Can India Evade Responsibility for Its Actions?

 

Ajit Doval, India’s powerful National Security Adviser and one of the most influential figures in shaping New Delhi’s strategic thinking, recently made a striking remark. He observed that weak governance often becomes the primary reason for the downfall of governments. According to Doval, in several South Asian nations including Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka the fall of governments through informal or extra-constitutional means has often stemmed from fragile administrative structures and weak political institutions. At first glance, his statement might seem like a detached geopolitical analysis a seasoned intelligence officer commenting on the fragility of his neighborhood. Yet, if India truly applies that same lens of analysis to itself, Doval’s comment transforms from an observation into a subtle act of self-critique. Because in South Asia’s complex political ecosystem, no country operates in isolation. Each nation’s internal stability or instability is shaped, to some extent, by its neighbors’ policies, alliances, and ambitions.

The South Asian Predicament: A Crisis of Governance
South Asia remains one of the most politically volatile regions in the world. Despite significant economic growth in recent decades, governance across the region has struggled to evolve into a transparent, accountable, and citizen-centric model. The remnants of the colonial administrative system hierarchical, opaque, and elitist still define governance in most states.

Public institutions in many South Asian countries are often politicized. Bureaucratic appointments and promotions are dictated by party loyalty rather than merit. Corruption, lack of transparency, and politicization of the judiciary have steadily eroded people’s faith in state mechanisms. As a result, the citizen often perceives the state not as a protector, but as a distant power structure aligned with political elites.

But governance failure in South Asia cannot be explained solely through internal shortcomings. The region’s interdependence political, economic, and security-based means that one nation’s policy decisions inevitably ripple through its neighbors. India, by virtue of its size and influence, often plays a decisive role in shaping the political environment around it.

Bangladesh’s Context and India’s Strategic Embrace
To understand this dynamic, Bangladesh offers perhaps the most revealing case study. India’s involvement in Bangladesh’s political and historical journey is profound beginning from its pivotal role in the 1971 Liberation War to its continued presence in the country’s economic, political, and security affairs. Over the decades, the relationship between Dhaka and Delhi has evolved from one of emotional camaraderie to one of strategic calculation.

During the last fifteen years under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership, Bangladesh and India enjoyed what both governments described as a “golden chapter” in bilateral relations. Cooperation deepened in almost every field: counterterrorism, border security, connectivity projects, energy exchange, and water management. Hasina’s government consistently supported India’s regional initiatives, while Delhi, in turn, projected Dhaka as a model of “stability and development.”

However, this strategic closeness came at a cost. Bangladesh’s domestic politics became increasingly lopsided. Successive elections—particularly those in 2014 and 2018 were widely criticized for lacking credibility. The opposition was marginalized, dissenting voices silenced, and the media came under growing pressure. International observers, including the United Nations and Western governments, expressed concern over human rights violations and shrinking democratic space.

During this entire period, India maintained a conspicuous silence. New Delhi repeatedly described Bangladesh’s internal stability as “vital for regional security” and continued to back Hasina’s government even as popular trust in her administration waned. To many Bangladeshis, this silence appeared as tacit approval an endorsement of political centralization in exchange for strategic convenience.

Strategic Interests vs. Democratic Values
India’s unwavering support for Hasina’s government was not merely political; it was deeply strategic. The Awami League government aligned closely with India’s security objectives, especially in curbing insurgent activities in India’s Northeast and facilitating regional connectivity through Bangladesh’s territory.
For Delhi, a stable and cooperative government in Dhaka ensured predictability on its eastern frontier—a region long plagued by insurgency and cross-border challenges. In the calculus of realpolitik, maintaining a friendly regime outweighed the risks associated with democratic erosion.
However, this policy also contributed to a structural weakening of Bangladesh’s democratic institutions. When political power becomes excessively dependent on external endorsement rather than internal legitimacy, the result is a fragile political order. A government insulated by foreign support loses incentive to reform, to listen, or to compromise. Over time, the gap between state and society widens until the system inevitably collapses under its own contradictions.
This, arguably, is what Bangladesh witnessed when the Hasina government fell. The very external support that once appeared to guarantee “stability” ended up fostering conditions for instability.

