Anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh has roots in post-independence dynamics, evolving into organized movements against perceived hegemony after 1971. These efforts often stem from grievances over economic disparities, border issues, political interference, and cultural dominance. While not always formalized as a single "movement," key episodes reflect resistance to Indian influence. [1] [2]
The anti–Indian hegemony movement in Bangladesh has multifaceted historical roots that developed in the aftermath of the Liberation War of 1971. Although India played a decisive role in supporting the Mukti Bahini and in the military defeat of Pakistan, including the surrender of Pakistani forces to Indian command, sowed early mistrust among some Bangladeshis who felt sidelined, [3] segments of Bangladeshi society perceived the post-war geopolitical relationship as constraining Bangladesh's autonomy. [4] [5] In the early post-independence period, the foreign and economic policies of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, which emphasized close cooperation with India, contributed to debates among nationalist groups regarding sovereignty and political dependence.
From the 1970s onward, the movement increasingly focused on economic and environmental issues, particularly trade imbalances and disputes over transboundary rivers. The operation of the Farakka Barrage and prolonged negotiations over water-sharing arrangements, including the Teesta River, became recurring reference points in political discourse. During the same period, incidents involving the killing of Bangladeshi civilians along the India–Bangladesh border by Indian border security forces generated public concern and were frequently cited as evidence of asymmetry in bilateral security practices.
In later decades, the movement expanded to include political and cultural dimensions. Allegations of cultural dominance through media influence and claims of Indian involvement in Bangladesh's internal political processes gained prominence in public debate. Events such as the Pilkhana massacre and subsequent periods of political unrest were interpreted by some political actors and civil society groups as reflecting external influence, though such interpretations remain contested. Over time, these economic, political, and security-related concerns contributed to the consolidation of public dissatisfaction into a broader political and social movement articulated through party platforms, protest activity, and public discourse rather than a single unified organizational structure.