Co-Author: Abu Obaidha Arin (He is a student from Bangladesh studying at Delhi University. He is a Bangladesh observer)

Sustained Jamaat rule could also exhaust anti-India sentiment by exposing governance failures, internal contradictions, and economic stress.

As Bangladesh approaches a decisive national election, the dominant assumption across political camps is not stability but an absolute turbulence. Irrespective of who wins, the post-election phase is likely to be marked by extreme confrontation, street mobilisation, and institutional paralysis.

From India’s perspective, this election is not merely about Dhaka’s internal power transition; it is about the direction of Bangladesh’s statehood, its ideological trajectory, and the security implications for India’s eastern flank.

The Ground Reality: BNP’s Electoral Advantage

If a broadly fair election takes place, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its alliance remain electorally better positioned. Based on constituency-level dynamics, BNP could plausibly secure around 220 seats, driven by organisational depth, street muscle power, informal financing networks like Hawala, and a long-standing vote bank.

Jamaat-e-Islami, despite improved coordination, better organisational capabilities, and administrative reach, lacks comparable grassroots strength, social acceptance, and credible candidates, particularly in urban centres like the capital, Dhaka. Even where Jamaat has attempted voter engineering, such as shifting large voter blocs across constituencies, it remains structurally weaker than BNP in terms of coercive capacity and public legitimacy.

The administration itself appears aware of this reality. Bureaucratic behaviour already suggests a strong hedging towards a BNP-led future, which limits the effectiveness of Jamaat-centric electoral engineering. Smaller players such as the NCP, technically an offshoot of the Jamaat, are, at present, marginal, possibly securing only isolated victories like Cumilla-4, without national impact.

Yet electoral victory does not equate to political stability.

Scenario One: BNP Wins, But the Street Erupts

A BNP victory is unlikely to bring calm. The immediate trigger for unrest would be any attempt by the outgoing regime to retain influence through a “Gono Parishad” or all-party interim arrangement for 180 working days, or through continued authority for figures like Muhammad Yunus to push a July Charter or constitutional referendum.

BNP supporters, and crucially, large sections of the general-public, are unlikely to accept such arrangements after an electoral mandate.

This would lead to a direct confrontation between the state apparatus and BNP’s Street power. While this clash may temporarily benefit forces seeking to re-enter political relevance, it carries a deeper risk: Jamaat’s silent expansion under a BNP government.

Historically, Jamaat has thrived not by leading governments but by embedding itself within them, leveraging ideology, street cadres, and foreign networks while avoiding direct accountability.

From India’s perspective, this is the most dangerous long-term trajectory. A BNP government under constant pressure may tolerate Jamaat’s growth to maintain street balance.

As anti-India rhetoric rises, often as a unifying political tool, so too does the risk of cross-border radicalisation, revival of dormant terror networks, and gradual erosion of Bangladesh’s secular foundations. This is not short-term chaos but a slow destabilisation, which is far harder to counter.

Scenario Two: Jamaat Engineers a Victory, Short-Term Fire, Long-Term Clarity

If electoral engineering succeeds and Jamaat emerges dominant, instability would be immediate and severe. BNP would mobilise its full street strength against what it would frame as an illegitimate, radical takeover. The resulting confrontation, between Jamaat-aligned state forces and BNP supporters, would fracture the political system.

Paradoxically, this scenario, though more violent in the short term, may be strategically clearer. Lines would be sharply drawn between the legacy forces of 1971 and openly pro-Pakistan, Islamist formations.

BNP, weakened by repression and internal strain, would be forced to recalibrate, potentially seeking reconciliation with secular forces it previously sidelined. In such a polarised environment, Awami League would likely re-emerge over time as the only cohesive national alternative.

For India, this scenario carries immediate security risks but fewer illusions. New Delhi tends to manage overt threats better than ambiguous ones.

A Jamaat-led dispensation would likely compel India to harden its eastern security posture, strengthen intelligence coordination, and work more openly with global partners. Importantly, sustained Jamaat rule could also exhaust anti-India sentiment by exposing governance failures, internal contradictions, and economic stress.

