B.Mirror Desk: When Bangladesh’s political leaders invoke foreign conspiracies, they often appeal to deep-seated nationalist emotions. Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Mia Golam Porwar’s recent claim that “Delhi holds the remote control” over Bangladesh’s politics is the latest example. It is a politically evocative assertion, but one that raises a more pertinent question: why make such a claim now?

The timing deserves attention.
Only months ago, Jamaat chose to participate in the political process under the current constitutional arrangement. Having accepted the electoral outcome and the new political reality, its leadership now appears to be advancing a narrative that casts doubt on the very legitimacy of that arrangement. By portraying Bangladesh’s political system as being remotely controlled from New Delhi; Jamaat is implicitly questioning the autonomy and legitimacy of the newly elected BNP-led government.
This is perhaps the more significant political message embedded in the rhetoric.
If the country’s political direction is indeed being dictated by a foreign capital, as Porwar alleges, then the inevitable implication is that the elected government lacks genuine authority. Such a narrative enables Jamaat to participate in the democratic process while simultaneously eroding public confidence in the institutions that emerged from it. That is a contradiction that deserves scrutiny.
Criticism of India’s policies is entirely legitimate. As Bangladesh’s largest neighbour, India inevitably exerts considerable influence through geography, trade, security cooperation and diplomacy. So do other major powers, including China, the United States, Japan, the European Union and Gulf countries. Every sovereign state seeks to shape its external environment in pursuit of its national interests.
Influence, however, is not the same as control.
To suggest that Bangladesh’s politics, economy, trade and culture are all directed from New Delhi is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require equally compelling evidence. Political slogans may resonate with supporters, but they cannot substitute for facts.
Equally notable is the increasingly confrontational tone adopted by Jamaat since the election.
Within a relatively short period, the party’s rhetoric has shifted from participating in the constitutional political process to issuing repeated warnings of agitation and street mobilisation. Opposition parties have every democratic right to organise protests and challenge government policies. But there is an important distinction between democratic dissent and sustained political pressure through street mobilisation intended to weaken an elected government outside the electoral process.
Bangladesh has paid a heavy price whenever political competition has moved from Parliament to the streets, from participatory democracy to election engineering. Decades of confrontation have weakened institutions, disrupted governance and deepened political polarisation. The country should be wary of returning to a politics in which governments are subjected to continuous destabilisation rather than challenged through democratic elections.
If any political party believes it commands the confidence of the people, the ballot box remains the ultimate test. Street mobilisation has its place in a democracy, but it cannot become a substitute for electoral legitimacy.
There is also an irony that cannot be ignored. Jamaat frequently warns against foreign interference, yet, like virtually every major political party, it actively seeks international engagement. It has cultivated relationships with political and religious actors abroad and has sought diplomatic understanding in capitals ranging from Ankara and Islamabad to Washington. Such engagement is neither unusual nor objectionable. The Awami League, BNP and other political parties have similarly maintained international contacts in pursuit of their political objectives.
The principle, however, should be applied consistently. If engagement with foreign governments and international actors is legitimate when it serves one’s own political interests, it cannot automatically become evidence of conspiracy when political opponents maintain their own external relationships.
Consistency strengthens political credibility.
Jamaat’s contemporary politics also cannot be entirely separated from its historical legacy. Its opposition to Bangladesh’s Liberation War remains an undeniable part of the country’s political history, and that legacy continues to influence public perceptions of the party’s commitment to the ideals upon which Bangladesh was founded. History alone should not determine a party’s future, but neither can it simply be erased from public memory.
Bangladesh today confronts serious challenges: economic pressures, governance deficits, public security concerns, constitutional reform and the growing impact of climate change. These demand substantive policy debate and responsible political leadership.
Reducing these complex issues to allegations of an external “remote control” risks trivialising the country’s democratic institutions rather than strengthening them.
Democracy thrives on robust criticism, evidence-based debate and peaceful political competition. It is weakened when conspiracy narratives replace reasoned argument or when electoral legitimacy is questioned without convincing evidence.
Ultimately, governments derive their authority from the mandate of the Bangladeshi people. That mandate should be challenged, renewed or withdrawn through elections—not through conspiracy theories or the politics of perpetual confrontation.