By Enayet Kabir
After Bangladesh’s general election, beginning today, it is hoped that “constitutional governance” may limp back into operation. Has Bangladesh really seen the last of Mohammad Yunus? Yunus delivered a farewell address to the nation yesterday. A “safe exit” for Yunus and other violators of the constitution is now uppermost in the minds of Bangladeshis and foreign diplomats in Dhaka. When asked about this, a senior defence force officer avoided responding.
To “protect constitutional rule,” the Bangladesh High Court and the armed forces failed—or themselves played extra-constitutional roles—in preventing the events of August 5, 2024, and the subsequent domestic and foreign conspiracies and use of force.
There are many questions: Will Bangladesh be governed according to its Constitution? If there is any deviation, will citizens be able to approach the High Court for judicial remedy? Will the court be able to deliberate on “petitions for justice” without fear? This must be the primary condition for state reform under the “elected” government.
There is now a perception at home and abroad that India played a role in the BNP’s landslide victory in Bangladesh’s general election. India had long exerted diplomatic pressure internationally for a “participatory election” in its neighboring country—so why did it take a 180-degree turn?
Immediately after the announcement of preliminary election results, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hurriedly congratulated BNP Chairperson Tarique Rahman. This surprised the international community. India’s friendly and historic relationship with the Awami League is well known. So, if India lets go of the Awami League and aligns with the BNP, it is bound to raise eyebrows. Did the BNP truly assure that “Bangladesh’s soil will not be used against India”?
What could be the reason behind India’s changed stance? By granting asylum to ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, an anti-India narrative spread in Bangladesh like a pandemic. This anti-India sentiment extended into the military and grassroots society. The war crimes accused Jamaat-e-Islami and Muhammad Yunus incited this narrative among the youth of Bangladesh.
Over the past year and a half, Muhammad Yunus’s “anti-India” government and its political partners—NCP and Jamaat-e-Islami—have insulted India, threatened to seize the “Seven Sisters” and the “Chicken’s Neck,” yet India has taken no significant measures beyond a few trade restrictions. India clearly stated it was not interested in engaging in discussions with the unconstitutional Yunus government. In Thailand, during talks between the two countries’ national security advisers—Ajit Doval and Khalilur Rahman—Mr. Yunus only briefly met Narendra Modi on the sidelines.
India conducted international diplomatic efforts to ensure the 12th election was inclusive (including the Awami League). But after the election schedule was announced, India failed to pressure for the Awami League’s inclusion. The United States and the United Kingdom reportedly played a direct role in Yunus government plans to bring Jamaat-e-Islami to power, which India saw as dangerous for its security.
Between June and December 2025, Indian intelligence agencies and diplomats held meetings in London with the British government and Tarique Rahman to ensure Rahman’s return to Bangladesh. In January, even the UK High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Sarah Cook, reportedly rushed to Delhi, breaking protocol. However, once India ensured Tarique Rahman’s return, it stepped back from the “inclusive election” concept.
On December 25, when Tarique Rahman returned to Bangladesh, around 5,500 members of multiple forces supervised his reception and gave him state-level security and a guard of honour beyond constitutional protocol. On December 30, upon Begum Khaleda Zia’s death, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar attended the funeral with military protocol and conveyed Prime Minister Modi’s message to Tarique Rahman. Jaishankar also reportedly held a secret meeting with Army Chief Waker-Uz-Zaman at Tejgaon Air Base. After this, India openly supported the BNP.
Indian intelligence began promoting a narrative that without the Awami League, there was no alternative to Tarique’s BNP to prevent the rise of extremism in Bangladesh. Indian and Bangladeshi intelligence (DGFI) monitored Tarique Rahman’s campaign speeches and conduct.
Intelligence agencies allegedly ran whisper campaigns and provided financial support to ensure the BNP’s victory. Minority voters were discreetly encouraged to vote BNP. To attract Awami League supporters, Tarique Rahman made positive remarks about the party, even saying he did not want any political party banned. BNP leaders assured that if they won, arrangements would be made for the Awami League’s return.
Diplomatic circles continue discussing the conditions under which India may have supported the BNP. BNP reportedly assured that Bangladesh would not take decisions hostile to India’s territory, regional security, or internal stability. India also reportedly received assurances that Bangladesh would not lease territory or allow military bases for the US, Turkey, Qatar, China, or Pakistan that could threaten India.
BNP further assured that no separatist or terrorist groups targeting India’s “Seven Sisters” would be allowed to operate from Bangladeshi soil.
Historically, during Khaleda Zia’s rule, separatist groups like ULFA, NDFB, and NLFT allegedly operated from Bangladesh with ISI support. India claims that recent violence in Manipur has also been influenced by separatist groups operating from Bangladesh, allegedly backed by Pakistan and China, using Starlink technology to evade tracking.
India reportedly secured BNP’s assurances to act swiftly against anti-India non-state actors and to maintain existing bilateral agreements previously held with the Awami League. High-level Indian representatives are attending Tarique Rahman’s oath-taking ceremony on 17 February.
However, India–BNP relations may not be smooth. To maintain “checks and balances,” so-called U.S. deep state agents allegedly ensured certain figures entered parliament. Jamaat leader Shafiqur Rahman and NCP leaders Nahid and Hasnat reportedly survived the election with backing from military and foreign influences.
It is alleged that Army chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman supported their parliamentary entry as part of a broader political strategy to secure his future and serve deep state interests. The July 2024 events and “one-point declaration” are cited as evidence of coordinated military influence.
ALSO READ: The political equations don’t add up in Bangladesh
Hasnat Abdullah, described as the most aggressive political face of the July uprising, was allegedly groomed and supported by the army chief and sent to parliament to maintain pressure on Tarique Rahman. Some speculate that without strong backing, Nahid and others would not have dared declare a one-point movement.
And yet a question lingers: What if the BNP fails to uphold India’s conditions?
(The writer is a political and economic analyst)
