Recent developments suggest that South Asia is undergoing significant and fundamental transformations. In 2022, Sri Lanka experienced a major public uprising against the ruling government, driven by widespread allegations of corruption, nepotism, and favoritism toward certain groups. This movement ultimately led to the removal of the Rajapaksa-led administration from power and brought its leaders under judicial scrutiny. Following this political upheaval, Sri Lanka was able to stabilize its economy through an election, aided by the relatively mature leadership that guided the country back to a more secure footing.
A similar event occurred in Bangladesh last year. The situation in Bangladesh, however, was somewhat deeper. Those in power were corrupt, nepotistic, and inefficient. But what became particularly significant here was the culture of impunity and the widespread violation of human rights, which stirred public protests.
This eventually culminated in a mass uprising led by the younger generation. The then-government in Bangladesh had been determined to continue their rule long-term, disregarding any opposition, media, or civil society resistance. Yet, the mass uprising did not just topple them; it forced the leaders to flee. The key difference was that the long-term rule of the government and the flight of the head of state during the uprising severely damaged Bangladesh’s governance and institutions—a situation that did not occur in Sri Lanka.
As a result of the geopolitical dynamics in South Asia, even though Bangladesh’s new interim government took office, it has not yet been able to use the institutions effectively. Moreover, although judicial processes have begun against individuals accused of various crimes during the previous government, these processes are long-term. Consequently, there is public unease over whether justice will ultimately be served. On the other hand, various reform initiatives undertaken by the government are still ongoing. There is also a degree of uncertainty regarding the post-2026 election situation.
Bangladesh remains in a state of indecision.
Amidst this, we witnessed a mass uprising in Nepal about two weeks ago. Key triggers of the uprising in Nepal included unemployment, corruption, nepotism, and factionalism. A particular feature here is that between 1996 and 2006, there was a Maoist movement, which initiated change through an armed struggle. I believe that last month we observed a continuity of that process. Since the Maoist movement had already established a structural framework through substantial reforms, that framework seems to have persisted even after the youth-led protests. Meanwhile, Nepal’s interim prime minister has announced that elections will take place within six months. Since Nepal’s institutions are still intact, the transition may occur relatively smoothly, although various political parties remain conflicted about their positions.
Now, why are these events happening, and what could be the geopolitical repercussions? These three countries, and others in South Asia, face a governance deficit. No government in South Asia can claim legitimacy purely based on meeting public expectations. Beyond elections, people continue to have expectations. Between two elections, it appears that no government in the region is operating its governance structures in accordance with public expectations. As a result, all South Asian governments are somewhat disconnected from their populations. The incidents in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal provide a direct demonstration of how wide this disconnect between governments and people can be.
Even a year ago in Bangladesh, employment was only 6–7 percent, and it has not grown significantly over the last decade. India is becoming a four-trillion-dollar economy, yet it too faces deep employment deficits. Nepal and Sri Lanka are in similar situations. In these countries, the younger generation sees little opportunity for employment or a future. Yet they observe that due to economic inequality, certain groups maintain wealth and hold social and political leadership. In Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, the youth and the general population have stood against this inequality and against entrenched patronage systems.
Corruption is also an important factor. This corruption is not only within the government but permeates the entire political structure of these countries. Officials, businesspeople, and various political parties are all implicated. Such corruption fuels public outrage. When society is unequal and people perceive no future, no employment, and no opportunities, while others amass wealth and power through illegitimate or different means and dominate socially or politically, protest emerges. This was evident in Nepal as well. The term “nepo kid” emerged there—children of wealthy and political elites openly displaying their wealth and power. People protested against this, sparking the movement. Therefore, it is clear that opposition arises not only to governments but also to entrenched political groups.
Looking at India in the South Asian context, the question arises whether situations like those in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka could occur there. Inequality and pressure on dissent exist, but corruption is not as pronounced. Accusations like those against Adani have arisen, but claims that the Indian government or its close associates are broadly corrupt are not widespread.
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal are relatively small countries, making it easy for public discontent to reach the capital—Colombo, Dhaka, or Kathmandu. In a vast country like India, it is harder for people to directly channel their frustration into such concentrated upheavals. Therefore, while protests may occur in India, the likelihood of large-scale explosions seems lower. However, future outcomes are always uncertain.
From a geopolitical perspective, India has reason for concern. Instability surrounds it: conflict with Pakistan, political change in neighboring Nepal, a new system emerging in Bangladesh, and transformation in Sri Lanka. Consequently, regional instability presents a concern for India. Each country elicits a different response from India. For example, with Bangladesh, India is cautious and reluctant to cooperate with the current government, preferring to engage with the next elected government. Publicly, India has engaged in various forms of propaganda against Bangladesh. India’s stance toward Bangladesh is tense, whereas its approach toward Nepal has been somewhat softer recently, and though India was conflicted regarding Sri Lanka, it is now showing interest in normalizing relations.
Meanwhile, my understanding is that China has maintained its relations with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka even after political changes. However, due to shifts in global geopolitics, India and China recently appear to be coordinating regionally. Consequently, in Sri Lanka, there seems to be a coexistence between India and China. Previously, it favored China, but now India and China have relatively equal influence. China continues its normal cooperation with Bangladesh. In Nepal, the government prior to the uprising leaned toward China, causing some unease for India. I hope that Nepal’s new government will normalize relations. However, media coverage suggests that the youth are interested in maintaining close ties with India, as the uprising was portrayed by Indian media and experts as an attempt to restore the monarchy, generating widespread resentment among Nepalis—something unfavorable for India. Whether the new Nepalese government will engage more closely with China remains to be seen.
It should be noted that the U.S. has a significant presence in Nepal. Thus, there is a trilateral competition: India, China, and the U.S. India pursues its traditional interests, China has advanced its relations well, and the post-election scenario will clarify Nepal’s stance in this three-way contest.
In Bangladesh, the Western world, particularly the U.S., naturally supports the interim government’s reforms, provides economic assistance, and is extending cooperation toward the next election. Military cooperation is also increasing. In India’s relative absence, Bangladesh has deepened its ties with both the U.S. and China. However, Bangladesh, given its geography, economic development plans, and international image, must maintain balanced relations with China, India, the U.S., the EU, Japan, and other countries. Favoring one side while excluding another would not be a sound policy. Diplomatic professionalism is crucial, and internally, political consensus is necessary, because the lack of it allows foreign powers to intervene directly or indirectly, contributing to domestic complexities, as we have recently witnessed.
Asia will be the center of the global economy in the coming decades, with China as the number-one economy, followed by India, Japan, and Korea. Over the next half-century, the region will continue to attract economic attention. Countries here will compete among themselves, and external powers will also intervene. For countries like ours, the task is to ensure that the benefits of this growth are domestically harnessed, while maintaining balanced relations with all external actors, advancing national interests strategically.
The writer is diplomat and former ambassador