India’s Core Interest: Stability Without Radicalisation

In the present circumstances, where the Awami League has been manipulatively debarred from electoral participation by the interim authority, India’s primary concern is no longer which party governs Bangladesh. The overriding question is whether Bangladesh can remain a stable, secular, and non-hostile neighbour.

A prolonged phase of instability combined with the deepening institutionalisation of Islamist politics represents the gravest threat. While short-term unrest is costly, it remains manageable if it culminates in ideological clarity and an eventual institutional reset. Long-term destabilisation, however, would steadily erode state capacity and regional security.

What makes the current moment especially dangerous is the growing footprint of the most radical sections operating out of Pakistan, increasingly intersecting with ISIS-linked ideological and operational ecosystems, and sustained by continuous external patronage, financial, digital, and organisational. These networks do not merely seek political leverage; they aim to reshape Bangladesh’s ideological orientation itself.

If left unchecked, Bangladesh risks evolving into a new and more complex Pakistan-type challenge for India, with greater unpredictability, higher levels of urban penetration, technologically adept radical actors, and a far deeper integration of extremism into civil society than India has historically faced from Islamabad.

For New Delhi, this transforms Bangladesh from a familiar diplomatic and security equation into the most difficult neighbour to manage in the long run. The threat is no longer confined to cross-border militancy but extends to radicalisation pipelines, information warfare, and the slow hollowing out of secular political space.

India must therefore resist reactive diplomacy and prepare for multiple contingencies: quietly reinforcing border security, intensifying surveillance of radical networks, countering transnational extremist financing, and maintaining calibrated engagement with all non-extremist political forces inside Bangladesh.

The months ahead will test not only Bangladesh’s democratic resilience, but also India’s strategic patience and foresight. The election may determine a government. The aftermath will determine the region’s future.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

“Indian interference” has since become a reflexive explanation for Nepal’s recurring instability, invoked across party lines.

“India interferes in our politics” has become South Asia’s most reusable political slogan. It works in Ottawa, too, apparently. When governments face domestic anger, legitimacy crises, or inconvenient security failures, blaming the neighborhood giant is an easy shortcut: it turns messy internal problems into a clean external conspiracy.

From Canada to Bangladesh, Nepal to Pakistan, governments and political actors facing domestic crises often invoke Indian meddling as an explanation for internal instability. The narrative is emotionally powerful and politically useful. Yet it is frequently detached from evidence, conflating diplomatic proximity, diaspora politics, and regional asymmetry with covert interference.

India is not a passive actor in its neighborhood, nor is it immune from scrutiny. But the prevailing discourse often obscures more than it reveals. Allegations of interference are often employed as political tools, rather than analytical conclusions.

Canada and the Expansion of “Interference” Narratives

The most serious allegations against India have emerged not from South Asia but from Canada. Following the 2023 killing of Canadian Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Parliament that Canadian agencies were pursuing “credible allegations” linking Indian agents to the murder. The episode escalated into diplomatic expulsions and a public rupture between Ottawa and New Delhi.

In 2024, Canada’s intelligence agencies and law enforcement further alleged intimidation and threats against members of the Sikh diaspora. The issue deepened when the US Department of Justice announced charges in a foiled plot to assassinate a US-based Sikh separatist leader, alleging involvement by an “Indian government employee.”

These are not rhetorical claims; they involve legal processes, indictments, and intelligence assessments.

Many allegations crumbled under scrutiny and revealed gaps in evidence and alternative motivations. In the Canadian case, while intelligence from allies like the US supported initial claims, India’s denials and calls for evidence have highlighted inconsistencies in Ottawa’s handling of the investigation.

Reports suggest Trudeau’s accusations were timed to bolster domestic support amid a political crisis, with Sikh diaspora politics playing a key role. A Canadian inquiry into foreign interference noted transnational repression concerns but emphasized that claims against India “likely only scratch the surface,” without conclusive proof of state-directed killings. Such a narrative ignores Canada’s historical leniency toward Sikh separatists, whom India views as terrorists.

