Negotiating Realities In Frosty India-Bangladesh Relations

The manipulation of historical memory is often inseparable from the pursuit of political power. In Bangladesh, successive governments have used state machinery to revise official narratives about the 1971 Liberation War and post-independence politics. However, the current interim administration led by Muhammad Yunus appears to be undertaking the most far-reaching transformation yet.

By reconfiguring the symbolic foundations of the Bangladeshi state, removing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from public imagery, releasing convicted war criminals and lifting bans on Islamist parties, the administration is not merely rewriting history but redefining national ideology. These developments pose significant challenges to Bangladesh’s internal stability and have serious implications for India–Bangladesh relations.

When the interim administration was set up, it was given a limited mandate to ensure transitional justice, pursue modest reforms and conduct free and fair elections. However, recent actions by Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus have raised significant alarm, both domestically and in India.

The announcement of a tentative parliamentary election in April 2026, despite widespread opposition from political parties, has raised doubts about the administration’s commitment to a democratic transition. Yunus has failed to offer a convincing explanation for the delay in declaring a firm election date, raising suspicions about hidden political motives.

The delay is occurring amid an increasingly volatile political atmosphere. The banning of the Awami League, Bangladesh’s oldest political party and principal actor in the 1971 liberation struggle, under the Anti-Terrorism Act on May 12, represents a radical departure from the interim government’s original agenda.

These measures have not only delegitimised one of Bangladesh’s most prominent political parties but also destabilised the country’s democratic framework. The decision, lacking both procedural legitimacy and substantive justification, has excluded a major political actor from the democratic process.

Bangladesh has a long history of state-sponsored historical revisionism. Following Sheikh Mujib’s 1975 assassination, the regime of General Ziaur Rahman sought to distance itself from the India-aligned, secularist trajectory of the early 1970s. In 1978, General Zia declared himself the proclaimer of Bangladesh’s independence, contradicting widely accepted historical accounts and documented radio broadcasts from March 1971.

Conversely, the return of the Awami League to power in 2009 saw the reassertion of Mujib’s legacy and a conscious effort to restore the secular and liberation-centric identity of the Bangladeshi state.

This included the revival of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to prosecute war criminals associated with the 1971 genocide and reviving the 1972 constitution’s secular principles. Sheikh Hasina’s administration undertook a broad-based initiative to realign the nation’s ideological identity with secularism, nationalism and its legacy of liberation.

Erasing history

History has never been just a record of the past. It has always served as a battleground of ideological contestation. However, the interim administration’s moves, such as the removal of Mujibur Rahman’s portrait from currency notes, appear less like correction and more like erasure, aligning closely with the narratives of Islamist and anti-liberation forces.

The most disconcerting aspect of the current transitional phase is the rehabilitation of individuals and groups who were either complicit in, or accused of crimes against humanity during the 1971 war.

The release of Jamaat-e-Islami leader ATM Azharul Islam, who had been sentenced to death by the ICT for genocide, alongside the lifting of the ban on Jamaat, which was barred in 2018, signals a dramatic ideological reversal and has shocked civil society and international observers alike.

The release of Jashimuddin Rahmani, the Ansarullah Bangla chief, linked to extremist violence in Bangladesh, raises fears about the interim administration’s creeping alignment with radical Islamist forces.

This regression echoes the fears expressed by the Awami League, which has accused Mohammad Yunus of turning the soil of Bangladesh into fertile ground for anti-liberation forces. The concern is not merely political. It speaks to a more profound cultural and national anxiety about the erasure of foundational values and the normalisation of forces that had violently opposed the birth of Bangladesh.

India played a pivotal role in the 1971 Liberation War, offering military support, sheltering millions of refugees and diplomatically championing Bangladesh’s independence. The Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship and the principles of the 1972 Constitution, which emphasised secularism and nationalism, were grounded in this historical partnership.

Undermining India’s contribution

However, the current rewriting of history increasingly sidelines India’s contributions. The exclusion of Mujibur Rahman, the primary architect of that bilateralism, is not just symbolic; it undermines the legitimacy of India’s involvement in Bangladesh’s nation-building.

As Dhaka turns inward and legitimises forces that were historically opposed to India and liberation ideals, the bilateral trust cultivated over the past decade and a half risks significant erosion. These developments also echo Pakistan’s long-standing efforts to question the legitimacy of Bangladesh’s independence movement and rehabilitate Islamist narratives.

More broadly, the realignment in Dhaka mirrors Pakistan’s long-standing aim of weakening the secular and pro-India narrative within Bangladesh.

Given the momentum of these changes, a pressing question arises. Is there a covert agenda to amend or even rewrite the 1972 Constitution itself? The Constitution, rooted in secularism, socialism, nationalism and democracy, has already undergone significant revisions over the decades.

But the current actions suggest something far more foundational, a desire to recast the ideological soul of Bangladesh in a more Islamist, authoritarian, and anti-India mould. Such an agenda cannot be legitimately pursued by an unelected interim administration.

Matters of such gravity require a political mandate secured through transparent elections. By acting beyond its remit, the current administration has not only overreached but has potentially undermined the constitutional continuity of the state.

From New Delhi’s perspective, these changes are deeply troubling. India has long invested in its relationship with Bangladesh through regional connectivity, economic integration, water sharing and counter-terrorism coordination. The relationship, particularly under Sheikh Hasina, was one of the most stable in South Asia. The erosion of Bangladesh’s secular and democratic fabric, alongside the resurgence of pro-Jamaat and Islamist forces, threatens to unravel these gains.

Moreover, the weakening of the Awami League, India’s most reliable partner in Dhaka, may open the door to hostile elements. This could have spillover effects on border security, counter-terrorism and regional stability. The symbolic and institutional realignment underway in Bangladesh is not merely an internal matter, it has serious ramifications for India’s national security and regional strategy.

The rewriting of history under the current Bangladeshi interim administration is not a neutral exercise in historical correction. It is a politically charged attempt to reorient the ideological foundations of the state. By erasing the contributions of the Awami League and India, and by empowering anti-liberation and Islamist forces, the administration is not only rewriting the past but also recasting the future.

These changes threaten to weaken Bangladesh’s democratic institutions and ideological ethos, while undermining the deeply interwoven ties with India forged during and after the liberation war.

New Delhi must tread cautiously but firmly, engaging with all stakeholders to ensure that democratic principles, historical truth and regional stability are not sacrificed at the altar of ideological revisionism and creeping authoritarianism.

(Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™)