Bangladesh's 2024 revolution has become a political weapon in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is accusing opposition leaders and student activists of plotting a similar revolt to remove his government.
The allegations have intensified as protests against India's electoral authorities gather momentum. It began as a dispute over voter-roll revisions but has become a protest over the legitimacy of political dissent.
The BJP says Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and his allies are encouraging a Bangladesh-style regime change. It has cited remarks by student leader Neha Bora and prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan as evidence of a wider campaign to destabilise the government.
But there is a gap between the accusation and the evidence.
Bora praised Bangladesh's student-led uprising. Bhushan defended the democratic right to seek a change of government. Neither statement, on its own, establishes a plan to overthrow India's constitutional order.
That difference has become increasingly important as the BJP seeks to shift attention from the original controversy: whether India's electoral roll revision exercise is excluding legitimate voters.
The confrontation is now testing three institutions simultaneously: the Election Commission, the government's willingness to tolerate street protests and the opposition's ability to sustain a campaign outside Parliament.
The dispute began with the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, a verification exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India. The commission says the exercise is necessary to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters and people who have relocated.
Opposition parties dispute both its implementation and its consequences. They allege that legitimate voters are being removed and that the process could disproportionately affect communities less likely to support the BJP.
Indian media has reported that more than 130 million names have been removed from electoral rolls during the verification drive. The scale of the deletions has intensified demands for greater transparency, although removal from a draft or revised roll does not automatically establish wrongful disenfranchisement.
The BJP and election authorities reject allegations of deliberate electoral manipulation.
Protests have brought together Congress supporters, student organisations, lawyers and a youth-led movement known as the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has emerged as a prominent organiser of demonstrations demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The government's response has been forceful.
On October 10, more than 20,000 security personnel were deployed in New Delhi as protesters attempted to gather at Jantar Mantar, according to the Financial Times. Police restricted access to parts of the capital, closed metro stations and disrupted mobile internet services.
Dipke was detained again on October 16 while attempting to join a demonstration at Connaught Place.
The restrictions have drawn criticism from opposition leaders, who accuse the government of suppressing peaceful assembly.
Then Bangladesh entered the argument.
On October 14, Bora, president of the left-wing All India Students' Association (AISA), addressed a conference of Bangladesh's Socialist Students' Front through a video message.
She praised the movement that forced Sheikh Hasina from power in August 2024.
"Congratulations to you for showing us the way," she said, suggesting that Indian student activists could learn from Bangladesh's experience.
BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari circulated her remarks on US social media company X. He presented them as evidence that Gandhi's political allies were contemplating a similar uprising in India.
A day later, Bhushan appeared at a New Delhi press conference alongside Dipke, Bora, Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal, actor Prakash Raj and other activists.
Bhushan openly defended the demand for regime change. "We all want a regime change. Is there anything wrong with that?" he asked.
The BJP interpreted the remarks differently.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh accused Congress and its allies of seeking to create conditions resembling those that preceded Hasina's removal. BJP president Nitin Nabin went further, alleging foreign involvement in the mobilisation.
Congress rejected the allegations.
Party spokesperson Pawan Khera argued that replacing an incumbent government is a normal objective of democratic opposition. He cited the 1977 election, when Congress lost power following the Emergency.
CJP has also distanced itself from Bora's comments about Bangladesh, according to India Today.
The political advantage of the Bangladesh comparison is pretty evident. The BJP can turn a dispute over electoral procedures into a debate about national stability.
Before the regime-change allegations, the government and the Election Commission faced questions about voter deletions, verification procedures and police restrictions on demonstrations.
Now the opposition is being asked to explain whether it wants to reproduce the uprising that removed Hasina. That is a considerably different argument.
Bangladesh's uprising began with protests over public-sector job quotas in July 2024. It expanded into a nationwide movement after a deadly crackdown by security forces and ruling-party supporters.
Hasina fled to India on August 5, ending 15 years in power. The uprising was followed by a difficult political transition, making Bangladesh a powerful but contested reference point in Indian politics.
For Indian student activists, it demonstrates the capacity of young people to challenge entrenched political authority. For the BJP, it offers a warning about street mobilisation, political disorder and the removal of an elected government outside the normal electoral cycle.
Both interpretations are politically useful. Neither establishes that India's current protests are equivalent to Bangladesh's uprising. The differences are substantial.
India's protests concern electoral rolls, the independence of the Election Commission and the right to demonstrate. Bangladesh's 2024 uprising developed amid a violent state crackdown and ultimately became a mass movement demanding Hasina's resignation.
India also has its own constitutional framework, electoral timetable and institutional mechanisms for replacing a government. Calling for regime change is not inherently unconstitutional. In a parliamentary democracy, opposition parties exist partly to replace the government.
The crucial question is whether they seek that outcome through lawful political activity or through unconstitutional means. The BJP's allegations blur that distinction.
They also place Congress in a difficult position.
Gandhi has challenged the credibility of India's electoral processes. But the association of opposition protests with activists praising Bangladesh's uprising gives the BJP an opportunity to question the methods and intentions of the wider campaign.
Congress must now defend both its electoral allegations and its commitment to constitutional politics. The CJP presents another complication.
Unlike established opposition parties, the movement has developed through online political satire and youth mobilisation. Its activities are not easily explained through conventional party structures.
The BJP's attempt to connect it to a broader opposition conspiracy may therefore serve two purposes: discrediting the movement and reducing its apparent independence.
There are economic and institutional implications as well.
Political uncertainty can affect investor confidence. But so can doubts about electoral integrity, restrictions on assembly and the perceived independence of constitutional institutions.
The government cannot resolve those concerns simply by characterising its critics as potential revolutionaries.
The opposition, meanwhile, must substantiate its claims about wrongful voter deletions. Large numbers alone do not prove systematic manipulation. Evidence about who was removed, why and whether they had an effective opportunity to appeal remains essential.
Protests have continued beyond New Delhi. On October 16, CJP supporters and allied groups held a national flag march in Bengaluru under police restrictions.
The mobilisation suggests that the dispute has developed beyond a single demonstration or isolated confrontation. It also raises the stakes for the BJP.
A government confident in the integrity of the electoral process should be able to defend that process with evidence. An opposition alleging manipulation should be expected to produce evidence of its own.
Neither obligation disappears because activists invoke Bangladesh.
—