The core question is whether India will intervene in any
form. Hasina has lived in exile in New Delhi since August 2024, and according
to her son, she is being treated “like a head of state.” This indicates that
India has already taken a clear position: providing her sanctuary. Whether that
extends to diplomatic or political intervention is less certain.
India’s relationship with Hasina has been long and
strategic. Her 15 years in power offered New Delhi stability across a sensitive
border and alignment on security issues. Losing that political stability in
Bangladesh carries regional implications, especially given the scale of unrest
reported by the United Nations: up to 1,400 deaths and thousands injured during
the July–August 2024 protests.
The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, rejects
claims of political motivation, stressing the transparency of the tribunal.
However, the broader context includes the suspension of the Awami League’s
registration, bans on its political activity, and ongoing detentions of its
activists.
Wazed has warned that elections without the Awami League
will not be allowed to proceed and that protests will escalate, potentially
leading to violence. Recent crude bombings and arson in Dhaka indicate that
tensions are already rising.
For India, intervening directly risks worsening anti-India
sentiment within Bangladesh. Remaining passive, however, could result in Hasina
facing severe judicial consequences and her supporters confronting a political
dead-end.
India is likely to maintain a protective stance over
Hasina’s physical safety while avoiding overt involvement in Bangladesh’s
judicial or electoral process. Whether this limited approach will be enough as
the situation deteriorates remains uncertain.

No comments:
Post a Comment