“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

— Abraham Lincoln

A Regional Reckoning: Silence, Justice, and the Strain on Bilateral Trust

India’s continued sheltering of Sheikh Hasina—despite multiple formal extradition requests from Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)—has cast a long and troubling shadow over South Asia’s most delicate bilateral relationship. As the tribunal proceeds with Hasina’s trial in absentia for crimes against humanity, including mass killings during the July 2024 uprising, New Delhi’s refusal to act is no longer seen as cautious diplomacy. Instead, it is increasingly viewed by Bangladeshis as a deliberate obstacle to justice. This move not only shows disrespect to the sovereignty of a grieving nation but also to the moral fabric of regional partnership.

To the people of Bangladesh, India is not only giving refuge to a fugitive ex-ruler—it is giving political asylum to a man accused of having issued the orders which led to the killing of over 1,400 unarmed civilians, including children and students, on the streets of Dhaka, Khulna, and Chittagong. Those blood-soaked streets are still fresh in our minds.

“We buried our son bare-handed as his killer fled in a helicopter. And now India is sheltering her like a v.i.p. guest?” — Abul Khayer, whose 11-year-old son Rakib Hossain was killed.

“They are protecting her like she is Gandhi. But it was our children who died for democracy.” — Rehana Parvin, mother of one of the martyred university students in Rajshahi.

These are the words that resonate within houses, refugee camps, campuses, and march routes. They are not mere laments of loss—though they are laments of loss, made sharp by India’s silence and fueled by the ferocity of Bangladesh’s struggle for democracy.

During this dark time, Dr. Muhammad Yunus has emerged as a statesman of unparalleled moral courage. As the interim prime minister, he rode out the storm with dignity, integrity, honesty, and transparency—never lashing back in fury or aggression, but with incessant demands for justice, accountability, and respect. Rather than resorting to retaliation or rhetoric, as most may have chosen to do, Dr. Yunus extended a hand of diplomacy, calling upon a peaceful, equal, and principled friendship with India, founded on shared regional security, not hierarchical heritage.

The objective of this article is to critically examine how India’s current posture—shielding Sheikh Hasina, enabling her political messaging from abroad, and allegedly deploying media and intelligence networks to undermine the transitional process—is jeopardizing decades of goodwill, inflaming anti-India sentiment, and diminishing New Delhi’s standing as a regional leader. It also points out how Dr. Yunus’ leadership represents a sea change for a new, balanced South Asian alliance—one that India needs to act on, before the union, which once embodied freedom, becomes a reminiscence of lost trust.

The Moral and Strategic Cost to India

India long considered itself to be a stabilizing force in South Asia, but its harboring of Hasina diminishes that moral legitimacy. The diplomatic cost compounds. Surveys by Bangladeshi NGOs and university think tanks in recent times suggest that 72% of those interviewed now see India as an “unfriendly state.” Even Indian-friendly quarters in academia and policy circles are pulling back in silence, being unable to justify India’s protection of a former ruler presently indicted for mass crimes.

“We had called India our friend. Now we have been orphaned by the same hand that assisted in giving birth to our nation.” — Mohammad Nayeem, a relative of a garment worker who died when participating in a demonstration in Narayanganj.

“Every day she spends there, it feels like India spits on our dead.” — Shamima Akhtar, wife of an injured protester who succumbed to wounds in prison.

India’s apparent complicity is rewriting the course of history. The reception for India’s help in 1971 is today overshadowed by its current silence. Regional observers—from Sri Lanka to Nepal—are beginning to question whether New Delhi still holds dear democratic values, or if geopolitical considerations have trumped justice.

People-to-People Relations Declining

What was once a robust web of economic and cultural transactions now frays at the margins. India’s stance is fast eroding people-to-people goodwill in both nations.

“My daughter was 16. She bled on the street for freedom. But today I ask—what is freedom if India decides who receives justice?” — Hasina Begum, mother of a schoolgirl murder victim.

“When my brother was murdered, India said nothing. Now they are keeping his killer in custody. Their silence is louder than any bullet.” — Azizul Haque, brother of a disappeared activist who vanished after being arrested by RAB.

