“Indian interference” has since become a reflexive explanation for Nepal’s recurring instability, invoked across party lines.

“India interferes in our politics” has become South Asia’s most reusable political slogan. It works in Ottawa, too, apparently. When governments face domestic anger, legitimacy crises, or inconvenient security failures, blaming the neighborhood giant is an easy shortcut: it turns messy internal problems into a clean external conspiracy.

From Canada to Bangladesh, Nepal to Pakistan, governments and political actors facing domestic crises often invoke Indian meddling as an explanation for internal instability. The narrative is emotionally powerful and politically useful. Yet it is frequently detached from evidence, conflating diplomatic proximity, diaspora politics, and regional asymmetry with covert interference.

India is not a passive actor in its neighborhood, nor is it immune from scrutiny. But the prevailing discourse often obscures more than it reveals. Allegations of interference are often employed as political tools, rather than analytical conclusions.

Canada and the Expansion of “Interference” Narratives

The most serious allegations against India have emerged not from South Asia but from Canada. Following the 2023 killing of Canadian Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Parliament that Canadian agencies were pursuing “credible allegations” linking Indian agents to the murder. The episode escalated into diplomatic expulsions and a public rupture between Ottawa and New Delhi.

In 2024, Canada’s intelligence agencies and law enforcement further alleged intimidation and threats against members of the Sikh diaspora. The issue deepened when the US Department of Justice announced charges in a foiled plot to assassinate a US-based Sikh separatist leader, alleging involvement by an “Indian government employee.”

These are not rhetorical claims; they involve legal processes, indictments, and intelligence assessments.

Many allegations crumbled under scrutiny and revealed gaps in evidence and alternative motivations. In the Canadian case, while intelligence from allies like the US supported initial claims, India’s denials and calls for evidence have highlighted inconsistencies in Ottawa’s handling of the investigation.

Reports suggest Trudeau’s accusations were timed to bolster domestic support amid a political crisis, with Sikh diaspora politics playing a key role. A Canadian inquiry into foreign interference noted transnational repression concerns but emphasized that claims against India “likely only scratch the surface,” without conclusive proof of state-directed killings. Such a narrative ignores Canada’s historical leniency toward Sikh separatists, whom India views as terrorists.

For India, the right response is not automatic denial, but careful distinction. When allegations involve criminal investigations or trusted partner governments, they should be addressed through legal and diplomatic processes, not emotional reactions.

However, using such cases to claim that India is systematically interfering in other countries’ politics stretches the evidence and turns isolated incidents into an exaggerated narrative rather than a fact-based assessment.

Bangladesh and the Politics of Scapegoating

In Bangladesh, accusations of Indian interference function differently. They are less about covert action and more about political symbolism.

After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, Dhaka formally asked India to stop the former prime minister from making “false statements” from Indian territory, accusing New Delhi of enabling political destabilization. India responded that Hasina was speaking in a personal capacity, not as an Indian proxy.

This exchange illustrates a recurring pattern. India’s long-standing partnership with Hasina’s Awami League—particularly on counterterrorism and border security—delivered tangible outcomes, including reduced insurgent violence in India’s northeast.

But that same proximity fostered a perception that India had “chosen sides” in Bangladesh’s domestic politics. Once Hasina was removed, that perception hardened into accusation.

Bangladesh’s internal polarization did not originate in Delhi. It emerged from contested elections, economic stress, and institutional mistrust. Yet anti-India rhetoric quickly became a mobilizing frame, redirecting public anger outward.

Analysts have noted how Bangladeshi media and political actors amplified claims of Indian involvement without substantiation, especially during periods of unrest. The interference narrative thus serves as a domestic function. It externalizes responsibility and simplifies complex political failures.

India’s problem in Bangladesh is less about what it does and more about how its actions are perceived. As the bigger and more powerful neighbor, almost any Indian involvement is viewed with suspicion.

This means India needs careful, disciplined diplomacy rather than stepping back entirely. By backing institutions instead of individual leaders and staying visibly neutral during political transitions, India may not stop all accusations, but it can make them harder to sustain.

Nepal and Pakistan: Interference as Political Memory and Doctrine

Nepal offers a cautionary example of how interference narratives can calcify into national memory. The 2015–16 blockade period, which coincided with Nepal’s constitutional crisis, remains widely interpreted as an Indian attempt to coerce Kathmandu, despite India’s denial of imposing an official blockade. The political impact has outlasted the logistical reality.

“Indian interference” has since become a reflexive explanation for Nepal’s recurring instability, invoked across party lines.

