Prime Minister Narendra Modi has refused a controversial request from Bangladesh’s interim leader Muhammad Yunus to block online speeches made by ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has taken refuge in India since her resignation in August 2024. The revelation came during Yunus’ speech at the prestigious Chatham House in London, where he expressed frustration at India’s refusal to silence Hasina’s social media addresses.
“When I had the chance to talk to Prime Minister Modi, I simply said—you want to host her, I cannot force you to abandon that policy—but please help us in making sure that she doesn’t speak to Bangladeshi people the way she’s doing,” Yunus recounted. However, in a principled and unflinching response, Prime Minister Modi reportedly replied, “It’s social media, you cannot control it.”
Yunus, visibly dissatisfied, called the situation “explosive,” arguing that Hasina’s speeches were stoking unrest back home. Yet, his appeal to New Delhi to clamp down on digital expression has drawn widespread criticism from free speech advocates and regional observers alike, who see it as a dangerous overreach from a government that has already banned Hasina’s political party, the Awami League, and cracked down on opposition voices under the guise of an interim regime.
PM Modi’s firm refusal to interfere with social media broadcasts, even amid rising bilateral tensions, underscores India’s commitment to constitutional freedoms and digital rights. At a time when authoritarian regimes across the globe are attempting to weaponize censorship to crush dissent, India’s decision not to muzzle political speech—even that of a foreign leader residing within its borders—sends a clear message: democratic principles are not negotiable.
India’s stance stands in stark contrast to Yunus’ authoritarian leanings. Since assuming office, the Nobel laureate-turned-politician has presided over an increasingly repressive administration. His interim government has banned political parties, launched legal trials against opponents, and even demanded the extradition of Sheikh Hasina—a move New Delhi views with suspicion, especially given the politicisation of Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal.
Yunus’ plea to block Hasina’s digital outreach is just one component of a larger campaign of antagonism towards India. His recent remarks to Chinese officials, branding India’s northeastern states as “landlocked” and declaring Bangladesh the “guardian of the Ocean,” have stirred outrage across the Indian political spectrum.
“The eastern part of India, known as the Seven Sisters, is landlocked. They have no access to the ocean. We are the only guardians of the ocean in this region,” Yunus said. Such language, suggesting Bangladesh can leverage its geography to control India’s economic and strategic access to the Bay of Bengal, is widely seen as a thinly-veiled threat.
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and other regional leaders swiftly condemned the statement, calling it “provocative” and “hostile to the spirit of neighbourhood diplomacy.” Analysts note that Yunus’ overtures to China and veiled threats toward India signal a dangerous strategic pivot that could destabilise regional cooperation in South Asia.
The irony of Yunus seeking Indian censorship while his own regime suppresses dissent at home has not gone unnoticed. Under his interim leadership, Bangladesh has witnessed severe human rights violations, especially against minority Hindus and members of the opposition. The Awami League has been banned outright, minority voices are under assault, and the press is under constant pressure.
India has repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, who have faced escalating violence and systemic targeting since Hasina’s removal. Yet, Dhaka has refused to acknowledge these concerns and instead accused Indian media of spreading “fake news.”
Worse still, Yunus has accused Indian media of operating under the influence of the Indian government—a baseless allegation made while simultaneously demanding that New Delhi gag voices critical of his regime. The contradiction is striking: while Yunus calls for India to respect his domestic agenda, he offers little regard for Indian sovereignty, free press, or strategic interests.
