Region 
 

Chattogram

India, the Villain!

The roots of anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh lie in the country’s history, geography, and geopolitics, along with New Delhi’s hegemonic dominance

By Sabria Chowdhury Balland | February 2026


Domestic politics, ideology, and historical memory have always shaped the national narrative about India in Bangladesh. This fact has been woven into the fabric of Bangladesh since its creation in 1971. The perception of India has changed over time, under different administrations, but undoubtedly, it has always played a role.

Historical context
Bangladesh’s national narrative often portrays India as a villain. This has been caused by several complex issues ever since the Liberation War in 1971. No one denies the active role that India played in supporting Bangladesh’s independence from Pakistan, the fact that it provided military assistance and intervention, trained the Mukti Bahini guerrillas, and sheltered millions of Bangladeshi refugees. However, in the consciousness of many Bangladeshis, this assistance is viewed as one with ulterior motives, which, geopolitically, is always the motivating factor for this type of assistance and intervention.

There is no doubt that India saw the opportunity to weaken Pakistan and establish itself as the regional dominant and hegemonic power. Separating two Muslim majority countries on two sides of its borders could only be perceived as beneficial to India’s geopolitical strategies.

Rising far-right extremist Hindutva trends in India, which led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019, and India’s rising anti-Muslim policies in general, have led to suspicion and mistrust within the Bangladeshi psyche.

Sheikh Hasina’s rule
What cemented a rift between the Bangladeshi sentiment towards India was the strong resentment towards former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year rule (2009-2024) and her excessive pandering to India. This was a key factor that led to the widespread dissatisfaction, or rather antipathy, which contributed to the 2024 student uprising, which ultimately led to Hasina’s forced resignation and exile to India.

For many Bangladeshis, Sheikh Hasina’s deep ties and alignment with India, particularly with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indian business interests, were seen as a compromise of Bangladesh’s national sovereignty. It was perceived that Hasina was prioritizing benefits for India rather than those of Bangladesh. This sentiment is founded on substantial factors:

• Bilateral business deals such as the Adani Group’s power export were viewed as profiting India’s interests at the expense of Bangladesh.

• Despite substantial accusations of Hasina’s authoritarianism, corruption, election irregularities, human rights violations, oppression, etc. India continued to back her unconditionally. For Bangladesh, this was a clear sign of India enabling and supporting Hasina’s repressive and dictatorial form of governance.

• Bangladesh has long-standing issues with the “overbearing” and hegemonic policies of its larger neighbor. These include border disputes, water-sharing issues such as the Teesta River, and concerns of migration. In all these matters, Sheikh Hasina had always unquestionably supported India, which paradoxically led to the perception that she was a tyrant with the people of her country while being a puppet of India.

*India’s hegemonic overreach, particularly during Sheikh Hasina’s rule, was perceived as a situation in which Bangladesh was somewhat willingly turning into a vassal state of India without any sovereignty. This anti-India sentiment was intertwined with the anti-Hasina protests last year. Her complete allegiance to and alignment with India fueled public anger, as she was putting the interests of a foreign country ahead of that of the welfare and sovereignty of her own people.

The people of Bangladesh saw Sheikh Hasina’s deep ties and alignment with India as a compromise of Bangladesh’s national sovereignty

The 2024 uprising and beyond
The initial protests started over a system of job quotas, but they rapidly escalated into a wider revolt against Hasina’s governance in general. Grievances over the economy, a tyrannical system of governance, repression, lack of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, corruption, and killings during crackdowns led to mass uprisings.

In all of the narrative, India was always a recurring theme as many Bangladeshis felt that Hasina’s long reign was cemented by India, thus viewing it as complicit.

As a result of the uprising, Sheikh Hasina fled to India, and despite Bangladesh’s repeated requests to extradite her, she remains there. In November 2025, a Bangladeshi court sentenced Sheikh Hasina to death in absentia on charges of human rights violations and crimes against humanity.
The lack of India’s cooperation in Hasina’s extradition has fostered more profound resentment against India.

Bilateral relations have been strained between the two countries under the interim government of Bangladesh, led by Professor Muhammad Yunus. The interim government has been blatant about its sentiment towards India, accusing it of interference, echoing that of the vast majority of Bangladeshis.

Conclusion
Anti-Indian sentiments are not a new phenomenon in Bangladesh. The roots of this sentiment lie in the history, geography, geopolitics, and India’s hegemonic dominance, leading to an unequal power structure. This was amplified mainly during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, in which she became the symbol of the frustration of a nation realizing its sovereignty was being compromised.

The 2024 protests had numerous causes, such as the economy, job quotas, authoritarianism, etc. Still, the common denominator in all grievances was the manner in which Sheikh Hasina was pandering to India, leading to public outrage and her eventual downfall. Her continued exile in India and her adopted country’s lack of cooperation in her extradition only lead to continued antipathy amongst Bangladeshis.

In the meantime, the victory of sovereignty is priceless.

Read More