[🇧🇩] The Nexus Between Awami League and India

[Saif]

Well Bangladeshis are wise to their schemes and most people are certain, BNP is not coming back to power in Bangladesh. Any political party aligning themselves with India (overtly or covertly) are not.

Bulls eye

 

[Bilal9]

Time to boot this Indian scheming shrimp out of Bangladesh and shut down the Indian High Commission.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Bangladesh has grounds to declare the Indian High Commissioner persona non grata​

Our investigation shows clear grounds for expelling Pranay Verma from Bangladesh

The Listening Post
Wed 17 Dec 2025 02.50 am (GMT+6)

Article 9 permits a host state to declare a diplomat persona non grata if confidence in that diplomat has been lost. Photo: PID, Bangladesh
Advertisement
Editor’s Note:

This investigation was conducted over several months and involved the verification of communications, meetings, public statements, and contemporaneous reporting related to the conduct of the Indian High Commissioner during Bangladesh’s 2024 political crisis.

Certain sensitive personal information was examined solely to establish context and assess potential conflicts of interest. No private or personal financial information has been published, as it was not necessary to substantiate the findings presented here. The investigation adheres strictly to principles of public interest, proportionality, and accountability.

—

Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has convicted former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for crimes against humanity, specifically murder.

Of the many charges, Kamal was found guilty of committing crimes against humanity through his abetment and failure to act. His boss Hasina was given the death penalty.

Under charge 5, she and Kamal were charged with shooting six student protesters in Ashulia, five of whom were later burned after death, while the sixth was set on fire while still alive.

These verdicts mark a historic milestone in the country’s pursuit of accountability for political violence. They have also cast a spotlight on the conduct of foreign diplomats during the crisis.

Conduct of the Indian High Commissioner

This newspaper’s investigation, corroborated by multiple independent sources, establishes the following verified facts:

• On 19 July 2024 at 12:48 pm, Indian High Commissioner Pranay Kumar Verma placed a 65-second phone call to Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal.

It was an eventful day in the July uprising; 56 people were killed, of which 46 died in Dhaka alone. Bangladesh announced the imposition of a curfew in the late evening and the deployment of military forces was declared.

Three leaders of the uprising were arrested by the police on that very day. They were: Nahid Islam, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuiyan and Abu Baker Mojumder. At this point, Abdul Kader declared their nine-point demand.

• On 5 August 2024 at 12:58 pm, the day a mass uprising led to the collapse of the Hasina regime, Kamal contacted Verma. That call lasted 153 seconds.
• On 31 July 2024, during a period of escalating lethal violence, High Commissioner Verma met Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka. This meeting was publicly reported by Indian state-run media.
• Following the meeting, Indian media outlets, including DD News, quoted Verma as welcoming the “gradual restoration of normalcy” and reaffirming India’s support for stability and development in Bangladesh.

Call records were verified through two independent sources. At the time of these communications and statements, large-scale lethal force was being used against civilians.



The Scale of the Violence

The scale of violence during the time of the meeting was immense. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as many as 1,400 people were killed between 1 July and 15 August 2024, with thousands more injured.

The report goes on to say that the vast majority of deaths resulted from firearms used by security forces, and children accounted for approximately 13 per cent of those killed.

It concludes that the events display patterns consistent with serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

This context is critical.

The High Commissioner’s communications, meetings, and public statements occurred during an internationally documented campaign of lethal repression.

Knowledge and Diplomatic Responsibility

Diplomatic practice recognizes that high-level engagement during periods of mass violence is rarely perceived as neutral.

Meetings, private communications, and public statements by senior envoys function as signals to both state authorities and security forces regarding international scrutiny and tolerance.

In this context, continued engagement without public qualification or expression of concern carried a foreseeable risk of being interpreted as tacit acceptance of ongoing conduct.

This risk is heightened when such engagement is followed by public statements characterizing the situation as returning to “normalcy” while lethal repression is ongoing.

Multiple officials of the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, including individuals with access to briefings and reporting during July and August 2024, independently confirmed that senior mission leadership, including the High Commissioner, was regularly briefed on the scale and lethality of state security operations.

According to these officials, information from international organizations, local civil society, and diplomatic partners was circulating within the mission.

The High Commissioner was contacted via his official email for comment and afforded the right of reply. No response was received.

Given the urgency of the matter, we also undertook to publish any fuller response that may be received after publication promptly and with appropriate prominence.

That offer remains open, and any substantive reply will be considered in accordance with our editorial standards.

This investigation does not assert criminal liability. However, it establishes that:

• High Commissioner Verma maintained direct contact with senior Awami League leaders later convicted of crimes against humanity during the period those crimes were being committed.
• He publicly characterized the situation as returning to “normalcy” while mass killings were ongoing.
• He did not publicly express concern, condemnation, or distance from the use of lethal force against civilians.

Such conduct departs from the expectation of diplomatic restraint and neutrality during mass atrocity situations.

International Law and Diplomatic Accountability

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), diplomats enjoy immunity from prosecution in host states.

Bangladesh therefore cannot prosecute the Indian High Commissioner, regardless of any evidence concerning his knowledge or conduct.

The same legal framework, however, provides a clear mechanism for accountability.

Article 9 permits a host state to declare a diplomat persona non grata at any time and without explanation, if confidence in that diplomat has been lost.

Declaring a diplomat persona non grata is a lawful diplomatic measure reflecting a breakdown of trust or a determination that continued representation is no longer compatible with national interests, sovereignty, or ethical norms.

What This Tells Us

Based on the verified timeline of communications, meetings, public statements, and the documented scale of atrocities occurring at the same time, this investigation concludes that the conduct of the Indian High Commissioner compromised the standards of diplomatic responsibility expected during crimes against humanity.

Bangladesh has taken decisive steps to hold its own leaders accountable for mass violence.

The question now is whether similar ethical standards should apply to international representatives whose actions, during the same period, contributed to the public legitimization of a regime engaged in crimes against humanity.

Declaring the Indian High Commissioner persona non grata would be a lawful, proportionate, and internationally recognized response to a demonstrated loss of diplomatic confidence.

It would affirm Bangladesh’s sovereignty, uphold ethical norms, and reinforce the principle that silence or public normalization during mass atrocities carries consequences in international relations.

 

[Bilal9]