MP Shashi Tharoor acted as a test balloon for MP Modi on death sentence to Sheikh Hasina

His carefully phrased “Very Troubling” is the closest to the position of PMO on this delicate issue

By T N Ashok

When Bangladesh’s ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina was sentenced to death in absentia on November 17 by a special tribunal in Dhaka, the shock rippled across the region. Yet the most curious reactions came not from Bangladesh—but from India.

India’s government, normally swift to comment on developments in a neighbouring country, has maintained steadfast silence. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has said nothing. The Congress, the principal opposition, has issued no formal statement. And yet, amid this unusual quiet, one voice surfaced -of Shashi Tharoor.

The senior Congress MP, former diplomat, UN under-secretary-general, and widely perceived “blue-eyed boy” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in matters of international representation, called the verdict “very troubling”. It is a remark that raises more questions than it answers. Why Tharoor, and why now? And is this comment merely personal, or is Delhi speaking through a proxy?

Tharoor’s criticism of the death penalty was straightforward—“dismaying”, he called it. His disapproval of trials in absentia was couched in diplomatic language, the kind he once routinely used on the East River in New York. It was a safe liberal internationalist position. But the significance lies not in the content but in its lonely nature.

No other major figure in Indian politics has commented. Not from the Congress Working Committee. Not from the BJP central leadership. Not from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), which has chosen silence even though Hasina has lived in India as a political guest since her ouster last year. This is not an accident; it is a strategy.

There are three reasons Delhi has chosen silence. First, India does not want to be seen as intervening in Bangladesh’s judicial processes, particularly at a moment when the interim government in Dhaka is hypersensitive to charges of illegitimacy. Any premature comment from New Delhi could be spun as “Indian interference” by Hasina’s opponents.

Second, India’s leverage in Bangladesh is unusually complicated at this moment. The interim administration has tenuous control, the army is watching warily, and Western governments—particularly the US—have taken a sceptical view of Hasina’s long rule. Delhi is balancing its long-term investment in the Awami League with short-term diplomatic flexibility. A vocal Indian defence of Hasina could antagonize the new rulers, something the South Block wants to avoid.

Third, the Modi government is waiting to see how international reaction shapes up. Other than muted Western expressions of concern, the global response has been thin. Before India commits itself—especially in defence of a leader accused of “crimes against humanity”—it wants to study the evolving landscape. Thus, a public position from MEA is unlikely until the geopolitical equilibrium becomes clearer.

Congress has been equally cautious, but for different reasons. The party does not want to appear sympathetic to an authoritarian leader who had been accused—fairly or not—of cracking down on dissent. The liberal sections of its support base are ambivalent about Hasina’s record on human rights. Issuing a statement supportive of her would invite needless political scrutiny.

Additionally, Congress is wary of appearing aligned with the BJP on foreign policy. The party has often accused the Modi government of mismanaging neighbourhood diplomacy. If it defends Hasina openly, it risks validating BJP’s long-standing strategic bet on her. Thus, Congress prefers silence—and lets Tharoor speak for himself.

Tharoor is one of the few Indian politicians who can comment on international matters without being read as the official voice of his party. His cosmopolitan persona, global network, and decades at the United Nations give him a unique buffer: he can speak, and everyone can pretend he speaks only for himself. But the timing suggests more than mere personal conviction.

Tharoor is seen in New Delhi as an internationalist who enjoys Modi’s confidence more than most opposition MPs. Earlier this year, Modi selected him to lead a parliamentary delegation to Africa to showcase India’s humanitarian operation Sindhu—a gesture widely seen as an endorsement of Tharoor’s diplomatic skill. His profile serves a purpose: when Delhi wishes to signal something softly—without taking responsibility—it can rely on voices like his.

The question reverberating through Delhi’s diplomatic circles is this: Did the Modi government quietly encourage Tharoor to speak? No evidence proves this. But it is a plausible inference, given three indicators.

One: Tharoor’s comment allows Delhi to express concern indirectly. If Dhaka reacts angrily, MEA can claim it was only the view of an “individual leader”.

Two: Bangladesh’s verdict has drawn scrutiny from human rights groups, global media, and diplomatic missions. India, as Hasina’s longtime ally, cannot appear entirely indifferent. Tharoor’s voice gives India a veneer of principled concern without diplomatic entanglement.

Three: A former UN under-secretary-general critiquing a death penalty and trial in absentia carries a legitimizing glow. It sounds less like geopolitics and more like moral diplomacy. If Tharoor’s remarks provoke no backlash, MEA may feel freer to issue a toned-down statement later. If Dhaka bristles, Delhi can keep quiet and claim plausible deniability.

The verdict against Hasina, now 78 and living in Delhi, is the first time a former Bangladesh prime minister has been sentenced to death in absentia for alleged wartime-style atrocities committed during civilian protests. The tribunal is widely seen as politically motivated, though Dhaka insists it is following due process.

For India, Hasina is not just a former prime minister; she is the anchor of a 15-year strategic partnership that delivered: unprecedented counter-terrorism cooperation, a stable eastern border, transit rights to India’s northeast, crackdowns on anti-India insurgent groups and support for India in regional forums.

Losing Hasina has already altered the geopolitical geometry of the subcontinent. Supporting her too openly risks alienating whoever emerges in Dhaka’s new power constellation. Yet abandoning her entirely would send a chill through India’s allies elsewhere, from Kathmandu to Male. Hence, silence—punctuated by a softly-spoken signal from Tharoor.

In diplomacy, what is not said often matters more than what is. India has not defended Hasina; neither has it endorsed the tribunal. Congress has not rallied behind Tharoor’s remarks, but it has not contradicted him either. Delhi’s silence is strategic. Congress’s silence is political. Tharoor’s voice bridges the gap.

As Bangladesh enters a period of uncertainty, India is quietly mapping its future options. In such moments, countries often speak through the people who are not in power, but who know how power works. Shashi Tharoor’s carefully phrased, “very troubling” may not be the voice of the Indian state. But it is certainly the closest Delhi has come to uttering one. (IPA Service)