Nepal’s case underscores how perception can outweigh intent. Once hardship becomes associated with external pressure, interference claims gain emotional permanence. Every subsequent crisis is filtered through that precedent, regardless of current Indian behavior.

New Delhi’s room for maneuver shrinks not because of action, but because of accumulated distrust.

In Pakistan, allegations of Indian interference are closer to state doctrine. Islamabad routinely accuses New Delhi of backing separatists in Balochistan and fomenting internal unrest—claims India rejects. The arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav is frequently cited as proof of Indian covert activity, even as the case also involves disputed confessions and international legal proceedings over consular access.

Here, interference claims serve strategic purposes: internationalizing domestic insurgency, justifying security policies, and reinforcing national narratives of external threat. Whether evidence exists becomes secondary to narrative building, and the accusation itself remains the objective.

Separating Reality from Rhetoric

What links these cases is not Indian behavior alone, but structural asymmetry. India’s size, economy, diaspora, and proximity create an unavoidable influence. The misconception lies in collapsing influence, alignment, and interference into a single category.

Diplomatic support for a government, hosting exiled leaders, or prioritizing security cooperation can all be portrayed as meddling by domestic opponents. Bangladesh’s post-Hasina politics demonstrate how quickly perceived alignment becomes alleged intervention. This does not absolve India of responsibility.

Where allegations are backed by legal processes and allied intelligence—as in North America—India must engage seriously. But where claims function primarily as political theater, responding defensively risks reinforcing the narrative.

Debunking misconceptions does not mean dismissing accountability. It means restoring distinctions between influence and coercion, diplomacy and subversion, perception and proof. India’s most effective response lies not in public rebuttals, but in consistent restraint and seriousness when credible allegations arise.

In a region defined by asymmetry, India cannot eliminate suspicion. The goal is not to win every argument about interference but to prevent the accusation itself from becoming a destabilizing weapon in South Asia’s fragile political landscape.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

Authorities confirmed that the explosions caused no casualties. However, the incident added to an atmosphere of fear that has gripped the capital following several days of political unrest and violent disruptions.

Sheikh Hasina, aged 78, is currently on trial in a domestic war crimes case. She faces charges related to alleged crimes against humanity tied to the government’s response to student-led protests in mid-2024.

The former leader has been living in India since August of last year. She left the country after being removed from power during a period of intense political upheaval and mass demonstrations.

The verdict in her case is scheduled for Monday. Officials and residents fear that the announcement may trigger a fresh wave of unrest, regardless of the outcome.

Dhaka has experienced a marked increase in attacks during the buildup to the verdict. Authorities reported that on November 12 alone, more than 30 crude bombs exploded across the capital and nearby districts.

In addition to the bombings, dozens of buses were set on fire on the same day. The attacks forced authorities to heighten patrols and impose strict security measures across key locations.

Police have detained numerous supporters of Hasina’s political party, the Awami League. Officials say the arrests were made on allegations of involvement in arson, explosions, and widespread acts of sabotage.

One of the targeted locations was a local branch of Grameen Bank. The institution gained renewed visibility after the appointment of its founder, Muhammad Yunus, as the head of the interim government.

A train carriage stationed at Dhaka’s central railway terminal was also burned. Images of the incident spread quickly across local media, further heightening public concern about the escalating violence.

The police and auxiliary forces have been placed on high alert. Security officials said they are working around the clock to prevent further attacks and disrupt planned acts of unrest.

Authorities have increased checkpoints on major routes entering Dhaka. Commuters have experienced long delays as officers conduct searches of vehicles and passenger belongings.

The city’s administration has announced restrictions on public gatherings until further notice. Events involving large crowds have been suspended due to the risk of coordinated attacks.

More than 400 personnel from the Border Guard Bangladesh have been deployed across the capital. Their presence is intended to support local police and ensure rapid response capabilities.

Residents of Dhaka say the atmosphere feels increasingly unstable. Many people have reduced non-essential travel and remain indoors after sunset due to safety concerns.

Businesses have also been affected by the unrest. Shops in several commercial districts closed early this week, citing fears of property damage and potential clashes.

Analysts say the situation reflects the broader political divide that has shaped Bangladesh’s recent history. Hasina’s long tenure in power and her abrupt removal have contributed to competing narratives about accountability and justice.

Observers note that uncertainty over the upcoming verdict is fueling tension. Supporters of the former prime minister maintain that the charges are politically motivated, while critics argue that accountability is necessary.

Human rights groups have expressed concern about the rise in violent incidents. They have urged authorities to ensure that security measures respect civil liberties while maintaining public safety.

The interim government has urged the public to remain calm in the days leading up to the verdict. Officials say they are prepared for any scenario and are coordinating closely with security agencies.

