Amid Bangladesh Turbulence, Risks of Disorder in East

Bangladesh’s current turbulence represents a significant strategic inflection point rather than a mere episode of street unrest, with implications that extend far beyond Dhaka. Political violence, ideological shifts, and a conducive environment for radical mobilization are converging at India’s eastern border, already strained by instability in Myanmar, narcotics trafficking, and a fragile balance in the Northeast region. In response to this volatility, India has maintained a posture of public restraint and quiet vigilance, which has been prudent; however, the challenge lies in sustaining this approach while preparing for potentially adverse outcomes. Recent events, including the killing of Sharif Osman Hadi, nationwide protests, attacks on media perceived as pro-India, and the dismantling of Sheikh Mujib’s legacy, reflect a politically charged atmosphere dominated by emotion and identity rather than institutional authority. The anti-India rhetoric has become a unifying factor for various grievances, making New Delhi’s decision to refrain from public reaction a strategically sound choice. Experienced diplomats recognize that external turbulence must be managed without exacerbating it, as responding to provocations can elevate fringe actors and legitimize their agendas. By withholding emotional responses, India aims to maintain diplomatic space and avoid psychological escalation, reassuring regional partners and international observers of its stabilizing role. Nonetheless, India cannot afford to completely abdicate its position; there is a crucial difference between ignoring street rhetoric and allowing sustained public hostility towards India to become normalized. At some point, ambiguity must yield to quiet signaling, with India’s red lines needing to be implicitly understood rather than explicitly announced. Actions such as providing sanctuary to extremist groups or facilitating narcotics and arms trafficking would have consequences. There is also the question of whether external actors misjudged Bangladesh, as some in the Western strategic community may have viewed the fall of Sheikh Hasina as a necessary disruption, underestimating the potential for Islamist political forces to destabilize not only Bangladesh but also its neighbors. The growing influence of Islamist radicalism in Bangladesh poses a strategic concern for India, potentially replicating the ideological threats seen with Pakistan. This situation invites the scrutiny of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which may exploit the political vacuums created by unrest in Bangladesh. As such, India’s response must be comprehensive and anticipatory, treating the eastern theater—comprising Bangladesh, Myanmar, the Northeast, and the Bay of Bengal—as a unified security ecosystem. Strengthening intelligence operations, enhancing maritime surveillance, and focusing border management efforts on facilitators, rather than just movement, are critical. The question of Sheikh Hasina’s extradition should be handled through calm diplomatic channels to avoid overshadowing broader strategic concerns. While some voices within India advocate for more aggressive territorial solutions, such public posturing could invite international scrutiny and undermine India’s responsible image. Instead, India’s strategy must embody patience and restraint, allowing it to strengthen defenses while avoiding coercive appearances as Bangladesh approaches elections. Effective narrative management is essential to ensure that the turmoil in Bangladesh is perceived as an internal crisis rather than a result of Indian actions. Engaging candidly with Western allies and emphasizing shared concerns about radicalism in the Islamic world will help align international opinion. Overall, India’s handling of Bangladesh has been steady; maintaining this discipline, with clear but understated red lines, enhanced intelligence preparedness, and careful narrative control, will be crucial in preventing the emergence of a hostile eastern front without resorting to military action or compromising strategic initiative.