Dhaka and Islamabad: South Asia’s politics in transition

It is deeply ironic that the partition of the Indian subcontinent did not abruptly occur in 1947, but was in fact set in motion in 1905–07 with the Partition of Bengal—an imperial experiment in division that ultimately culminated in the creation of two independent dominions under the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Lord Curzon’s official declaration of the Partition of Bengal on October 16, 1905, was perhaps the first significant political division of the Indian subcontinent in modern times, but it later paved the way for the creation of a separate country, Bangladesh, in 1971. 

Although presented as an administrative reform, the 1905 partition sharpened communal identities, catalysed nationalist resistance through the Swadeshi Movement, and set in motion patterns of division that would resurface more dramatically in 1947. Pakistan itself emerged in two geographically separated parts: West Pakistan on India’s western frontier and East Pakistan on the eastern side, bordering the Indian state of West Bengal.

Today, Dhaka and Islamabad are the capitals of two sovereign nations of millions, and have different political institutions of power, centred on governance not according to the principles of constitutional and democratic norms. The principles of democracy and constitutional safeguards have not been exercised or implemented in letter and spirit. Both nations have had military coups, which have given political stability through the power of the barrel of the gun and not through the choice of the ballot. 

Imran Khan held the ICC World Cup in 1992, which sent millions in Pakistan into a wave of frenzy and remains the only one in ODI format to date. 26 years later, the cricket captain became the Prime Minister of Pakistan. From the cricket arena to the highest echelons of political governance, his rise was not a fairy tale but a tale of fortitude, resilience, strategic planning and a long-term vision. The PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf) swept the national elections in 2018 with the backing of the country’s elite and powerful army, which again proved to the world that they hold the keys to power that lie beyond Pakistanis’ mandate. He promised Nyaya Pakistan, which was a battle cry during the elections, and a road map for progress and reforms, but found the going tough despite overwhelming support from the common man. India also hoped that the regime change might usher in a more constructive approach and lead to a rapprochement in bilateral relations, but the situation began to deteriorate after the Balakot airstrike.

The quote ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is attributed to William Ewart Gladstone, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and that exactly is the case with Imran Khan in the writer’s view. He was convicted in January 2024 on various counts, including 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets, the Toshakhana case, the Iddat marriage case and the AL-Qadir Trust case in January 2025. 

None of these cases, on their face, constitute offences of a criminal or anti-national nature unless such charges are legitimately established through concrete evidence and upheld by the highest court of law. The fact that these sentences were handed down in rapid succession, without the allowance of a transparent and impartial inquiry, raises serious concerns regarding due process. Such procedural deficiencies amount to a travesty of justice and risk reducing the legal system to a performative exercise, particularly within a political environment where authority is exercised by the Pakistani Army through coercive power and the continued enforcement of draconian and outdated legal frameworks.

On the other side, Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, regarded as the founding father of Bangladesh, was dominant and consolidating her grip on power in the east since she came to power on 23 June 1996 as her party, the Awami League, swept the elections, winning 146 of the 300 directly allotted general seats. Her second term, which began in 2009 and lasted until 2024, was controversial, marked by authoritarian measures that likely facilitated her downfall in 2025. The 2014 national elections were boycotted by Khaleda Zia’s rival party – the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party). Hasina’s extended second term, from 2009 to 2024, was marked by controversial authoritarian measures that contributed to her eventual downfall in 2024. In contrast, India found greater stability and confidence in Hasina’s leadership, appreciating her recognition of the long-term benefits of a constructive bilateral relationship and the strategic advantages for Bangladesh. The 15 years of Hasina’s reign witnessed numerous positive economic changes and transformations, particularly in the textile industry, which emerged as one of the most competitive in the world.

In retrospect, both Pakistan and Bangladesh have experienced political instability and army rule, which, in my opinion, have widened the gap between the people and governance. Sheikh Hasina’s autocratic functioning sounded the death knell, but she should have read the writing on the wall and guided the country to a more economically progressive state, which would have brought in more foreign direct investment that would have transformed the image of the country as an investment destination of enterprise, innovation and opportunity. 

