, for one, will work for bringing the peace that has been denied but that every citizen in the state deserves. This is the need of the hour.

IPS: What are the first steps you will take?

Nepram: The first steps for peace in Manipur had been taken even before my election. This is by way of the formation of the Manipur Women Gun Survivors Network, the Northeast India Women Initiative for Peace and the Northeast India Women Peace Congregations. I have also conceptualized the Global Summit on Indigenous Peacebuilding in April 2026 and will help in the forthcoming World Peace Congress.  We will also continue peace meetings, dialogue, negotiations, and mediation this year. These are the first few steps I will take this year.

IPS: What does this election mean for women and India and Manipur? How excited are you?

Nepram: This election puts India and Manipur back on the world map of peacemaking, and this, to me, is crucial and critical. India and the women of Manipur in particular have shown the world the power of peace and non-violent action in ending the colonization of British rule. At a time of rising wars and conflicts, this news will come as a balm to many wounded lives.

IPS: What is the big picture that needs to be addressed? What is the way forward?

Nepram: The big picture we are considering is that there are currently 132 conflicts and wars in the world, which have displaced 200 million people. Eighty percent of these conflicts and wars are happening in biodiversity areas where Indigenous Peoples live. Greed and power are what are driving the world towards wars and if humans don’t stop this, we will be heading towards doom. War is the greatest polluter in this world; every year our climate is changing. There are floods, droughts etc. so we need solutions now to protect the planet and to achieve this peace is the answer, as is Indigenous peacebuilding the way forward.  We must include Indigenous people and women in every process of decision-making from now on.

Peace for us is not a project; it is a commitment of a lifetime. If wars can be “engineered,” we can also “engineer” peace.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Women of Manipur, India, stage a hunger strike. There has been violence between ethnic groups in the region, exacerbated by a ruling to recognize one group, the Meiteis Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in 2023, which sparked violence. The status has since been withdrawn. Credit: Kumkum Chadha/IPS

By Kumkum Chadha
NEW DELHI, Mar 18 2025 (IPS)

For Kikim*, it was the ides of May, instead of March, that was, in one sense, her undoing. She was looking forward to welcoming her baby, her first. But life took an unexpected turn, and things changed within a split second.

That evening she was cooking soup when she saw hordes of men approach the village—some brandishing swords, others holding bottles of petrol and diesel. Kikim also smelled smoke.

Alarmed, she fled from the back door only to find her neighbors trying to escape. They helped her jump onto a truck that was heading out. Kikim did not know where, and she did not care. Her immediate concern—safety.

As the truck moved, she counted hours that seemed never-ending. The one question that stared everyone in the face was: Will we make it alive?

What added to the uncertainty was the arduous journey through a dense forest.

By way of food, there was very little. The women huddled in the truck and gave Kikim a portion of what they had managed to bring along. “You need it more than we do,” they told her.

Kikim feared that she might deliver in the middle of a forest with no medical help.

She actually did in the early hours of the morning. The men were told to move away; the truck was converted into a makeshift delivery ward, and pieces torn from the wraparound women were made into a curtain of sorts for Kikim. When she heard the first cry of her newborn, she heaved a sigh of relief.

Little did she know, that the women around her faced another challenge: there was not enough water except for a one-liter bottle. Their only option was to wipe the newborn, sprinkling a few drops all over the frail body.

Kikim’s is one of the many cases that have unfolded during the Manipur crisis that has engulfed the northeastern state of India for some two years.

The state has witnessed violent clashes between two communities, the Meiteis and the Kukis.

The present crisis stems from a recommendation from the state High Court to grant Scheduled Tribe, or ST, status, to the Meiteis. The controversial clause has since been modified. On February 24, 2025, the Manipur High Court changed the March 27, 2023 order. It ordered the removal of a paragraph that had instructed the Manipur government to consider the inclusion of Meiteis in the list of Scheduled Tribes. It was the March 23, 2023 direction that is believed to have triggered the ongoing ethnic conflict between the Meiteis and the tribal Kuki-Zo communities in the State.

The Kukis protested because they felt that the direction would give the Meiteis heft over the hilly areas.

“They would use money power to take away our land and grab our jobs too,” says Thangso (name changed). Since the conflict, he carries a shotgun for protection.

The Kuki-Zo tribes are protected under the ST status. It is through this mechanism that the Indian government recognizes historically marginalized tribal communities.

Roughly translated as “land of gems,” Manipur is largely isolated from the rest of India.

The majority population, the Meiteis, are Hindus. They live in Imphal, the state capital.

The Kukis and Nagas are in a minority. Mainly Christians, they live in the hills.

The Indian Constitution reserves land in Manipur’s hill districts. This special provision prohibits the Meiteis from purchasing land in the hills and also restricts the migration of Meiteis and other groups into the hill districts.

