Was Hasina Toppled to Create Instability in India’s Neighbourhood?

There is little doubt that the political stability and regional cooperation fostered in South Asia under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership were viewed unfavorably by certain international actors. Her strong ties with India brought order to a region previously beset by insurgency and terrorism, while also driving economic growth. In this situation, suspicions of foreign interference in her ouster — especially when she seemed securely in power before June this year — are not surprising.

Hasina’s removal from power has come soon after U.S. Ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti, expressed his displeasure in July this year over India’s continued relationship with Russia.

Although India and the U.S. have drawn closer to address the Chinese challenge in the Indian Ocean and the Indo-Pacific, they still have their differences. One of these divergences is their approach toward Russia. While the U.S. views Russia as a major security threat, India considers Russia an important source of energy and arms supplies.

The U.S. was particularly displeased with the recent show of camaraderie during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Russia.

He added that while he respects India’s strategic autonomy, in times of conflict, the concept of strategic autonomy becomes less relevant. He also emphasized that during crises both sides need to be familiar with each other’s equipment, training, and systems.

Those who suspect foreign interference in Hasina’s ouster often point to the United States as a prime suspect. The US has been eyeing a military base in Bangladesh since before its independence. During the liberation struggle of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), it was reported that the US offered support to East Pakistani leaders in exchange for permission to establish a military base on St. Martins Island. Although this proposal was declined, the US persisted in its efforts even after Bangladesh's independence. This issue frequently surfaced in bilateral talks, especially during visits by senior US military officials to Bangladesh.

Additionally, the US has been trying to integrate Bangladesh into its Indo-Pacific strategy, aiming to strengthen defense ties and sell military equipment to the country. While Bangladesh showed interest in US weaponry, it refused to purchase these under the Indo-Pacific framework, fearing it would upset its primary military hardware supplier, China. In an effort to remain neutral, Bangladesh formulated its own Indo-Pacific outlook, emphasizing trade and economic relationships without committing to any military alliances.

Another foreign power suspected of involvement in Hasina's ouster is China. Despite a multi-faceted relationship, China's dissatisfaction with the growing closeness between India and Bangladesh is well-documented. Reports suggest that China advised Hasina against visiting India before her recent trip to China, advice which she ignored.

China has been keen on increasing its influence in South Asia, primarily through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects and military cooperation with individual countries. Both China and India have expressed interest in a water management project on the Teesta River in Bangladesh.

The Chinese cold-shouldered Hasina during her July visit to that country. Hasina's expectations of securing a $5 billion loan to mitigate Bangladesh's foreign currency crisis were dashed when China offered only $100 million. Moreover, she did not receive the anticipated diplomatic protocol; Chinese President Xi Jinping did not allocate sufficient time for her, leaving Premier Li Keqiang to handle the discussions. Disappointed, Hasina cut her visit short. Such treatment from China suggests deeper strategic calculations, leading to speculation about China's involvement in her ouster.

However, recent student protests have posed unexpected challenges for Hasina. Alongside the BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami cadres, historically opposed to Bangladesh’s liberation, are suspected of exploiting the student movement. Jamaat fought against its own people when the Liberation war of Bangladesh was fought in 1971. Their members were called Razakars.

A recent book ‘Pakistan's ISI’ written by Julian Richards highlights that the ISI which was a crucial intelligence partner for the West during the Cold War and remains one even into the contemporary era. It utilizes broad human intelligence networks and employs covert action and support for militants, particularly in its rivalry with India. Thus relationship between CIA and the ISI remains intact even during present times.

In the case of Bangladesh, the presence of Sheikh Hasina regime was now disliked by both the US and Pakistan. Even China though it supported Hasina in the immediate aftermath of elections was not happy. We have seen how these powers cooperated during the Cold War period. So it is possible that CIA and ISI worked together to uproot Sheikh Hasina government while the Chinese tacitly supported this action.

Proving direct involvement of foreign powers is challenging, as countries seldom engage overtly. Nonetheless, it is evident that the chaos instigated by the student movement was leveraged by various actors to further their own interests. The geopolitical intricacies surrounding Sheikh Hasina’s ouster underscores that she might have been a victim of complex international and regional politics in South Asia.