Sheikh Hasina, once a darling of Western democracy and the long-time ruler of Bangladesh, has fled the country, and according to some Indian news reports, “was received by [India’s] National Security Advisor Ajit Doval” in an Indian military base after weeks of rioting and violence that saw the death of over three hundred people. “She arrived in a Bangladesh Air Force C-130 military transport—that has been parked near the Indian Air Force’s C-17 and C-130J aircrafts—and may fly to London to seek political asylum.” An interesting anecdote, that. 

It’s difficult to gauge who's the geopolitical winner in this conflict. Bangladesh has been historically volatile, and Hasina has provided a form of order that one could have expected from Middle Eastern autocrats. Corrupt, to keep all factions somewhat satiated, but stable enough. 

Nevertheless, the liberal American commentariat, in a position similar to President Barack Obama’s during the Arab Spring, has been opposed to Hasina’s increasingly authoritarian rule. So much so, that in some online circles, it is raising the question of whether the U.S. was behind the toppling of the regime. 

Most importantly, Hasina was instrumental in signing deals with India that nominally are for trade, but, on deeper perusal, are military in nature. The rail connection between northeastern India and Bangladesh would have been militarily advantageous to India. Likewise, real estate and ports once eyed by China were offered to India to manage and rebuild. 

All those deals are now dormant, for lack of a better word. Whoever wins this geopolitical struggle, it appears India is the biggest loser.