Meiteis feel that their exclusion from the ST status is unfair.

They also rue the influx of illegal migrants, especially from across the border in Myanmar.

Manipur has a porous international border. Since civil war broke out in Myanmar, its nationals fled to Manipur. The military seized power in that country on February 1, 2021.

There are reports of Kukis providing a safe haven to illegal Chin migrants.

In Myanmar, Kukis are known as Chins.

If the Meiteis are apprehensive about the “shifting demography,” the Kukis charge them with pushing a “majoritarian agenda.”

The fault lines are deep and the mistrust complete.

It would be incorrect to presume that the clashes between the two are a one-off. Far from it.

Since the 1960s, militant groups have fanned the grievances of the Kukis and the Nagas, who are fighting for a separate homeland. Pitch the fight against the Meiteis, who are determined to defend the state’s territorial integrity.

Had it not been for a graphic video of two tribal women being stripped naked, events in Manipur may have gone unnoticed. The video went viral, sparking outrage not only across India but also abroad.

Mary Beth Sanate of the Rural Women Upliftment Society, told IPS, “Women are being charred, treated like objects, mob-lynched, and sexually assaulted. There is a complete breakdown of the system, and what we are seeing is a mockery of their human rights.”

According to a document, “Crimes against Kuki-Zo Women by Meites,” there are harrowing accounts of violence against women.

The document catalogues instances of Meitei extremists targeting Kuki-Zo women: “Kill her, rape her, burn her. Do to her what her people did to our women” is what Meitei women reportedly told a mob who had barged into a nursing hostel in Imphal, soon after the pogrom began two years ago.

It would, therefore, not be incorrect to see this crisis as one where women have played multiple roles: both as victims and perpetrators of violence.

Consequently, what started as women helping women soon transformed into a women-versus-women kind of situation.

To elaborate on this, if women were saviors in the case of Kikim and helped her deliver, there are enough instances where community allegiance overtook gender affiliation.

“From women protecting women, it soon turned into women targeting women. The love for one’s community overtook gender. Instead of protecting each other, women became perpetrators of violence,” said Nonibala from WinG, or Women in Governance.

A teacher turned activist, Nonibala’s switch from academics to the social sector was in 2005. When she saw Irom Chanu Sharmila on an indefinite fast, a guilt pang seized her: “I can’t stay hungry even for a day,” she said. Her penance: “Empower women.” Since then, there has been no looking back.

The present conflict, she told IPS, has taken its toll on women.

Vacillating between charges of being a protector and instigator, women in Manipur are central to the theme of sexual violence and attacks.

There are allegations and counter-allegations, accusations and denials, but a constant is the widespread fear and trauma.

In the eye of a storm are the Meira Paibis.

Roughly translated as torchbearers, Meira Paibis are an ethnic women-led social movement, that rose to prominence during the protest against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA, that grants the military unparalleled power.

If the Kukis version is anything to go by, Meira Paibis are instigating some of the rapes of women of the minority community.

A member of the Kuki Women Organization for Human Rights, who requested anonymity for fear of being targeted, said she knew a dozen women were raped after Meira Paibis handed them over to menfolk. “Women abetting public rape and urging men to rape women, is a nightmare,” she told IPS.

This was substantiated by Momoi (name changed), who confirmed that one of the women in the mob watched her being beaten up by Meitei men.

On their part, Meira Paibis members refute this, claiming that women’s organizations do not differentiate between a Kuki or a Meitei. “I have handed over four abandoned children, all Kukis, to the Police in Imphal,” Sujata Devi told IPS, adding that the “first offensive” is always from “the people in the hills,” meaning the Kukis.

Popular as “voluntary mothers,” Devi’s organization, IMAGI MEIRA, has been at the forefront since the crisis.

She has had several run-ins with the police, including being under house arrest.

Caught in the crossfire are the likes of Thoibi and Memcha, who have lost friends. “All our friends suddenly see us as a Meitei. They have stopped talking to us.”

This “transition” is a disturbing narrative that throws up the inherent tensions in the state. Worse still, women pitched against women as participants and perpetrators of violence is chilling.

Now, peace is a distant dream and the divide a reality.

Is there a way forward? Will the wounds be balmed? Will they ever heal? Or will they continue to fester?

There are no easy answers or obvious solutions. At least as of now.

*Names changed to protect the safety of the women IPS spoke to.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, India

The face of Bangladesh’s founding father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, will soon be erased from the country’s currency. Credit: Kumkum Chadha/IPS

By Kumkum Chadha
DELHI, Jan 7 2025 (IPS)

History seems to be chasing Bangladesh even while the interim government is grappling with real issues of administering a country thrown into chaos.

In July last year, this south Asian country faced an upheaval when a students’ movement drove out Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from office.

Protestors took to the streets over a quota system for government jobs. Their angst—disproportionate benefits to descendants of freedom fighters.