As Monday approaches, Dhaka remains on edge. The city continues to brace for possible unrest, even as security forces intensify efforts to stabilize the situation.

For now, residents wait for the court’s decision in one of the most closely watched legal cases in Bangladesh’s recent political history.
The outcome is expected to have lasting implications for the country’s political landscape and public order.

Co-author Faiyaz Hossain

The OHCHR report attributes the most serious incidents, including mass shootings and organized attacks, to Sheikh Hasina’s command.

The OHCHR’s Fact-Finding Report on Bangladesh’s July–August 2024 protests arrived under the guise of impartial justice, yet beneath its lofty language lurks a narrative unmistakably tilted in favor of the July anarchists. Marketed as a breakthrough for human rights accountability, the report accuses the former Awami League government and its security agencies of widespread repression and arbitrary killings.

But a closer examination reveals a document that selectively amplifies certain voices, overlooks key actors, and compresses timelines in a way that seems designed to exonerate protestors while vilifying the state. Far from the neutral lens of international justice, this report reads more like a chronicle of grievances for one side, raising urgent questions about political bias masquerading as fact-finding.

Previous UN and OHCHR reports have faced significant criticism from various global actors. The US Senate and Congress have criticized these reports, highlighting concerns about the UN Human Rights Council’s credibility, with the US even withdrawing from the Universal Periodic Review process. Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard notably opposed UN declarations related to indigenous rights and showed skepticism toward some UN findings.

Scott Morrison also contested narratives about Australia’s climate and human rights issues at the UN, defending national achievements against criticism. UN Watch has criticized the OHCHR reports as biased and often based on selective and unverified data, with some allegations treating urban destruction as evidence of genocide. Despite the International Commission of Jurists declaring the 1971 Bangladesh war as genocide, the UN has not officially recognized it. It is time to question the investigators on their approach to findings.

A Methodology That Omits More Than It Reveals

The OHCHR report claims to have interviewed over 250 people and examined thousands of pieces of evidence, yet it provides almost no insight into how these sources were selected. Who were these witnesses? Were they victims, bystanders, or protest organizers? Crucially, the report does not include testimony from state actors, police command, the deployed army, or the accused political leadership. The omission is glaring: while protestors’ grievances are amplified in rich detail, state narratives are largely absent.

Transparency is critical in any fact-finding exercise, especially one accusing a government of “systematic abuse” (UNOG Newsroom, 12 Feb 2025). Yet the OHCHR provides no methodology annex, no criteria for witness selection, and no explanation for why key actors were excluded. The report’s timing—released under the interim Yunus government after Sheikh Hasina’s ouster—further complicates its claim to neutrality.

It reads less like an independent UN inquiry and more like a politically convenient document, quietly validating protestor claims while sidelining alternative accounts. The OHCHR factfinding team omitted interviewing the Chief of Bangladesh Army, key in forming the interim government post-August 5. Ignoring such sources questions the report’s credibility and methodology of sampling integrity.

The lack of oversight from an ethics committee for this research and the sampling anonymity of the fact-finding mission could have led to too many loopholes. It was risking the report to have significant methodological limitations to generate neutral findings.

Selective Storytelling: Elevating Protestors, Ignoring Contradictions

Throughout the report, protestors are depicted almost universally as innocent victims, while state forces are cast as unprovoked aggressors. This framing is reinforced by repeated references to “brutal, systematic repression” without adequately acknowledging the broader context of escalating violence, destruction of property, or attacks on law enforcement during the protests (UN Bangladesh, 12 Feb 2025).

Evidence that complicates the narrative is largely ignored. The report notes deaths and injuries among protestors but largely omits the fatal consequences suffered by police officers and civilians caught in the crossfire. Multiple sources, including local media investigations, highlight how some fatalities attributed to state violence actually resulted from protestor actions or unrelated incidents (AFP Fact Check, 14 Aug 2024; Prothom Alo, 2024).

Yet the OHCHR report repeatedly presents protestor casualties as a settled fact, while state casualties are minimized or absent. The report also failed to mention until the time Protesters were peaceful, there was no violence or repression from Government’s side.

The consequence is a one-sided story that exalts protestors’ suffering while rendering state actions inherently malicious. Such selective storytelling erodes the credibility of the report and undermines the very principle of impartial investigation.

The August 5 Timeline: Convenient Compression of Events

The OHCHR report attributes the most serious incidents, including mass shootings and organized attacks, to Sheikh Hasina’s command. Yet the timeline it presents raises serious doubts. Hasina left Bangladesh early on August 5, hours before many of the reported killings occurred. The report makes no attempt to distinguish between pre- and post-departure events, effectively compressing the timeline to assign maximum blame to the former government.