For India, the right response is not automatic denial, but careful distinction. When allegations involve criminal investigations or trusted partner governments, they should be addressed through legal and diplomatic processes, not emotional reactions.

However, using such cases to claim that India is systematically interfering in other countries’ politics stretches the evidence and turns isolated incidents into an exaggerated narrative rather than a fact-based assessment.

Bangladesh and the Politics of Scapegoating

In Bangladesh, accusations of Indian interference function differently. They are less about covert action and more about political symbolism.

After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, Dhaka formally asked India to stop the former prime minister from making “false statements” from Indian territory, accusing New Delhi of enabling political destabilization. India responded that Hasina was speaking in a personal capacity, not as an Indian proxy.

This exchange illustrates a recurring pattern. India’s long-standing partnership with Hasina’s Awami League—particularly on counterterrorism and border security—delivered tangible outcomes, including reduced insurgent violence in India’s northeast.

But that same proximity fostered a perception that India had “chosen sides” in Bangladesh’s domestic politics. Once Hasina was removed, that perception hardened into accusation.

Bangladesh’s internal polarization did not originate in Delhi. It emerged from contested elections, economic stress, and institutional mistrust. Yet anti-India rhetoric quickly became a mobilizing frame, redirecting public anger outward.

Analysts have noted how Bangladeshi media and political actors amplified claims of Indian involvement without substantiation, especially during periods of unrest. The interference narrative thus serves as a domestic function. It externalizes responsibility and simplifies complex political failures.

India’s problem in Bangladesh is less about what it does and more about how its actions are perceived. As the bigger and more powerful neighbor, almost any Indian involvement is viewed with suspicion.

This means India needs careful, disciplined diplomacy rather than stepping back entirely. By backing institutions instead of individual leaders and staying visibly neutral during political transitions, India may not stop all accusations, but it can make them harder to sustain.

Nepal and Pakistan: Interference as Political Memory and Doctrine

Nepal offers a cautionary example of how interference narratives can calcify into national memory. The 2015–16 blockade period, which coincided with Nepal’s constitutional crisis, remains widely interpreted as an Indian attempt to coerce Kathmandu, despite India’s denial of imposing an official blockade. The political impact has outlasted the logistical reality.

“Indian interference” has since become a reflexive explanation for Nepal’s recurring instability, invoked across party lines.

Nepal’s case underscores how perception can outweigh intent. Once hardship becomes associated with external pressure, interference claims gain emotional permanence. Every subsequent crisis is filtered through that precedent, regardless of current Indian behavior.

New Delhi’s room for maneuver shrinks not because of action, but because of accumulated distrust.

In Pakistan, allegations of Indian interference are closer to state doctrine. Islamabad routinely accuses New Delhi of backing separatists in Balochistan and fomenting internal unrest—claims India rejects. The arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav is frequently cited as proof of Indian covert activity, even as the case also involves disputed confessions and international legal proceedings over consular access.

Here, interference claims serve strategic purposes: internationalizing domestic insurgency, justifying security policies, and reinforcing national narratives of external threat. Whether evidence exists becomes secondary to narrative building, and the accusation itself remains the objective.

Separating Reality from Rhetoric

What links these cases is not Indian behavior alone, but structural asymmetry. India’s size, economy, diaspora, and proximity create an unavoidable influence. The misconception lies in collapsing influence, alignment, and interference into a single category.

Diplomatic support for a government, hosting exiled leaders, or prioritizing security cooperation can all be portrayed as meddling by domestic opponents. Bangladesh’s post-Hasina politics demonstrate how quickly perceived alignment becomes alleged intervention. This does not absolve India of responsibility.

Where allegations are backed by legal processes and allied intelligence—as in North America—India must engage seriously. But where claims function primarily as political theater, responding defensively risks reinforcing the narrative.

Debunking misconceptions does not mean dismissing accountability. It means restoring distinctions between influence and coercion, diplomacy and subversion, perception and proof. India’s most effective response lies not in public rebuttals, but in consistent restraint and seriousness when credible allegations arise.