Once political parties and fundamentalists jumped in, the focus shifted, with protestors demanding Hasina’s resignation.

Hasina was forced to leave the country she had ruled for 15 years. She landed in India for what was then flagged as a temporary refuge: “For the moment only,” as India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had then told the Indian Parliament.

Back home in Bangladesh, an interim government headed by Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus took charge of governing a country clearly at a crossroads—in other words, a toss-up between Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s legacy or charting a new course without the baggage of history.

It is against this backdrop that one must examine the new narrative of the interim government to reprint Bangladesh’s currency notes.

Initiated by the Central Bank of Bangladesh, the new notes will no longer carry the customary picture of Bangabandhu as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, as the former leader who led the country to independence is known. In common parlance, Bangabandhu means Friend of Bangla people.

“Phasing out” is how officials from Bangladesh Bank explained the move, while 70-year-old Alamgir, a witness to the War of Liberation, called it “an altered history,” in other words, pressing a delete button on Bangabandhu’s legacy.

To say that the sins of a daughter have adversely impacted her father’s legacy may be a bit of a stretch because even on his own, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was a controversial figure.

A folk hero turned dictator, he failed to address the real issues of Bangladesh. Instead, he became authoritarian and suspended rights. As Prime Minister, his daughter Hasina followed in her father’s footsteps.

Hence the anger of the people that spilled to the streets last year took a toll both on Sheikh Hasina and the legacy.

For starters, the current generation, many in the forefront of the students’ protest in Bangladesh, resent the undue space accorded to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman through the years, particularly when Hasina ruled. Not only do they want to erase his imprint, but they also intend to rewrite and, if possible, clean up the bloody chapters of history.

In this context, is the currency note redesign the first substantive step taken by the interim government headed by Yunus?

Fazal Kamal, former editor of The Independent and Bangladesh Times, does not think so.
“It is not the government that has taken the initiative. It is an intense reaction from among the people of Bangladesh to Hasina’s insistence on ensuring Mujib’s seal on everything. It is this overkill that Bangladeshis want to end. The interim government is only going along,” he told IPS.

Given the hullabaloo, it must be pointed out that this is not the first time that Mujibur Rahman’s mugshot, if one may be allowed to use the term, has been taken off currency notes.

In 1976, a year after Bangabandhu and some of his family members were assassinated, the series of notes that were introduced did not have his image. It was only in 1998 that he made a comeback on the taka and has remained since. A taka is a basic monetary unit in Bangladesh.

Therefore, when Farid Hossain, who has served as Minister at the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi, calls the currency issue “much ado about nothing,” he is not off the mark.

“On ground, people want governance—they want law and order and currency, which can buy more rather than which image it carries,” Hossain said, adding that the move is indicative of the interim government “giving in to pressure” from the radicals.

To many, Hasina’s ouster is nothing short of a “second independence.” Yet there is a large segment that is against what Hossain has termed “wholesale erosion” of history and legacy: “Today Bangladesh faces an ideological divide and the narrative that was buried years ago seems to have resurfaced.”

In other words, today’s generation in Bangladesh wants to resurrect the real face of Mujibur Rahman and strip him of the legacy draped in grandeur. And in this, the interim government has been an active player.

“The intention of the interim administration is to take the country away from its historical legacy. The current regime has pandered to its unruly student followers who have been crushing every symbol of history,” says political analyst Syed Badrul Ahsan.

As for succumbing to pressure, the interim government is in the eye of a storm on another issue—the tricky and sensitive issue of Hasina’s extradition.

Bangladesh has sent a note verbale to the Indian government saying that it wants Hasina back for a judicial process. A note verbale is a diplomatic communication from one government to another.

There has been a persistent demand, as Kamal points out, for leaders of the previous regime to be brought back and tried. Call it vendetta politics if you will but the popular sentiment seems to be that Hasina should be sent to the gallows.

Though India and Bangladesh have an extradition treaty in place, it exempts political vendetta.

Article 6 of the treaty states that extradition may be denied if the alleged offence is of a political nature. That Hasina is being tried for her political offences is a given: “A note verbale is not enough. The interim government does not have a mandate. It is there to administer and steer reforms and not indulge in politicking. But it seems to be taking up the side issue of radicals and seems to be giving in,” Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, former Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, told IPS.

Dismissing the extradition request as “mere rhetoric resulting from domestic pulls and pressures,” the former ambassador says India is unlikely to accommodate its neighbor on this issue.

He also did not rule out Yunus using this as a “pressure tactic” to tell India to restrain Sheikh Hasina from making political statements from Indian soil.

For record, in a virtual address last month, Hasina stated that Yunus was running a “fascist regime” that encouraged terrorists and fundamentalists. Interestingly, the extradition request had followed soon after.

