The most important question about Bangladesh right now is not whether the elections will be held, but when? The caretaker government, as well as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its allies, seemed determined to go ahead with the January 22 poll date, even even if the Awami League-led 14-party alliance stayed away from the process. But that was before Emergency was declared, and a new, more ‘neutral’ interim administration put in place. With the Awami League leader, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, more favourably inclined towards the present team in charge, perhaps her demands, such as the correction of the electoral rolls, will be met, and elections may be held in three to six months.

Developments in Bangladesh are, naturally, watched with keen interest by New Delhi. But not before ensuring that the interest is not interpreted as interference in the affairs of a sovereign country. It may be remembered that the sending of Indian peace-keeping forces to Colombo, albeit at the request of the Sri Lankan government, did not go down well with the people of Sri Lanka. New Delhi, however, has recently made public its concern about Bangladesh and hoped the elections there would be free and fair.

At one level, this can be explained by a democratic country’s natural desire at seeing the democratic process flourishing elsewhere, and particularly in a nation in whose birth it had a big role to play. Yet, the concern of New Delhi is so much in tune with the demands of the Awami League and its allies that charges of interference are bound to surface.

This cannot be of any help to the Awami League, which, in Bangladesh, is almost always seen as looking for support from India. This has made it suspect in the country, which, for understandable reasons, does not wish to be seen as conducting its affairs at the behest of outsiders. India’s expression of concern may not have been made to bolster the Awami League campaign, but even so, it will have only itself to blame if Dhaka forms such an impression.

One thing needs to be clarified here. It is not as if the BNP is an anti-India party or sees itself as such. Its difference with the Awami League, as seen in Bangladesh, is that while the BNP does not harbour any ill-will towards India, it seeks to function more in keeping with what it perceives as Dhaka’s interests, even at the cost of antagonizing the bigger neighbour. Perhaps this is to project a more ‘nationalist’ image of itself. Also it has to be kept in mind that while the Awami League spares no effort to remind everybody of its role in the liberation war, the BNP has many members who had actually fought that war. The revolt in the East Bengal Regiment in 1971 had been sparked off by none other than Khaleda Zia’s late husband, Ziaur Rahman, then a major in Chittagong. New Delhi, of course, is unwilling to recognize this. For it, the more important point is that it was during the Zia regime that Bangladesh committed the ‘cardinal sin’ of improving relations with Pakistan and emerging as an Islamic state.

Another charge against the BNP is that it has allied itself with fundamentalist forces which often create mayhem in the name of religion. The charge is not without basis, for many secular-minded people have lost their lives in the hands of these fundamentalist forces. But what about the Awami League? Its recent pact with a section of the same set of people, obviously to garner more votes, was equally reprehensible. Sheikh Hasina Wajed is also reported to have agreed that if brought into power, her government will not rob clerics of their eminently questionable right to issue fatwa. In India, no concern has been expressed over this. Could it be for fear of busting the myth of the Awami League being strictly secular?

Within Bangladesh, it is somewhat surprising that eminent secular leaders like Rashed Khan Menon did not react strongly to Sheikh Hasina’s move. Also surprising is the fact that leaders who never tire of demanding probity in public life have joined hands with the likes of Hossain Mohammad Ershad, who, since he was ousted from office, has faced imprisonment on a myriad criminal charges. Is this again a triumph of electoral considerations over principles? So why blame just the party of Khaleda Zia which, in any case, had never posed as anti-fundamentalist?

Such goings-on in the anti-BNP camp should take away some of the shine from its ‘purity campaign’. It is extremely unlikely that ordinary Bangladeshis have failed to spot these contradictions. The issue of the fatwa is not just about morality. The Bangladesh constitution does not allow for a parallel system of deciding what is just or not. So any government which allows the right to issue a fatwa is not acting according to the constitution. The Khaleda Zia government obviously had its political compulsions. Similar compulsions may be there in the case of other dispensations also.

There is another aspect to be considered here. No matter how much the Awami League and its friends would like to villify the other side, they cannot do so because of the system in the country. The caretaker government, which was in charge before Emergency was declared last week, was officially independent of the BNP. The Awami League, of course, claims that Khaleda Zia has been calling the shots from behind. But how far will the ordinary voter by influenced by that claim? Particularly when there are no serious complaints on the economic front and the GDP is reportedly showing signs of health?

That question can only be answered when the elections are held. And it is hard to believe that any political party or alliance will create conditions in which democracy is paralyzed. Neither America, nor Europe will like that, and they matter to Dhaka more than India does.