India’s Awami League Dilemma In Its Relations With Bangladesh – OpEd
The Interim Government of Bangladesh has expressed growing alarm over reports that exiled leaders of the banned Awami League (AL), including former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, are continuing political activities from India. Reports of AL-linked hubs in Delhi and Kolkata, coupled with public events and propaganda efforts, have raised questions about sovereignty, regional stability, and the health of bilateral ties between Dhaka and New Delhi.
The Awami League was formally banned in Bangladesh following its ouster in August 2024, when Hasina fled the country amid mounting allegations of corruption, human rights abuses, and authoritarian rule. Over 150 criminal cases have since been filed against the party’s senior leadership, ranging from graft to “crimes against humanity.” Yet, despite its formal proscription at home, the party appears to be reinventing itself in exile.
On July 21, 2025, AL-linked operatives reportedly organized the distribution of anti-Bangladesh materials at the Press Club of India in New Delhi under the cover of NGOs. Weeks later, a BBC Bangla investigation (August 5, 2025) revealed the existence of a discreet Awami League office in a Kolkata commercial complex, allegedly serving as a coordination hub for exiled leaders. These developments strongly suggest that the AL continues to function from abroad, defying Dhaka’s prohibition.
For Bangladesh, this is not merely a political inconvenience but a fundamental matter of sovereignty. Allowing a banned political party to operate openly from foreign soil is seen as interference in internal affairs. Dhaka’s argument is straightforward: the AL was outlawed under domestic law, and its leaders face legal charges at home. Their ability to continue activities abroad undermines the authority of Bangladesh’s judiciary and threatens domestic stability.
The principle is not without precedent. States often resist allowing exiled opposition groups to organize within their borders for fear of destabilizing neighbors. For example, many Western governments have been cautious about permitting exiled political movements to operate freely if they are accused of promoting unrest abroad. Bangladesh, therefore, sees India’s permissive stance as a violation of the trust expected between neighbors.
New Delhi, for its part, has dismissed Dhaka’s concerns as “misplaced,” claiming that activities linked to exiled AL leaders fall under the ambit of free expression. Yet, this response risks undermining India’s stated commitment to mutual respect and non-interference in South Asia. By failing to curb activities that directly target the Bangladeshi state, India inadvertently fuels suspicions that it is providing tacit protection to its longtime ally.
This is particularly sensitive because Hasina’s government had long been considered close to New Delhi, often granting India favorable access in trade, security, and transit. Many Bangladeshis believe this relationship came at the expense of their country’s sovereignty. Today, the perception that India is harboring Hasina and enabling her political activities reinforces a narrative of external interference in Bangladesh’s domestic affairs.
The stakes extend beyond bilateral friction. South Asia is already a volatile region, where cross-border politics often fuel instability. If exiled Bangladeshi leaders are permitted to orchestrate political campaigns from India, it risks emboldening hardline factions, deepening domestic polarization in Bangladesh, and spilling tensions across the border. Such dynamics could undermine cooperative mechanisms on trade, border management, and counterterrorism—areas where Dhaka and New Delhi have long sought to find common ground. Allowing political fugitives to operate from Indian soil risks destabilizing this fragile balance and creating new grievances among the Bangladeshi public.
The Interim Government of Bangladesh has urged India to take concrete steps: shut down AL-linked offices, prevent propaganda campaigns, and deny exiled leaders the ability to coordinate politically from its territory. Whether New Delhi acts on these requests will determine the trajectory of future relations. Equally, Sheikh Hasina and her party cannot be absolved of their record simply by relocating abroad. The allegations of corruption, human rights violations, and authoritarian practices during her tenure continue to demand accountability. Political exile should not serve as a shield against facing justice in Bangladesh’s courts. If the AL wishes to re-enter democratic politics, it must do so within the framework of law, not by circumventing it through foreign platforms.
The reports of Awami League leaders operating from India strike at the heart of Bangladesh’s sovereignty and highlight a broader challenge in South Asia: how to manage the presence of exiled political actors without destabilizing neighbors. For Bangladeshis, the issue is clear: no political group outlawed for its abuses should be allowed to wage campaigns from abroad. For India, the choice is equally stark. By continuing to provide space for exiled AL leaders, it risks undermining bilateral trust and fueling resentment in Bangladesh. By taking corrective measures, however, it can demonstrate respect for its neighbor’s sovereignty and rebuild confidence in a relationship strained by suspicion.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
