Bangladesh at a Crossroads

Bangladesh’s recent political transition, which resulted in the installation of a new interim government led by economist Mohammed Yunus, has sparked concerns about the country’s trajectory both domestically and internationally. While Yunus may have proven his mettle as an economist, his lack of strategic vision and political maturity has become evident. The incessant “externalization of internal challenges” of his administration by constantly blaming India for Bangladesh’s economic and political crises underscores this immaturity and detracts from the real issues plaguing the country.

A Counterproductive Narrative

Bangladesh shares a long geographical boundary with India and is surrounded by it on all sides. The two nations are not only geographically connected but also economically integrated, with Bangladesh heavily depending on India for logistics and many essential supplies. Given this dynamic, a pragmatic leader would have pursued greater engagement with its neighbour. But the current administration has chosen to pursue a confrontational attitude toward New Delhi and blaming it repeatedly for its domestic problems rather than addressing them constructively.

This blame game, often amplified by Bangladeshi leadership, students, and activists, highlights the administration’s focus on narrative-building rather than problem-solving to address its own internal challenges. The “externalization of internal challenges” has never helped any country, nor will it help Bangladesh. Through this “diversionary tactic strategy,” it can only shift the focus for some time from its real issues, but these challenges won’t go away, and they will manifest again.

Political Instability and Societal Fault Lines

Moreover, the existing interim regime in Bangladesh is inherently fragile due to the presence of diverse groups such as students, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) supporters, Jamaat-e-Islami, activists, and other factions with conflicting agendas. These differences make any form of consensus within the government nearly impossible. Even among students, unity is lacking, as students themselves are a diverse group with various opinions, and they have a tendency to act emotionally to political situations rather than rationally and pragmatically, further complicating the situation.

Moreover, political transition in Bangladesh has been marked by violence and revenge-driven actions, further undermining the nation’s prospects for stability. Acts of disrespect towards Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s founding father—including acts of urinating on and vandalizing his statue—reflect sick mentality and deep societal fractures. This revanchist and narrow mentality, combined with the suppression of dissenting factions, perpetuates a cycle of retaliation and unrest. History is a witness to the fact that political change driven by revenge driven actions, violence, vandalism, and disrespecting of its great leaders has not gone well with any society. Such actions only bear anger and desire for retaliation among those who are targeted and marginalised, as they also seek revenge, perpetuating a cycle of violence and instability. So, the likelihood of political stability in Bangladesh appears bleak as the fault lines within its society will continue to deepen.

Marginalized Awami League leadership and supporters, harbouring grievances, are likely to seek revenge when the opportunity arises, adding to the volatility and political instability. Meanwhile, the military remains a dominant force in the political landscape, further complicating its situation. Any policy decision must account for the military’s influence, making the regime’s position increasingly precarious.

Moreover, Muhammad Yunus’s delayed preparations for elections introduce additional uncertainty. Questions persist over whether he genuinely seeks to facilitate elections or is being supported by the military to implement superficial reforms before full military control is exerted. External powers, such as the United States and other players—accused of orchestrating political changes in Sri Lanka—also play a role, adding another layer of complexity to Bangladesh’s political dynamics. The problem is that the existing or new regime in Bangladesh has also to take account of the interest of these external powers, especially the United States, given the support it allegedly provided in orchestrating this political transition, further complicating the situation for Bangladesh.

Furthermore, Bangladesh’s anti-India stance risks exacerbating its economic difficulties, which could trigger public unrest and further destabilize the regime. Given these internal and external challenges, coupled with entrenched fault lines, achieving political stability in Bangladesh appears highly unlikely. Political stability cannot be achieved in a society riddled with fault lines and revenge-driven governance. The nature of a political change often determines its outcome, and the current transition, characterized by violence and authoritarian measures, bodes ill for Bangladesh’s future.

Geopolitical Missteps and Risks

Moreover, publishing a map claiming parts of Indian territory, releasing anti-India hostile elements from prison, repeatedly engaging in anti-India rhetoric, disregarding the safety of minorities, especially Hindus, engaging deeply with many anti-India external forces, and disregarding India’s security interests, reveal a lack of maturity and diplomatic foresight of Bangladesh’s current administration. This not only strains bilateral relations but also undermines Bangladesh’s own strategic and economic interests as positive relationship with New Delhi has benefited it in the past.

A pragmatic leadership would have recognized the importance of constructive engagement with India. The Sri Lankan example serves as a case in point, where President Anura Kumara Dissanaya, despite his Leninist Marxist ideological leanings, prioritized maintaining cordial relations with New Delhi. He has repeatedly assured new Delhi that Sri Lanka will not jeopardize India’s security interests. In fact, his first foreign diplomatic visit was to India. Bangladesh, too, must adopt such pragmatism to navigate its challenges.

Way forward

To address its challenges, Bangladesh must break free from its current trajectory of externalizing problems, revenge-driven tactics, and pursuing anti-India narratives and policies. Its leadership should recognize the limitations of such an approach and instead focus on addressing its own domestic issues rather than blame game tactics. It must take India’s broader security interests into account while pursuing any domestic policy or external engagement. Constructive engagement with its neighbours, especially India, a natural partner given the geographical, historical, and economic ties between the two nations, should be prioritized.

Conclusion

Bangladesh stands at a crossroads. Its leadership must recognize that antagonizing India, undermining its own institutions, and perpetuating societal divisions will not lead to progress. Instead, a pragmatic and forward-looking approach—grounded in diplomatic maturity, strategic foresight, realpolitik and constructive engagement—is essential for ensuring political stability, economic growth, and the well-being of its people. The interim government’s policies by not taking India’s security interests into account and coupled with the failure to address pressing domestic issues, will only deepen the country’s economic and political woes.

The lessons from Sri Lanka and other nations are clear: only through cooperation and a mature vision can a country navigate its challenges and secure its future. For Bangladesh, the time to act is now.

Imran Khurshid is a visiting research fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi. He specializes in India-US relations, the Indo-Pacific studies, and South Asian security issues.