Both issues seem to be hanging in the air—the new currency notes are yet to be printed and on Hasina’s extradition, the Indian government is silent.

As for Mujib’s legacy, his statue can be vandalized, his images defaced and his daughter’s sins denigrate his legacy, but Bangabandhu’s footprint from history, however controversial, cannot be erased.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Even as India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri reached Bangladesh amid strain in ties over attacks on Hindu minorities, he carried with him a bag of complaints: it sure was not a good will mission. It was one where India has focused on its discomfort, rather anger, over the persecution of Hindus under the new regime in Bangladesh.

Kumkum Chadha

The Indian Government has specifically mentioned the attack on a Puja mandap in Tantibazar, Dhaka and theft at the Jeshoreshwari Kali temple at Satkhira during Durga Puja 2024.

Tensions were further heightened after the arrest of a Hindu monk who had recently been expelled from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, widely known as ISKCON or the Hare Krishnas. He was arrested on charges of sedition.

In turn, thousands of Hindu monks marched to the Bangladesh border in West Bengal; protestors attacked a Bangladeshi consulate in the Indian state of Tripura.

To link these incidents with recent political developments in Bangladesh would be a grave mistake. Behind this upsurge lies a bloody history and a seething anger against India.

The Hindu minority in Bangladesh has historically faced persecution, particularly from more extremist elements. That the common man on the streets of Bangladesh nurses a strong anti-India sentiment is a given. India has been seen as an “overbearing neighbour” particularly by the younger generation in Bangladesh who felt that the now ousted government under Sheikh Hasina was subservient to India: “an unequal relationship” to quote many.

Fast forward to the present and the situation is dismal, to say the least.

As a nation and a neighbour India has done little to assuage feelings or balm wounds. Therefore to say that it is the anti Hasina elements that are fuelling unrest and attacks would be missing the wood for the trees.

One must acknowledge and accept that India went overboard in its support for the government under Sheikh Hasina at the cost of ignoring all others. That is why when she was ousted and an interim government under Dr. Mohammed Yunus took power, India was not viewed as a reliable ally. If anything, the historical ties between the two countries have weakened as never before. Add to this the perceived marginalization of Muslims under a pro Hindu BJP government in India and the alienation is kind of complete.

On this count one cannot fault the current dispensation given that it has facts on its side.

History apart, recent developments too provide enough ammunition to the current regime and the people in Bangladesh to nurse an angst against India.

And on this, one has to begin from the beginning.

For starters, the asylum to Sheikh Hasina. It is no one’s case to even suggest that India should have turned away a former Prime Minister in distress, Sheikh Hasina or any other. Giving her refuge was, as some put it, “an honourable thing” for any neighbour to do. What is under the scanner is her extended stay.

For record, when Hasina landed in India after being driven out from a country she had ruled for 15 long years, it was said to be a temporary refuge. She had sought asylum in the United Kingdom which hit a road bloc due to a technicality.

As of now the “temporary stay” seems to have extended to a permanent one. When India’s Foreign Minister informed the Indian Parliament of her sudden arrival in Delhi in August, he did indicate that the initial request by Hasina was “for the moment only”. That the moment has extended into months with no signs of an immediate resolution is another matter.

The fact that India does not have any policy for refugees allows the government to be flexible in its response. Critics see it using this as a “convenient route” to let Hasina stay for as long as she wants. Fingers are being pointed at the Indian government not moving an inch to engage with stakeholders for Hasina’s extradition. At least visibly. This and for good reasons is enough to upset the Yunus regime in Bangladesh and write off India as “an adversarial neighbour”.

Worse still, Sheikh Hasina’s political statements against the current regime in Bangladesh from Indian soil strengthens the perception that India is adding fuel to fire.

In a virtual address ahead of Misri’s visit to Bangladesh, Hasina accused the Yunus regime of being “fascist” and one that has allowed a free run to terrorists.

In her 37 minute address Hasina made a specific reference to attacks on minorities. By doing this, she not only echoed the concerns of the Indian government but positioned herself as being one which is parroting concerns that India is attempting to tackle diplomatically and bi-laterally.

At this junction one is constrained to ask: Why is the Indian Government not restraining Sheikh Hasina? Why is it allowing her to muddy the political waters? Why is it letting the Indian soil be a convenient platform for political speak ? And why is it letting Hasina hit out at a regime that India has to mend a completely fractured relationship with?

These questions and the angst is not restricted to the corridors of power but will and has found its way to the streets. Therefore the targeting of Hindus may be rooted in religious discrimination but one cannot delink the common man’s anger at India’s “protecting Hasina at all costs” policy even at the cost of souring the bi-lateral relationship.

Therefore, India needs to recalibrate its approach and policy towards Bangladesh before its ties reach an all-time low leading to a confrontational situation.

Kumkum Chadha, an author and senior political journalist with Hindustan Times

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau