BANGLADESH stands at a defining crossroads. With the close of Sheikh Hasina’s long and dominant political chapter, the country is entering an uncertain yet profoundly consequential phase. This transition is not merely a domestic political shift; it is embedded in the wider currents of South Asian geopolitics. From New Delhi to Washington, capitals are recalibrating their lenses, and India’s growing strategic unease rooted in fears of diminishing influence in Dhaka is becoming increasingly visible.
For decades, India sought to entrench itself as Bangladesh’s primary and almost exclusive political partner. In reality, however, policies articulated in the language of friendship often translated into asymmetric dependencies. On critical issues such as trade imbalances, border management, water sharing, maritime agreements and transit, Bangladeshi interests were frequently sidelined. Sheikh Hasina’s government proved to be a dependable custodian of Indian strategic priorities, but the relationship rarely rested on genuine equality. Over time, this imbalance fostered resentment among broad segments of Bangladeshi society sentiments that are now finding renewed political expression.
India’s foreign policy faces searching questions in this post-Hasina moment. New Delhi appears to have invested heavily in a single political equation, neglecting to cultivate broader and more resilient channels of engagement. This strategic short-sightedness is now evident as India’s traditional leverage in South Asia encounters mounting challenges. China, the United States, Turkey and several Middle Eastern countries are positioning themselves as alternative partners in Bangladesh’s evolving diplomatic landscape. As a result, Bangladesh is no longer a one-directional strategic space dominated by India; it has become a multi-actor arena of competition manifest in everything from medical diplomacy to people-to-people exchanges and commercial networks.
Domestically, Bangladesh’s internal transformation is amplifying these external dynamics. In the power vacuum left behind, a struggle to reconfigure the balance of authority has begun. Within the state apparatus often described as the ‘deep state’ calculations are underway. Military and civilian bureaucracies, intelligence agencies and diplomatic institutions appear engaged in quiet preparations aimed at engineering a controlled transition. Stability, or at least its appearance, remains the guiding objective. Yet a fundamental question persists: how compatible is a ‘managed transition’ with the demands of democratic renewal?
At the same time, long-suppressed opposition forces are re-emerging. The BNP and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami claim to champion the restoration of genuine popular representation. Still, scepticism remains. Have these parties truly absorbed the lessons of the past and adapted to the political language of a new generation? Or are they once again constrained by leader-centric structures and cycles of reactive politics? The BNP, in particular, now confronts a defining choice: to lead a broad-based democratic reawakening or to relapse into fragmented, personality-driven resistance.
Jamaat-e-Islami faces an even more complex dilemma. Still burdened by the unresolved legacy of 1971, the party remains politically cornered. Survival in the new context demands more than tactical repositioning; it requires a substantive shift away from rigid religion-centric politics towards civic engagement, institutional legitimacy and constitutional norms. The international environment has also changed. Across the Middle East, even religiously inspired political movements are embracing pragmatic economic agendas and flexible foreign policies. Jamaat’s future hinges on whether it can learn the grammar of contemporary politics rather than remain trapped in outdated frameworks.
On the global stage, Bangladesh’s strategic geography has become its greatest asset. The Bay of Bengal, the geo-economic significance of the Padma–Meghna–Jamuna river system and the country’s centrality to South Asian transit routes have elevated its importance as never before. This moment presents a rare opportunity to redefine external relations on the basis of equality, to assert strategic autonomy and to participate in regional politics with dignity. But such an opportunity carries a clear condition the transformation must be people-centric, democratic and institutionally grounded.
For India, this juncture demands a fundamental reassessment of its neighbourhood policy. Sustainable regional leadership cannot be built on political loyalty alone; it must rest on mutual respect and balanced interests. Viewing post-Hasina Bangladesh as an inherently ‘unreliable’ strategic space would be a serious miscalculation. The political consciousness of Bangladesh’s younger generation, its vibrant social dynamism and the unrestrained flow of information have already eroded the effectiveness of traditional influence strategies. Enduring partnerships are forged through trust, dignity and reciprocity not coercion or complacency.
Post-Hasina Bangladesh, therefore, represents more than a transfer of power. It marks a moment of psychological and diplomatic reawakening. Democratic restoration, state restructuring and administrative reforms are now being tested simultaneously. India will watch this transition with concern, China will view it as an opportunity and the United States will assess it through the prism of regional stability. Amid this triangular diplomacy, Bangladesh’s greatest strength remains its people and their evolving political consciousness.
The question, in the end, is straightforward yet profound: can this transition be shaped into a future defined by dignity rather than dependency? Bangladesh now stands before that rare historical opening. If it succeeds in reimagining its politics, foreign policy and institutions with vision and inclusivity, a new balance in South Asia may well emerge, one in which Dhaka becomes a central axis of regional politics, not a peripheral appendage of New Delhi.
Shahidul Alam Swapan is a Switzerland-based private banking financial crime specialist, columnist and poet.
