In Bangladesh’s New Political Order, Attacking India Is No Longer Optional But A Path To Power | Analysis | India News

A disturbing pattern is emerging in Bangladesh’s evolving political landscape: open hostility towards India is no longer limited to fringe rhetoric but is increasingly used as a tool for political legitimacy and mass mobilization. All this is happening under the nose of interim leader Muhammad Younis, who has not only stopped these statements but also allowed attacks on Hindus to go unchecked. From student leaders to militant-linked actors, anti-India threats are now being voiced openly, publicly and without fear of immediate political consequences; This points to a deeper shift in the country’s power dynamics.

Student politician Hasnat Abdullah’s latest statements clearly reveal this change. Threatening to “cut off the Seven Sisters” in India’s northeast and offering sanctuary to anti-India groups, Abdullah’s words go far beyond the politics of protest. These reflect the emerging belief that confrontation with India, verbal or otherwise, is a shortcut to relevance and authority in the post-Sheikh Hasina political environment.

This trend has been further strengthened by even more worrying developments on the ground. The so-called militant leader Rashid Pradhan openly threatened the Indian High Commission and said, “This time we stopped here; next time we will enter the Indian Embassy. Indian rule will not continue in the Bengali territory.” Such language expressed in public forums points to the normalization of direct threats to diplomatic institutions; an action that violates international norms and signals institutional erosion.

Perhaps most illuminating was the recent “long march” led by Musaddique, another figure said to be linked to Chhatra Shibir politics. The purpose of the march was clearly to attack the Indian mission in Dhaka. Even after being stopped by the police, Musaddique issued chilling warnings: “We will return. Not a single brick of this embassy will be left. Indians will not be allowed to enter Bangladeshi territory.” He went further, resorting to economic pressure, claiming that if financial flows from Bangladesh stopped, “Indians would starve.” The fact that such threats have been openly voiced in the presence of law enforcement underscores the trust these actors now enjoy.

This confidence did not go unnoticed in New Delhi. Earlier this week, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs summoned Bangladesh High Commissioner Riaz Hamidullah to convey its serious concerns over the deteriorating security situation in Bangladesh, especially the activities of extremist elements targeting India’s diplomatic missions. According to the MEA, these groups have openly announced their plans to create a security crisis around the Indian mission in Dhaka.

India has firmly rejected what it described as a “false narrative” put forward by extremist actors regarding recent developments in Bangladesh. More importantly, New Delhi has expressed concern that the interim government led by Mohammed Younis has neither conducted a thorough investigation into these incidents nor shared credible evidence with India. The perception of inaction has raised concerns that the interim administration is unwilling or unable to rein in radical elements.

In its statement, the MEA reiterated that India’s relationship with Bangladesh is rooted in the shared history of the 1971 War of Liberation and is strengthened through development partnerships and people-to-people ties. India also reiterated its consistent support for free, fair, inclusive and credible elections held in Bangladesh in a peaceful environment. More importantly, New Delhi called on the interim government to fulfill its diplomatic obligations by ensuring the safety and security of Indian missions and personnel.

What makes the current moment particularly important is that anti-India rhetoric appears to fill a political vacuum. With traditional power structures weakened and legitimacy contested, attacking India became a unifying slogan that cut across student politics, Islamist mobilization and radical nationalism. In this new order, hostility towards India functions more as domestic confidence than as foreign policy positioning.

The danger lies not only in the deterioration of India-Bangladesh relations but also in the internal tenor of Bangladeshi politics itself. The line between populism and militancy blurs when threats to diplomatic missions and neighboring states become normalized tools of political ascension. If left unchecked, this trend could reshape Bangladesh’s political culture in ways that undermine regional stability, diplomatic norms, and its own democratic aspirations. What is emerging is not just a rhetorical escalation against India, but also the emergence of a political ecosystem in which attacking India is no longer optional but is quickly becoming a path to power.