India’s hegemony in South Asia

India is advantageous in South Asia by dint of its significant geographic location, vast landscape, economic upsurge, and hegemonic cultural and relevant political approaches and aspirations. India has come into the limelight in the last one and half decades more elaborately due to its pivotal role in various global events along with regional bargaining. India is mulling securing its position in the UN Security Council as well and trying relentlessly to reach a parallel position with its regional rival China. As a part of its hegemonic aspirations, Indian policymakers in the last couple of years almost consistently demonstrated their desires and efforts in assuming leadership and customizing the region according to their interest to facilitate its hegemony. Such hegemonic strategies from India have widely been reflected in its political decisions, foreign policy making, media coverage, and more precisely, through its active and passive interferences in the internal matters of the neighboring countries.

Hegemony is the political, economic, and military predominance of one state over other states, either regional or global. According to Britannica, the term hegemony is today often used as shorthand to describe the relatively dominant position of a particular set of ideas and their associated tendency to become commonsensical and intuitive, thereby inhibiting the dissemination or even the articulation of alternative ideas. 

While discussing the reality of South Asia and the Indian hegemonic role, it should begin with recent history. Following the collapse of the European colonial system, the new nation-states in Asia gradually entered the international system, but the process of colonial disengagement was not well planned or peaceful. Besides creating human exodus, catastrophe, and trauma, the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947 led to more division, and disparity, social and political unrest, war, hatred, and hegemony within and across South Asia.

The rise of regional influence in the post-unipolar world has changed the orientation of world politics altogether. The rise of India particularly about its hegemonic aspirations in South Asia has become noticeable in the subsequent period. India’s developing domestic market with global outreach and sustainable growth over the last few decades has enabled the country to plan big and materialize the goal (of regional dominance) set by its founding fathers. The dream of India’s ruling BJP’s mother organization RSS of establishing a great and undivided India has become the national vision since its political offshoot BJP came into power.

The traditional idea of power and the use of power to create an influence among small states somehow supports the hegemonic claims of India but unconventional 

ideas of hegemony challenge the legitimacy of any such claims. On the contrary, it has become also evident that India’s growing economic and military potentials are not very helpful in maintaining or restoring peace and prosperity in the region; rather it can be considered a constant threat to regional security. India’s hegemonic aspirations have already become a major source of unrest in the region as well.

After the end of the bipolar world order shaped by superpower relations, a wide avenue emerged for the debates on regions and regional powers. In these periods, India has not only risen economically and militarily but also engaged actively in international politics and forums for wider recognition as an emerging power. Though there are many perceptions in favor of and against the claims of India being a successful great power, India’s role with its small neighboring states in its region is frequently challenged and criticized.

India possesses geographic centrality and huge territory, the most powerful and largest military, along with an exceptionally large population, a large industrial base and market, and the largest democratic system in the region. By virtue, it claims the regional leadership while the neighboring states frequently accuse India of being a hegemon. With the undoubted rise of India as a regional power, sentiment of nationalism is also rising resulting inside and within India which is creating an intolerable and narrow mindset among Indian policymakers towards outside criticism. 

Rooted in the colonial past and aimed by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian Premier, to make either superpower or disappear, India now takes it for granted to dominate the large area and this becomes an issue of contention in the area (People’s Daily Online, 2009). India's hegemonic approaches have been tested by its interior issues and cold associations with its neighbors. Multiple events helped to create a perception of the hegemonic approaches and actions of India. 

If we bring the issue of Nepal in forth, India is Nepal's biggest exchange accomplice and the sole provider of energy to the country. India often utilizes its monetary ability to influence Nepal. India has been applying one-sided and hegemonic methodologies in transboundary water concurrences with Nepal. India has generally considered Nepal as its subservient territory to gain over its regional rival China. Nepal's landlocked status makes it helpless against India's hegemonic influence. Often India’s interference in Nepal’s internal politics is deemed an unnecessary encroachment on the country’s sovereignty. Nepalese nationalism is reflected in strong anti-Indian sentiments felt by its citizens in recent times. They are realizing again and again that India does not respect the independent status of Nepal. India interferes excessively with Nepal’s internal politics. The greatest attack, however, on the sovereignty of Nepal, comes from the frequent border intrusions by Indian forces. Indian armed forces repeatedly have terrorized the Nepalese living in the border area. Without permission, they enter Nepal with weapons and threaten them even without any provocation.