Can India Avoid Responsibility?
Ajit Doval’s observation about weak governance being the cause of governmental collapse is undeniably accurate. Yet the deeper question is this: Can India, having sustained and legitimized that weakness for over a decade, now wash its hands of responsibility?

It would be morally disingenuous for New Delhi to describe Bangladesh’s recent upheavals as “purely internal matters.” For over ten years, India’s political, diplomatic, and security establishments treated the Hasina government as an indispensable partner, often ignoring democratic concerns. Delhi’s endorsement provided Dhaka with a sense of immunity against international criticism, allowing domestic institutions to deteriorate further.

When a government loses popular legitimacy yet survives on the strength of foreign backing, it creates a dangerous paradox. The longer that external support lasts, the more dependent the state becomes not on its people, but on the patron’s approval. That dependency corrodes sovereignty, weakens accountability, and distorts the democratic compact between rulers and the ruled.

Therefore, when the regime eventually collapses, responsibility does not rest solely on domestic actors. Those who sustained it from the outside must also bear part of the burden.

Regional Reflections: Beyond Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s experience is not an isolated phenomenon. Across South Asia, the same symptoms appear weak administrative systems, politicized institutions, centralization of power, and widespread corruption.

In Nepal, fragile coalitions and chronic political infighting have repeatedly undermined governance. In Sri Lanka, decades of nepotism and fiscal mismanagement led to a devastating economic collapse. Pakistan remains trapped in a perpetual cycle of civilian-military imbalance. Each case reflects a structural inability to build resilient democratic institutions.

India’s role is uniquely consequential because it aspires to lead the region as the largest democracy and the most influential economic power. But leadership entails moral responsibility. When India selectively champions democracy abroad while accommodating authoritarian tendencies among friendly regimes, it sends mixed signals. Its credibility as a regional guardian of democratic values is then seriously compromised.

Moreover, from a pragmatic perspective, instability in any neighboring state inevitably spills across borders through refugee flows, trade disruptions, and security risks. Thus, supporting authoritarian stability for short-term strategic comfort often produces long-term instability that ultimately hurts India itself.

Accountability and the Way Forward
If India genuinely seeks to be the “protector of peace and stability” in South Asia, its foreign policy must evolve beyond transactional pragmatism. True stability cannot be built on suppression or political monopolization. It arises from participatory governance, transparency, and mutual respect among neighbors

.
India’s diplomacy needs a shift from influence-based engagement to principle-based partnership. Supporting a government simply because it aligns with short-term strategic goals may yield temporary benefits, but it undermines India’s soft power and moral authority. On the other hand, supporting democratic processes even when outcomes seem uncertain strengthens India’s image as a trustworthy and ethical regional power.

Bangladesh’s experience offers an essential lesson: no government can indefinitely survive on external validation once it loses the trust of its people. External support, instead of stabilizing such a government, often deepens its alienation from citizens. When political change finally comes, the supporting power faces diplomatic embarrassment and reputational damage.

For India, this is a moment for self-reflection. Does New Delhi wish to be a true champion of democratic ideals in the region, or merely a beneficiary of power-centric politics?

Conclusion: The Burden of Leadership
Ajit Doval was right when he said that weak governance leads to the fall of governments. But in South Asia, the story doesn’t end there. The weakness of governance is often nurtured not just by internal actors but also by those external powers that find short-term comfort in maintaining the status quo.

India’s leadership in South Asian cooperation will only be sustainable when it combines influence with accountability. Bangladesh today stands at a critical juncture, and its transformation offers India an opportunity for introspection.

Because in the volatile geography of South Asia, a neighbor’s turmoil is never a distant fire. It is a blaze whose smoke, sooner or later, drifts across the border reminding every power in the region that stability built without justice is merely an illusion.


Shahidul Alam Swapan is a 
private banking specialist and 
financial expert and an author 
based in Switzerland.