On campuses and in the minds of people, student bodies who once advocated Indo-Bangla solidarity now call for cultural boycotts. Music festivals, exchange programs, and collaborative projects have slowed down, and anti-India hashtags are dominating online trends with record-breaking outreach.

The Disinformation Apparatus: Indian “Godi Media” and Social Media Fueling Destabilization in Bangladesh

More and more voices in Bangladesh today hold India responsible for using its media space as a weapon to destabilize the Yunus-led interim government and prolong Sheikh Hasina’s political tenure. India’s mainstream pro-ruling party media—officially known as “Godi media” for short—has been actively projecting stories projecting Hasina as Bangladesh’s “rightful leader” and questioning the legitimacy, competence, and motives of the interim government. These news sources carry regular selective coverage, half-truths, and unsubstantiated gossip, at times projecting Dr. Muhammad Yunus as a Western puppet or a “soft Islamist” story aimed at depriving him of his moral powers and reforming agenda.

Worst of all, an Indian and Bangladeshi social media tsunami of orchestrated disinformation assault has engulfed both countries. Social media influencer accounts—some new, others that had been dormant before—now dispense conspiracy theories, manipulated photographs, and altered videos aimed at confusing the public, discrediting the tribunal procedure, and provoking fears over national sovereignty and foreign interference. The general perception within Bangladesh is that this is not merely spontaneous content creation but a strategically directed information warfare operation, likely orchestrated by India’s intelligence apparatus in collaboration with sympathetic figures embedded in Bangladeshi media circles.

“It’s no longer just Hasina’s voice. It’s a chorus of lies from Delhi’s studios to Dhaka’s screens.” — Shamsher Ali, Dhaka-based journalist and media rights activist.

Bangladesh citizens now mostly believe India has utilized internal opinion-leaders, columnists, and media outlets—previously-neutral TV stations and news websites—to discredit the interim government discreetly (and sometimes openly). They reproduce Indian talking points, questioning the impartiality of Hasina’s trial, exaggerating security shortcomings, and even propagating false opinion polls to suggest widespread support for her return.

This psychological and virtual falsification has given rise to a parallel world of narratives, one in which misinformation reigns, truth is elusive, and the public is fractured and adrift. The impact is severe: it not only emboldens Hasina loyalists and suspends democratic gains but also instills mistrust among reformists, bureaucrats, and even the international community, some of whom make policymaking and involvement based on these distorted accounts.

“Every false headline, every Indian media misleading tweet sucks out of us peace, harmony, and trust. It’s virtual occupation.” — Ayesha Siddiqua, policy analyst from Chattogram.

What should be a period of national reconciliation and transitional justice is now threatened—not by opposition from within, but by an outside media-industrial complex allied with political relics of the past. As long as India harbors this disinformation campaign, any hope for a stable and democratic Bangladesh will be jeopardized, not merely from within, but even from the very neighbor who was once its liberator.

Weaponizing Refuge: India’s Role in Exacerbating Hasina’s Voice to Undermine Democratic Transition

India’s decision not only to shelter Sheikh Hasina but also to facilitate her sending messages to her die-hard supporters back in Bangladesh has poured salt onto an open national wound. Hasina has addressed directly supporters through encrypted internet channels and open platforms, condemning the interim government of Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus as illegitimate, a “foreign-imposed authority,” and vowing to “reclaim power.” Such messages—often timed strategically ahead of mass reform announcements or tribunal hearings—are perceived by the Bangladeshi public to be politically sabotaged with the assistance of India. Not only is this a diplomatic blunder, but it is also an outrage that has inflamed public sentiment against the Indian state, not the people of India. Although cultural and civil society relationships among citizens continue to exist, it is the overt support of the Indian government for Hasina’s propaganda machinery that is deemed an act of extreme disrespect to the collective grief and democratic aspirations of the Bangladeshi nation. To them, it is increasingly evident that India is not just harboring a runaway but actively facilitating her to destabilize a tentative democratic breakthrough, triggering what some call the worst outbreak of anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh since 1971.