The geographical closeness between India and Sri Lanka, and especially the cultural similarity between these two nations, has traditionally made India the most influential external power in Sri Lankan politics. In the 80s, India supported Tamil recusant groups from Sri Lanka to put pressure on the Sri Lankan government, latterly assessed an agreement in the civil war between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and eventually got entangled in the fortified conflict with its peacekeeping troops. The dismal failure of its peacekeeping responsibilities and the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in an LTTE self-murder attack paved the way for India to borrow a hands-off policy towards the war-torn island state in the 1990s and 2000s. After a period of relative calm that followed an intermediated ceasefire in 2003, the fortified conflict in Sri Lanka escalated again in 2006. The final phase of the war was marked by massive human rights violations and war crimes. During this final phase of the war, particularly from 2007 onwards, the Indian government tacitly supported Rajapaksa’s military initiatives without supplying arms or intermediating directly), and reportedly indeed played a crucial part in fending off transnational pressure on Sri Lanka’. This support for the government was an attempt on the part of New Delhi to not lose its influence in Sri Lanka against the background of China’s growing influence.

Since 2009, the Indian government has tried to further develop relations with Colombo by means of financial assistance for its structures. India’s reluctant relationship with Sri Lanka is still going on. Following the takeover of Anura Kumara Dissanayake as the new president of Sri Lanka last May, several Indian outlets have been quick to nervously analyze Sri Lanka's possible attitude toward India. Media outlets like the Times of India have noted that the new President has an "anti-India record and pro-China leaning." To drive a wedge between China and Sri Lanka, the Indian Express indeed made an issue of Sri Lanka's debt problem, claiming" India has been a willing mate to Sri Lanka's debt restructuring, unlike China."

However, a widespread campaign against perceived Indian hegemony has gained momentum in Sri Lanka in the last months, sparked by a contentious issue at the airport involving the delegation of visa issuance authority to a foreign entity, reportedly linked to India. The protest underscores deeper concerns about economic control and sovereignty, as demonstrators decry what they see as a pattern of Indian encroachment across strategic sectors of the Sri Lankan economy and state apparatus. 

India has been pursuing a foreign policy of maintaining a hegemony over its neighbors since becoming an independent state in 1947. Even though the Maldives and India enjoy close relations, with deep roots in history; many believe that India has attempted to, and continues to dominate and influence the Maldives in various ways. Among them was the former Maldivian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fathullah Jamee.

Addressing the United Nations, Jameel decried the tendency of large, powerful countries to exploit the misfortunes of their smaller, poorer neighbors; and he observed that smaller countries were not as sovereign and free as larger ones. Jameel’s statements are believed to have been made about how; in the aftermath of the November 3, 1988 attacks in Male; India had stationed military personnel in the country and had refused to recall them despite the requests of the Maldivian government.

Many in the Maldives say that India has intentions to establish a military base. The first of the military helicopters were gifted to the Maldives during the first Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) government, under the presidency of Mohamed Nasheed. The claim was that the Maldives National Defense Force (MNDF) would be trained to fly and maintain the helicopter and that the Indian military personnel would leave once they had been 

appropriately trained.

The Maldivian government had requested India to take these helicopters back in 2018, ten years later, as the MNDF were excluded from using these helicopters, and nor had any MNDF serviceperson been trained in flying them. India refused to comply. The Indian military personnel sent to the Maldives with the 

helicopter still remain.

Bhutan is an isolated, poor country in the Himalayas just beyond India’s northern border. In 1949, Bhutan signed a treaty of alliance with India and, under the terms of this treaty, began to conduct its foreign policy as per Indian instruction. In addition, all matters pertaining to defense and security would be overlooked by New Delhi. Today, a permanent station of the Indian military is in operation within Bhutan. India is mulling to sign the same treaty with Nepal, Maldives, and other neighboring countries.

India's hegemony over Bangladesh has been described as a gradual process that has evolved through several phases, including the colonial era. Centering the liberation war, India expanded its hegemony. The fact was so severe that the Pakistani soldiers had to surrender before the Indian Generals. Our Supreme Commander of the Liberation Force was not even invited to that ceremony. In the post-1975 period, Awami League, India’s best puppet remained out of power. So, in this period, India followed a different tactic to continue its hegemony in Bangladesh. However, through Gono Adalat, various cultural institutions, and pro-Indian individuals, they continued a shadow hegemony. These pro-Indian elements acted like a pressure group to press home their demands and also tried to marginalize the Islamic and other people, who held anti-Indian sentiments. India finally made the major blow by orchestrating the notorious incident of one-eleven and the subsequent period of the state of emergency.

