Bangladesh’s turbulent political landscape has come under renewed international scrutiny after former Indian High Commissioner to Dhaka, Veena Sikri, warned that the country’s upcoming election cannot be considered “real” or credible unless all major political parties—including the Awami League—are allowed to participate.
Speaking to CNN-News18, Sikri directly addressed concerns over the legitimacy of the Yunus-led interim administration, the sharp rise in attacks on minority communities, and the expanding influence of Islamist groups in a rapidly shifting political vacuum.
She described the current situation as one of the gravest crises Bangladesh has faced in decades, calling the interim government constitutionally questionable, politically exclusionary, and increasingly authoritarian.
Her remarks come as the country continues to grapple with instability following the August 5, 2024 ouster of Sheikh Hasina’s elected government, in what Sikri referred to as a military- and Islamist-backed power shift that unleashed widespread violence, institutional disorder, and targeted attacks on minorities.
Interim Government’s Legitimacy Under Sharp Question
Sikri emphasized that the Bangladesh Constitution does not permit an interim government of the current model. Caretaker administrations in Bangladesh have historically been limited to short, 90-day neutral oversight—not to serve as a political platform for ideologically aligned actors.
She noted that the present administration includes members of Islami Andolan Bangladesh, Hefazat-e-Islam, and even individuals with alleged links to banned extremist outfits.
Adding to the concerns, Sikri highlighted Dr. Muhammad Yunus’s own remark describing the regime change as “meticulously designed,” and pointing to an aide with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir as part of the planning. “That alone raises serious questions about transparency and legality,” she said.
Meanwhile, the violence that accompanied the takeover remains unaddressed:
• hundreds of police officers killed,
• over 400 police stations attacked or looted,
• and weapons used in protests that did not originate from police stockpiles.
“None of these incidents have been investigated,” Sikri said, noting that families of slain officers have been left without answers.
Awami League Ban: A Democratic Breach Without Precedent
Sikri said the interim government’s ban on Awami League activities and participation is “unheard of in functioning democracies.” Even during political upheavals in Sri Lanka and Nepal, ruling parties were never barred from new elections, she stressed.
“Such a ban directly undermines the credibility of the entire process,” she said.
Sikri also criticized the interim administration’s decision to narrow the UN human rights inquiry, excluding the widespread attacks on minorities that followed Hasina’s removal.
Minorities Facing “Most Dangerous Moment in Decades”
Sikri warned that Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and Sufi communities are facing their gravest insecurity in years. Rights groups documented nearly 2,000 targeted attacks in the two weeks after Hasina’s departure.
State response, she said, has been ineffective and at times aligned with perpetrators.
She pointed to:
• Hindu teachers and civil servants forced to resign,
• community leaders detained without charge,
• journalists silenced through intimidation, and
• the judiciary used as a political tool.
“Bangladesh today resembles an authoritarian shell,” she said, noting that minorities often pay the highest price when democratic norms collapse.
Election Roadmap Unclear; Concerns Over Jamaat-Friendly Outcome
Sikri said the absence of an election date, despite the legal window being open, is a sign that the interim authorities lack commitment to an inclusive process. She noted that recent student-body polls indicate a troubling shift toward Jamaat-linked groups.
“Unless all parties can participate and observers are allowed, the election cannot be called real,” she said.
At present, she said, the only stable constitutional figures are the President and the Army Chief — and their decisions will heavily influence the direction of Bangladesh’s political transition.
Army Influence Real but Not Unified
Although the Bangladesh Army has publicly tried to remain neutral, Sikri noted visible internal tension. She cited the fatal shooting in Tungipara, where a local commander opened fire and killed a civilian, as evidence of emerging fractures.
There were also moments when sections of the armed forces appeared to align with Yunus’s interim directives, requiring intervention from the Army Chief to maintain institutional neutrality.
“The army’s influence is real, but it is not unified,” Sikri said.
Is Washington’s Shadow Behind the Unrest?
Responding to allegations by Sheikh Hasina’s family that U.S. agencies funded groups behind anti-government unrest, Sikri said such claims must be taken seriously. She referenced longstanding debates about USAID’s political footprint in South Asia and former U.S. President Donald Trump’s criticism of American funding for “trainings” that allegedly shaped political movements.
Sri Lanka and Nepal, she noted, eventually returned to open politics. “Bangladesh is the outlier,” Sikri said, pointing to the interim government’s drift away from democratic norms.
If Hasina Remains in India: Regional Consequences
Sikri warned that sending Sheikh Hasina back to Bangladesh without a political settlement would “trigger a bigger crisis.” She stressed that a large segment of Bangladeshis still believe in the secular values of 1971 and expect India to uphold those principles.
She said Jamaat-e-Islami’s ideology is fundamentally opposed to India’s strategic interests, and Dhaka’s increasing tilt toward Islamist actors could destabilize regional security.
“This moment is bigger than one leader,” Sikri said. “It’s about what kind of Bangladesh its people want — and what India chooses to support.”
Read Veena Sikri’s full interview here