In a region defined by asymmetry, India cannot eliminate suspicion. The goal is not to win every argument about interference but to prevent the accusation itself from becoming a destabilizing weapon in South Asia’s fragile political landscape.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

But I shall never forget my people, especially at a time when the rise of extremist ideologies and violent political and religious persecution puts Bangladesh at serious risk of a period of decline from which it will take many years to recover.

Recently, the unelected Interim Government of Bangladesh, headed by Muhammad Yunus, announced that elections would be held on February 12th, 2026. The country’s largest secular political party, Awami League however, has been eliminated from the political process through violent persecution – including numerous lynchings, unjust imprisonment and torture – and arbitrary administrative measures.

This troubling chaos and political vacuum has given extremist political parties with a fanatical religious ideology – the Jamaat-e-Islami in particular – free rein to assume power, in the absence of a secular counterpart that historically stood against and prevented its rise. This alarming situation will inevitably give rise to years of instability and serious threats to regional security. It is imperative that the international community, and the United States in particular, ensure that any elections are free, fair, and all-inclusive.

As many human rights organizations have reported, since the overthrow of the constitutional government in August 2024, there have been numerous violent attacks against Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, and other religious minorities and their places of worship. These reports document patterns of collective punishment in districts associated with secular and opposition political parties, and districts with a sizable minority population.

Several opposition political figures, including myself, have been sentenced to death in widely-condemned trials before the International Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh, and there is a serious fear that arbitrary executions may follow.

Ironically, the Tribunal was created in 1973 to prosecute the collaborators who assisted the Pakistani army in the genocide during the 1971 War of Independence under the leadership of my father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, during which some 3 million Bangladeshi civilians were murdered and countless women and girls became victims of horrific sexual violence. These are the same political forces that are now seeking a come-back with the apparent support of the Interim Government.

When I was elected in 2008, Bangladesh was a hotbed of extremist forces and terrorism. In its tenure of 16 years, my government worked, under enormous pressure, to keep these fanatical movements contained and to protect the secular constitution of the country.

As a result, Bangladesh saw long periods of stability and unprecedented economic prosperity that witnessed an astonishing 500% increase in per capita GDP, lifting millions out of poverty. This progress was achieved against the backdrop of several plots to assassinate myself and my sole surviving family member, my sister Sheikh Rehana. All of our parents and siblings, including our 10-year old brother, were murdered in cold blood in 1975 by the same political forces that are today seeking power.

Extremist ideologies rarely vanish; they wait for opportunities created by political exclusion, institutional weakening and social fear. Today, all of the guardrails that once constrained them have started to crumble. But I have arisen from this valley of death before and will do so again, with one conviction: that it is my sacred duty to protect the democratic rights of Bangladesh and to promote the dignity of its people. I will continue to stand for this struggle no matter who tries to silence me.

Invariably, during this period of extraordinary prosperity, mistakes were also made, and there are many lessons to be learned on the historical path of progress. In particular, during 2024, amidst a campaign of hate propaganda, misinformation and violent insurrection, numerous protestors and police officers were killed.

I had immediately ordered an impartial inquiry to establish responsibility for these tragic deaths, which the Interim Government has abandoned in favour of politicized sham trials and death sentences, while at the same time offering immunity to those who instigated the violence. The purpose of the agitators was simply the unconstitutional overthrow of the Government, which resulted in my exile to India on August 5th, 2024, and the current predicament.

But I shall never forget my people, especially at a time when the rise of extremist ideologies and violent political and religious persecution puts Bangladesh at serious risk of a period of decline from which it will take many years to recover.

The exclusion of the secular Awami League from forthcoming elections is inextricably tied to the rise of extremists, who present a dire threat not only to the people of Bangladesh, but also to the United States and its allies, as a once stable, secular, and prosperous country descends into a source of perpetual instability, decline and terrorism.

Bangladesh, with a population of 170 million, is situated in a vital strategic region, at the centre of the Bay of Bengal, between India and Myanmar. If it falls in the hands of extremists and their global network, its fallout will carry consequences far beyond its borders.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.