It is no secret that India has long sought to exert influence, in one way or another, over Bangladesh’s internal affairs since the independence in 1971. This practice — admired by some, resented by others — was said to be particularly widespread during the last Awami League government, which ruled the country from January 2009 to August 2024.
There were several instances of interference that observers said violated diplomatic norms. One of the most notable was during the visit of then Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh in December 2013, ahead of the 2014 general election.
During that visit, she held meetings with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Opposition Leader Khaleda Zia and Jatiya Party Chairman HM Ershad, among others. Reports at the time suggested Sujatha went out of her way to persuade Ershad to take part in the election he had planned to boycott. She also held a one-on-one meeting with Hasina — an encounter observers described as highly unusual between a head of government and a foreign bureaucrat.
During its 16 years in power, the Awami League oversaw three one-sided elections that critics said sent democracy into exile and entrenched an increasingly autocratic regime. Throughout this period, India — often proud to call itself the world’s largest democracy — remained silent. New Delhi maintained that Bangladesh’s elections were an internal matter and repeatedly stated it would “work with the government of the day.”
Following the fall of the Hasina government on August 5 and the appointment of Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus as head of the interim administration, India appears to have lost much of its leverage in Dhaka’s affairs. In response, it has begun echoing what many describe as the Western narrative — calling for free, fair, participatory and inclusive elections in Bangladesh.
The shift is evident in recent statements that underline India’s inconsistency toward Bangladesh.
On 7 March this year, seven months after Hasina’s ouster, Randhir Jaiswal, the official spokesperson of Indian Ministry of External Affairs (foreign ministry), voiced New Delhi’s support for “a stable, peaceful, inclusive and progressive Bangladesh in which all issues are resolved through democratic means and by holding inclusive and participatory elections.”
Yet the same Jaiswal, on 5 January 2024 — just two days before another one-sided election boycotted by the opposition — had described the polls as an internal matter for Bangladesh.
“Elections in Bangladesh on 5 January were a constitutional requirement. They are part of the internal and constitutional process of Bangladesh. It is for the people of Bangladesh to decide their own future and choose their representatives in a manner that responds to their aspirations. Violence cannot and should not determine the way forward. The democratic process must be allowed to take its own course in Bangladesh,” he said.
India’s embrace of the Western-style call for “free, fair and participatory” elections was reaffirmed on 6 October, when Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri told a group of Bangladeshi journalists at his office in New Delhi: “India is firmly in favour of holding free, fair, participatory, and inclusive elections in Bangladesh at the earliest, and it is ready to work with any government chosen by the people in the polls.”
Many say his remarks mark a clear departure from India’s long-standing policy of avoiding public comment on elections in other countries.
A policy departure and its meaning
The remarks drew an immediate reaction in Dhaka. Foreign Adviser Md Touhid Hossain described them as “unwarranted,” saying India had crossed a diplomatic line by commenting on the country’s domestic political process.
Analysts, however, argue that the comments are not entirely surprising. They say India’s changing tone reflects a recalibration of its regional strategy following the end of Sheikh Hasina’s long rule, during which New Delhi reportedly enjoyed unparalleled access to Dhaka’s policymaking.
Former ambassador Md Sufiur Rahman told TIMES of Bangladesh that India’s position is “not one of principle, but of expediency.”
“It is not their principled position, rather one rooted in expediency. India did not bother about participatory and inclusive elections in the past three elections in Bangladesh.”
He added that India even quietly lobbied with the outside world for acceptance of the then Awami League government despite visibly and grossly flawed elections. The present statement may thus represent “an implicit desire to see their preferred parties’ participation in a future election in Bangladesh.” It might be also from the viewpoint of maintaining pressure on neighbouring Bangladesh, he said.
Strategic interests and selective principles
India’s foreign policy has traditionally emphasised non-interference and constructive engagement, avoiding public comment on the internal politics of neighbouring states unless its own security or economic interests were directly at stake.
Before the 2014, 2018 and 2024 elections, Indian policymakers consistently maintained that New Delhi would work with the government of the day, regardless of its political composition. Many in Bangladesh and beyond interpreted this as tacit approval of Awami League rule, even when that rule emerged from what international observers described as “deeply flawed” elections.
The new rhetoric, calling for “free, fair, participatory and inclusive elections,” mirrors the language of Western democracies — particularly those in Europe and North America that frame foreign policy around democratic values and transparency.
Another former diplomat observed, “It is no secret that the Indian government currently has no intention to engage with the interim administration. They are waiting for an elected government to emerge before resuming full engagement.”
He added that India has significant strategic and economic stakes in Bangladesh and ensuring political stability through early elections may now be seen in New Delhi as essential to safeguarding those interests. Interesting enough that India has not made any pronouncement on free, fair, participatory and inclusive elections in another neighbouring country like Myanmar.
Delhi’s defence
When contacted, a press officer at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka rejected suggestions of inconsistency, saying India’s stance had always been clear.
“The need for free, fair, inclusive and participatory elections, to be held at the earliest, has been underlined several times by India. As a democracy, our belief in the value of a mandate from the people has always been firm and consistent,” the spokesperson told TIMES.