This approach conveniently shields protestors from scrutiny, while painting the state as singularly culpable. In reality, the situation on the ground involved a chaotic power vacuum, with multiple actors—including armed protest groups—engaging in violence. By neglecting to account for these dynamics, the report simplifies a complex scenario into a politically charged narrative favoring protestors.

Anonymity and Lack of Oversight

Unlike formal UN commissions, this report does not disclose the identities of its investigators or panel members. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about impartiality. Who selected the team? What qualifications or affiliations did they have? Could prior biases or political connections have influenced the findings?

When investigators operate in anonymity, the credibility of their conclusions suffers. In this case, the absence of oversight amplifies concerns that the report may have functioned more as a political tool than a neutral fact-finding exercise. The tilt toward protestors becomes even more conspicuous when viewed alongside selective sourcing and omitted perspectives.

Inflated Numbers and Uncorrected Errors

The OHCHR cites up to 1,400 deaths during the protests (UN Bangladesh, 12 Feb 2025), yet multiple investigations reveal serious discrepancies. AFP Fact Check (14 Aug 2024) confirmed that a Bengali newspaper’s original death toll of 201 was later revised to 193. Prothom Alo found numerous cases where accidental deaths or land dispute-related killings were falsely counted among “July martyrs” (Prothom Alo, 2024). The Business Standard reported cases of individuals presumed dead who later reappeared alive (The Business Standard, 2024).

Despite mounting evidence, the OHCHR made no effort to correct these figures. Inflated numbers serve the narrative of widespread state repression, reinforcing the portrayal of protestors as victims while ignoring inconvenient facts. In a credible fact-finding exercise, such discrepancies would necessitate correction—yet here, accuracy appears subordinate to political storytelling.

Overlooked Forensics and Contradictory Evidence

Several deaths attributed to state forces are questionable upon closer forensic examination. The report cites numerous fatalities caused by 7.62 mm ammunition, yet police insist they do not use this caliber (Prothom Alo, 2024). Other deaths occurred far from police presence or inside private homes, including the killings of children. While the OHCHR acknowledges these anomalies, it provides no independent forensic follow-up, no annex, and no detailed review of ballistic evidence.

This lack of rigorous verification strengthens the impression that the report prioritizes narrative over truth. By selectively presenting evidence that supports protestor claims while sidelining contradictory facts, the OHCHR risks transforming fact-finding into advocacy.

Weaponization of a Human Rights Report

Perhaps the most alarming outcome is how the report is being used. Despite its own disclaimer that findings “cannot themselves be used as a criminal charge” (The Daily Star, 12 Feb 2025), the report has already been cited in prosecutions against Sheikh Hasina. This effectively converts a flawed human rights document into a political weapon, legitimizing charges that might otherwise be challenged for lack of due process.

When a report meant to uphold justice becomes an instrument for political prosecution, the damage extends beyond Bangladesh. It undermines international human rights mechanisms, showing how moral language can be harnessed to serve partisan objectives rather than truth.

The Costs of Bias Toward Protestors

The OHCHR report’s bias toward protestors carries real consequences. By portraying protestors as universally innocent, it obscures the violent and destructive elements within the uprising, neglects state and civilian casualties, and inflates the scale of repression. Such skewed framing inflames polarization, diminishes accountability, and undermines public trust in both domestic and international justice systems.

Moreover, the report risks normalizing selective fact-finding in future crises. If protestor narratives are automatically elevated and state actors demonized, subsequent inquiries may repeat the same errors, leaving real victims—on all sides—without a voice. The OHCHR Report’s findings standard may lead to confirmation bias due to reliance on selective, unverified data, narrow timeframes, and predetermined narratives, undermining neutrality and comprehensive analysis.

Conclusion: Demand for Balanced Accountability

No one disputes the tragedy of the July–August 2024 protests. Innocent civilians were killed, and violations occurred. But justice cannot emerge from a report that elevates one side while marginalizing others. The OHCHR Fact-Finding Report, for all its moral rhetoric, reads as a politically convenient document favoring protestors, leaving fundamental questions of accuracy, context, and fairness unresolved.

Bangladesh—and the international community—must demand a genuinely impartial investigation. Such an inquiry would engage all parties, rigorously verify claims, and resist the temptation to craft a narrative that fits political convenience. Until then, the OHCHR report stands less as a testament to justice than as a cautionary example of how human rights language can be weaponized to serve partial agendas.

The OHCHR report reads like an exploratory discussion highlighting one side while completely ignoring the previous Government. It is time the UN call for a impartial judicial investigation with international oversight and documentations.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.