Finally, India was able to establish its maximum hegemony in Bangladesh during the rule of Sheikh Hasina from 2008 to the 5th of August, 2024, the day when she flew to India in the wake of the severe mass protests. During the tenure of Hasina, India has been able to force Bangladesh to comply with India's plans for water flow, which favor India's water allocation. India has also used technologically advanced barrages to decrease Bangladesh's share of water flow. Whereas, Indian film, particularly Bollywood, has been used to expose class differentiation in Bangladesh and reinforce India's cultural hegemony. The tragedy is, the Bangladesh government decided to make a film on the life of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But ironically, the government left the responsibility to making the films to an Indian filmmaker by depriving all local potential.

Sheikh Hasina led government actually functioned like a proxy government of India and materialized one after one agenda i.e. BDR carnage and the executing the top Islamist leaders as per the recommendations of the Indian policymakers. Intentionally, during her regime, Sheikh Hasina tried to create sympathy and soft attitude towards India among the Bangladeshi people. On the contrary, she and her administration were very harsh against those who were used to criticize India and its repressive policies.

India has made another repression against Bangladesh by patronizing murder of the Bangladeshi citizens in the border areas. The Indian Border Security Force (BSF) has been accused of shooting and killing Bangladeshi civilians almost frequently. Most of all, India has nakedly tried to control the internal politics of Bangladesh. During the era of Sheikh Hasina, 3 national elections were held. Indian envoy appeared in the scene immediate before those elections and made the situation easier for Awami League by influencing other political parties and related institutions severely. Before the 2014 election, the then-Indian foreign secretary Sujata Singh visited Bangladesh and forced Jatiya Party to take part in that election. The latest election of 7 January 2024 was also marked by Indian interference. US Foreign and Defense Secretaries came to India and held a two-plus-two meeting with their Indian counterparts. After the meeting, once again, the election mechanism of Bangladesh went to the grip of Indian policymakers.

According to the experts, because it aspires to be a global power and also to secure its financial interest, India wants to limit US influence in the region, including Bangladesh. Distinguished Professor at Illinois State University and incumbent head of the Bangladesh Constitutional Reform Commission, Professor Ali Riaz claimed that, during Hasina’s rule, India became a major driving force in the internal politics of Bangladesh. India has supported the then Hasina-led government out of fear of political instability in Bangladesh. The Indian analysts vowed for the continuation of the Awami League government ahead of the 7 January parliamentary elections, Ali Riaz mentioned. He provided some reasons behind that in the webinar. He said the political analysts in India realized even without any survey that a change in power is likely in Bangladesh. They felt the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government would lead to instability. 

Indian analysts assumed that in case of a change in power, the alliance of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI) would form a government, and fundamentalists would rise. If Jamaat comes to power, the Pakistan Army might become a major force in Bangladesh, they feared. They further feared that the BNP would support the rebels in North-East India if they came to power. Besides, a direct influence is also necessary for India to counter China’s growing influence in Bangladesh, he added. Ali Riaz thinks none of these arguments had merit.

People also reacted to India’s visible political interference in Bangladesh. Following the 7th January election, a massive “India Out” campaign was launched, alleging Indian interference in Bangladesh politics. The Bangladeshi diaspora and opposition groups have fueled this anti-India movement and advocated boycotts of Indian products. In Dhaka, the campaign was launched against the backdrop of India’s traditionally strong ties with Hasina’s government and its strained relationship with the opposition, leading many to believe India favored the status quo. 

Sheikh Hasina’s escape was a massive hit to the Indian hegemony and it became more obvious through the role of the Indian media since Sheikh Hasina’s cowardice move. The sudden upsurge in misinformation and disinformation on Indian social media coincidentally aligns with a seemingly coordinated rise in criminal activities and vandalism all over Bangladesh. Inside the country, several others are taking to social media and terming this another attempt by pro-AL forces in India, as well as RAW, to propagate a narrative to push Bangladesh into further unrest and instability. There is no substantiation for any of these claims. Rumors produce another rumor. This spreading of such misinformation to be stopped immediately to save this country from further chaos and anarchy. 

India must realize the failures of its foreign policy regarding Bangladesh. They should learn from the recent history. They shouldn't trust and support an oppressor, or a tyrant or a fascist anymore. A robust and mature republic is the only dependable transnational mate. Right now, India needs to shift its approach towards Bangladesh entirely. It's time for genuine people-to-people relations to ensure long-term, sustainable fellowship with its most significant geostrategic partner. They also should recognize that hegemony is a wrong strategy in the current age of technology and neo-media as it is supposed to be exposed. India may carry such an approach through a puppet government but it will backfire today or tomorrow and most of all it will cause irreparable distance between the people of the neighboring countries and the Indian government and its people.