Almost a year has passed without an elected government; this grave error by any means cannot be brushed aside, as it is the duty of any transitional administration to hold elections within six months after calm and peace have been restored. 

The constitutional provisions have to be followed since it is the guiding force of a nation and its people, entitled and entrusted with a purposeful life of dignity and integrity. The Bangladesh Army, in coordination with the Election Commission, should have fulfilled this responsibility and ensured the timely establishment of an elected government.

The recent developments in Dhaka, characterised by large-scale street protests following the death of Sharif Osman Hadi—a prominent student leader associated with last year’s protests against the Sheikh Hasina government—and the provocative rhetoric of Hasnat Abdullah, who openly threatened the dismemberment of India’s “Seven Sisters,” warrant serious scholarly and strategic attention. It is disheartening that he was echoing what Muhammad Yunus, the head of the Interim Administration, had said exactly a few months back, which drew a backlash from India. In retaliation, India withdrew the transhipment facility that allowed Bangladeshi cargo to pass through Indian airports and seaports to countries, mostly in Europe and the Middle East. Delhi imposed restrictions on Bangladeshi imports through India’s northeastern land ports.

The present developments in India’s eastern neighbourhood, which are anti Indian, reflect a troubling deterioration in political stability within Bangladesh and signal the potential for heightened bilateral tensions with India. The total annihilation or banning of the Awami League is not in the larger interest of democracy in the same way the BNP was cut to size by Sheikh Hasina.

In an interview with ANI , Sheikh Hasina spoke on the death of Osman Hadi:

“This tragic killing reflects the lawlessness that uprooted my government and has multiplied under Yunus. Violence has become the norm while the interim government either denies it or is powerless to stop it. Such incidents destabilise Bangladesh internally but also our relationships with neighbours who are watching with justified alarm. India sees the chaos, the persecution of minorities, and the erosion of everything we built together. When you cannot maintain basic order within your borders, your credibility on the international stage collapses. This is the reality of Yunus’s Bangladesh.” (ANI)

More broadly, the escalation of inflammatory discourse and popular mobilisation carries significant implications for regional security. If such trends persist, they could evolve into a substantive security challenge for India, raising the prospect of a new strategic vulnerability along its eastern frontier, in addition to the longstanding and complex security pressures emanating from Pakistan and China.

A more profound concern and frightening situation lies in the apparent erosion of historical memory within sections of Bangladeshi society regarding the sacrifices and valour of the Indian Army, whose intervention in 1971 was instrumental in the liberation of Bangladesh and the emergence of the country as a sovereign nation, rather than its continued existence as East Pakistan. In the changing scenario of geopolitics, the past should never be forgotten, but should be seen positively and constructively, keeping aside religious and ideological beliefs for a futuristic society built on trust and mutual coexistence.

At any given time, a country’s constitutional frameworks and safeguards of democratic functioning must be in place and respected. Once citizens’ trust is lost and powerful elites or institutions, like national armies or oligarchs, step in as leaders without any connection to the real-world realities of societies or communities, the danger looms large: the beginning of bigger catastrophes to come in the form of economic imbalance or inequities, social upheavals, and international isolation. 

This is not to suggest that democracies are flawless or that they can effortlessly resolve the complex challenges faced by ordinary citizens. Rather, it is to affirm that democracy remains a better form of governance because its leaders are bound by limited terms in office, typically four or five years, ensuring accountability and preventing the concentration of power. The best example for this is the American Presidency, which has had only two fixed terms of 4 years for any individual or the presidency as such. Most World Parliaments and democracies like India do have a fixed term of five years for directly elected members in accordance with the principle of universal adult franchise. These political processes and the institutions grounded in the people’s will and choice must be respected and upheld by all citizens, irrespective of their origin or ethnicity. 

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

from the The American Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

These principles remain enduring benchmarks for political legitimacy and accountability. Governments across the region must be constituted and sustained in the true spirit of democracy and justice, as such adherence holds the potential to foster stability and meaningfully transform the lives of millions.