Diplomatic Blunder or Strategic Faux Pas?

India’s refusal to extradite Hasina may be because historically India was in an alliance with the Awami League, but Bangladesh has changed now. The country is going through a fragile yet gutsy democratic renewal under Dr. Muhammad Yunus’ interim administration.

“Dr. Yunus promised to heal. But India will not allow our wounds to heal.” — Farida Sultana, mother of a missing journalist, last spotted being led away by security agents in July 2024.

India is the world’s largest democracy. Why is it that it gives sanctuary to a tyrant?” — Nurul Islam, whose two sons were shot dead in the Dhaka protests. By clinging to an old geopolitics’ playbook, India is becoming irrelevant in a place that increasingly values accountability over loyalty.

Border Tensions and Trade Disruptions: Fueling Public Resentment

Other than the sexual politics of Sheikh Hasina, India’s conduct on its shared border with Bangladesh has also further inflamed the bilateral tensions, triggering outrage among the masses. The Indian Border Security Force (BSF), which is responsible for protecting the 4,096-kilometre Indo-Bangladesh border, has long been accused of excessive use of force, the price of which is typically lamentable.

At least 1,200 Bangladeshis have been killed by the BSF since 2000, as reported by human rights observers such as Odhikar and Human Rights Watch, typically without warning or due process. Victims include unarmed peasants and cattle traders, women and children gathering water from ponds along the border, shot and tortured on Bangladesh territory with impunity, breaching international norms and the principle of territorial sovereignty.

“They killed my brother for stepping over a line in the sand. But who punishes the BSB?” — Monowara Begum, sister of a teenager who was shot and killed close to the border in Lalmonirhat in 2023.

More disturbing is the accusation that BSF has pushed Indian nationals—essentially Muslims and Dalits—across the frontier into Bangladesh, either to avoid local scrutiny or as a demographic strategy in borderland settlements. These illegal “push-ins” have been attested to by Bangladeshi border guards and regional authorities in Dinajpur, Panchagarh, and Jashore, further complicating the already delicate balance along the border.

Economically, India’s drastic actions to prohibit or limit exports of essential commodities—such as onions, wheat, and sugar—have induced Bangladeshi market crises. The prohibitions are enforced without prior consultation, running contrary to the spirit of bilateral trade agreements and inducing inflationary shocks in Dhaka and Chittagong. The abrupt halt in onion exports during 2019 and again in 2023 created a 300% overnight hike in prices, severely damaging poor households.

“My children cried for food, yet prices went sharply up as India shut its doors. Is this what friends do to each other?” — Anwara Khatun, vegetable seller in Sylhet.

These dislocations are not just economically impactful—they are diplomatic flashpoints that undermine confidence and magnify anti-India feelings. India’s actions, on their part, send a message of economic coercion and territorial impunity that brazenly violates the SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) principles that New Delhi claims to subscribe to.

The combined impact is far-reaching: diplomatic fatigue, rising public hostility, and the decay of regional multilateralism. Without a fundamental change of direction—human rights at the border matched with trade commitments—India stands to lose a neighbor whose strategic partnership it cannot ill afford to be deprived of.

“India kills our people, chokes our trade, and then calls us brothers. We cannot bleed in the name of friendship forever.” — Rafiqur Rahman, a borderland activist of Kurigram.

Indian Hegemony in South Asia: The ‘Big Brother’ Syndrome Undermining Regional Unity

India’s approach toward its neighbors in South Asia has increasingly been criticized for evidencing what is called a “Big Brother” syndrome: an officious and self-serving attitude undermining trust, cooperation, and multilateralism in the region. All of these are more evident than in Bangladesh, but common patterns of coercive diplomacy, asymmetrical initiatives, and unilateral action are replicated in Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Pakistan.

In the Bangladeshi context, India’s current shielding of sitting Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina—against whom she was indicted for crimes against humanity—is an alarming case of hegemonic intervention into another country’s sovereign judicial process. New Delhi’s consistent failure to act on successive extradition requests issued by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal has raised public outrage and extensively damaged the reputation of India as a dedicated democratic ally.

