By Manahil Jaffer

The history of Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan in 1971 is often painted as a straightforward struggle for independence. Yet, a more complex and somewhat hidden reality emerges when we look beyond the standard narrative. India’s role in the bloodshed of East Pakistan, the creation of Bangladesh, and the ongoing political dynamics in the region reveals a carefully crafted strategy designed to shape its neighbor to serve its interests. While India has repeatedly presented itself as a savior and a supporter of Bangladesh's autonomy, a deeper analysis uncovers a different picture—one of manipulation, covert support for certain political forces, and a persistent agenda of maintaining Bangladesh as a satellite state.

The seeds of conflict in East Pakistan were not sown solely by local grievances; rather, they were exacerbated by external manipulation. India had long viewed East Pakistan, a region geographically separated from West Pakistan, as a potential thorn. A myriad of challenges marked Pakistan’s governance of East Pakistan. However, rather than allow Pakistan to address these issues independently, India saw an opportunity to exploit these weaknesses.

In the early 1970s, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Awami League, which represented the Bengali-majority population, won a sweeping victory in Pakistan’s general elections, the situation was, in many ways, a normal political transition issue. It was the first direct election in Pakistan's history, and such transitions are often fraught with tension, especially in countries where political systems are still developing. The political maturity of the politicians and the nation as a whole was not yet fully developed, which is a challenge that many countries, even today, still face during democratic transitions. Internal political scramble over the transfer of power exacerbated existing tensions. This issue, which could have been managed through political dialogue, escalated into what is now remembered as the Bangladesh Liberation War. India, which had long been wary of Pakistan’s strategic positioning in the region, saw an opportunity to capitalize on the crisis.

India not only provided covert military aid to the Bengali rebels, but it also played a significant role in the formation of Mukti Bahini, the guerrilla group that fought against Pakistan’s military. It was again Indian intervention that converted an otherwise political conflict into a guerilla war. India’s RA&W reportedly trained and supplied arms to the Mukti Bahini, although this support was kept under wraps. The war ultimately led to the creation of Bangladesh, but it was India’s strategic intervention that tilted the balance of power in favor of the Bengali nationalists.

Once Bangladesh became independent, India’s geopolitical interest did not wane. Instead, India sought to install a government sympathetic to its interests. Enter Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the first president of Bangladesh. While Mujib was a prominent leader of the independence movement, his leadership style and governance were far from ideal for a new, fragile state. Bangladesh, with its limited resources, was struggling to establish order and stability in the aftermath of the war, and Mujib’s administration was criticized for poor governance, economic mismanagement, and human rights abuses.

Despite these issues, India threw its full support behind Mujib, providing political and military backing. This was not merely a gesture of goodwill toward the Bengali people; it was a calculated move to ensure that Bangladesh would remain under India’s influence. India’s support for Mujib continued even as his government became more authoritarian and corrupt, culminating in his assassination in 1975.

Mujib’s death marked a shift in Bangladesh’s political landscape, but India’s influence remained intact. Over the following decades, India continued to intervene in Bangladesh’s internal affairs, backing political figures who aligned with its strategic interests. The rise of Sheikh Hasina Wajid, Mujib’s daughter, to power in the late 1980s was a clear example of this pattern.

Hasina’s return to power in 1996 and subsequent terms in office can be seen as part of India’s ongoing strategy to maintain Bangladesh as a client state. While Hasina has positioned herself as a proponent of democratic values, her tenure has been characterized by political repression, media control, and human rights violations.

For India, having a friendly government in Dhaka has always been a top priority. Bangladesh shares a long border with India, and any instability or anti-Indian sentiment in the region directly challenges Indian influence in South Asia. By keeping Bangladesh in India’s orbit, New Delhi ensures that it has a buffer state, preventing Pakistan from gaining a foothold in the region. This dynamic is evident in the context of India’s "big brother" approach, where it leverages its political, economic, and military power to influence decisions within Bangladesh.

India’s approach to Bangladesh can be best understood as keeping the neighboring country politically aligned while maintaining a semblance of autonomy. Through covert support for select political leaders, India has ensured that the leadership in Dhaka remains favorable to its strategic needs. Whether influencing key policy decisions or controlling the flow of economic aid, India’s hidden hand has been a constant in Bangladesh’s political narrative.
However, in the recent past, the political tide in Bangladesh appears to have turned. The ouster of Sheikh Hasina through growing domestic opposition and electoral rejection signals a shift in public sentiment. The Bangladeshi people, increasingly aware of the overreach of Indian influence, have begun to push back against what they perceive as hegemony. The rejection of Hasina’s government is a broader repudiation of India’s strategy to dominate Bangladesh’s political sphere.

Whether Bangladesh can maintain this newfound sense of independence remains to be seen. Still, the growing spirit of resistance among its youth is a sign that the days of unquestioned Indian dominance may end.