But this is not an isolated act. India’s act is part of a larger pattern of regional hegemony, where its foreign policy is more driven by the desire to call the shots instead of the quest for mutual respect.

Bangladesh: The Testing Ground of Hegemony

  • India tends to impose non-tariff barriers and abruptly halt exports of primary commodities, destabilizing Bangladesh’s economy.
  • India’s Border Security Force (BSF) murder of unarmed citizens continues with impunity, instilling fear and resentment along the border zones.
  • Non-execution of water-sharing agreements—especially the protracted Teesta Water Treaty—has not only bred distrust but also hurt Bangladeshi agriculture and livelihoods.

These developments suggest that India views Bangladesh as a junior partner rather than an equal stakeholder in bilateral ties, directly refuting the very spirit of diplomatic equality in such ties.

Nepal and the Culture of Coercion

India’s 2015 de facto blockade of Nepal over the latter’s enactment of its constitution is a blunt demonstration of using economic coercion to compel a fellow country’s political process. The blockade triggered a humanitarian crisis, pushing Nepal closer towards China and placing India’s desire to punish weaker nations that are unwilling to toe the line in the open.

Sri Lanka and the Strings of Influence

India’s engagement in Sri Lanka often swings between diplomatic outreach and veiled pressure. Its past involvement in Sri Lanka’s civil conflict, imposition of the Indo-Lanka Accord, and current competition with China over infrastructure and port investments have created an atmosphere of strategic distrust. New Delhi’s expectation that Colombo align strictly with Indian security concerns undermines Sri Lanka’s autonomy in shaping its foreign policy.

Maldives and the Undermining of Sovereignty

Political parties have locally criticized India’s political and military activities in the Maldives, and therefore the #IndiaOut movement. The Indian state has traditionally positioned itself as an outside force of stability, yet also, according to critics, meddles in local politics and security arrangements beyond acceptable diplomatic norms. SAARC: A Casualty of Indian Exceptionalism

Most visible among India’s victims of hegemony is the stagnation of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)—a potential regional counter to ASEAN or the EU, once envisioned. Since the 2016 Uri attack, India has frozen SAARC summits, substituting multilateral diplomacy with bilateral domination. This has rendered the platform inactive, denying South Asia badly needed space for collective development and conflict resolution.

“When India sneezes, SAARC catches pneumonia. The rest of us are just bystanders.” — Former Nepali diplomat, Kathmandu Policy Forum, 2022

India’s desire to turn towards BIMSTEC and other non-SAARC alternatives is a demonstration of its reluctance to operate within a framework where it cannot call the shots unilaterally. Regional cooperation has now become stagnant, economic integration is low, and trust among South Asian countries is at an all-time low.

Consequences of Hegemonic Drift

This hegemonic approach comes at a cost:

  • India-hatred is quite rapidly spreading in the neighboring countries, particularly in the young generation and civil society.
  • China’s reach is expanding as smaller South Asian countries seek more respectful and mutually beneficial partnerships.
  • The vision of peace, trade liberalization, and reciprocal prosperity of the region is drawing further and further away with each instance of coercion or indifference.

India cannot show the way to South Asia with coercion or intimidation. It must lead by example—or not lead at all.” — Professor Anura Perera, University of Colombo.

Time for India to Choose: Partnership or Patronage?

If India wishes to remain a regional power and moral authority, it must rethink its strategy for engaging its neighbors. Authentic leadership is humility, consistency, and respect—and not economic dominance and military posturing alone. The dream of a united, prosperous South Asia cannot be based on coercion, conditional friendship, or political intervention.

“India was our savior in 1971. In 2024, it is poised to become our shadow.” — Ruhul Amin, Mymensingh veteran freedom fighter.

Regional Fallout and China’s Opportunism

India’s role is not being ignored. Beijing, always keen to identify power vacuums, has approached the interim government with overtures of infrastructure help and non-interference. The realignment has the potential of changing regional alignments, with Bangladesh gradually withdrawing into India’s strategic orbit.

India must ask itself: Is Hasina worth losing Bangladesh for? — Shahidul Alam, a protest leader whose nephew was killed in Sylhet.

If India continues to ignore the tribunal’s ultimatum, it risks being perceived not as a democratically inclined nation, but as an obstructionist hegemon.

A Path To Redemption: Course Correction Still Possible

India still has a chance to win back the moral high ground. It can express a willingness to sit down constructively with the interim regime, even to acquiesce to third-party arbitration or safe passage to the international court, and gain some credibility.

“We don’t demand revenge. Only that justice is not behind India’s gates.” — Tahmina Rahman, sister of a university lecturer tortured to death.

“If India has any respect left for the martyrs of 1971, they will not desecrate our martyrs of 2024.” — Mujibur Rahman, retired freedom fighter and uncle of a student protester who was murdered.

What Bangladesh needs is not another political showdown, but a moral reckoning—where criminals encounter their victims and the truth finds its place in history.

Diplomacy with Dignity: How Dr. Yunus Is Redefining South Asian Engagement with India

Contrary to the servile gestures of past regimes, Dr. Muhammad Yunus has arrived in India with a uniform blend of moral fortitude, strategic vision, and diplomatic professionalism. Rather than yielding to populist rhetoric or retaliatory bellicosity, Dr. Yunus has called upon India to be treated as an equal, not a vassal. With the help of the United Nations, the European Union, ASEAN, and key development partners, he has set the stage for a new regional diplomacy—partnership, not patronage. At every platform, Dr. Yunus has asserted the need for a peaceful, bilateral relationship based on mutual respect, non-interference, and sovereign equality. He has stated that Bangladesh wants India as a friend, not as a guardian. By articulating Bangladesh’s stand with firm but balanced determination, he has also earned respect from the rest of South Asia, which has long resented being overshadowed by India. His leadership sends a clear message: South Asia no longer needs to whisper before Delhi. It can speak in truth and as an equal. At a time of distrust and misinformation, it is a unique model of courage, civility, and conviction that Dr. Yunus offers: a diplomatic eye-to-eye that elevates principle rather than tension.

Conclusion: The Test of a True Friend

It has always been the story of Bangladesh’s and India’s relationship as one of mutual sacrifice, created by the fire of 1971 and consecrated by cultural, linguistic, and geopolitical sympathies. But friendship is not established in history only—it is demonstrated through moments of moral challenge. Now is one such moment.

India today needs to choose whether it desires to be known as a friend of justice or a protector of impunity. In choosing to accommodate Sheikh Hasina—a politician who now faces prosecution for crimes against humanity and is responsible for the slaughter of more than 1,400 Bangladeshi innocents—India is not merely preventing justice but also weakening the very bedrock of goodwill and trust that has been the cornerstone of bilateral relations for more than five decades. The direction of the world is observing. And finally, the people of Bangladesh are remembering.

Dr. Muhammad Yunus and the Interim government have not taken revenge. They have not battled propaganda. They have only asked the world, and India in particular, to respect Bangladesh’s sovereignty, its laws, and the cry for justice echoing from grief-stricken homes across the land. And in return, India has offered silence, asylum, and succor to the very person charged with orchestrating those atrocities.

But this instant need not be one of irrecoverable rupture. India still can rise above political expediency and stand on the side of principle. India still can choose cooperation over domination, respect over heritage, and justice over adherence to tradition. It can march with Bangladesh—not in precedence, not in succession—but alongside it, as an equal.

This is not the issue of one trial, one leader, or one uprising. This is an issue of the future of South Asian cohesion, whether small nations can expect to look up to larger ones for justice, and whether cooperation within the regions is based on trust and integrity, or power and privilege.

Let India not be remembered as the nation that silenced justice for the sake of politics, but as the nation that, when the moment demanded courage, stood tall on the right side of history.

As the father of young Rakib Hossain—an 11-year-old boy killed during the July protests—painfully reminded the world:

“She killed my son. And India hides her like a queen. If this is friendship, we’d rather be alone.”

The measure of a genuine friend is not how loudly they express themselves in triumph, but how courageously they behave when the truth is complicated, and justice is inopportune.