Growing demands to remove Bangladeshi President Mohammed Shahabuddin have put the Mohammad Yunis-led interim administration in a precarious position. As the only remaining constitutional authority in a government otherwise seen as extra-constitutional, Shahabuddin’s role is critical to maintaining a semblance of legitimacy.
For the protesters and Opposition parties, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s sudden departure to India on August 5 after failing to quell increasingly violent protests was seen as a symbolic resignation and a victory for the people’s movement.
However, Hasina’s exit left a power vacuum and raised questions about the legitimacy of the interim administration that quickly took power. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, long a critic of the Awami League, emerged as a key figure in the interim setup, initially praised for his democratic credentials.
Yet the absence of a formal resignation letter from Hasina has haunted the administration since its inception, as her supporters insist that she never officially ceded her role as prime minister.
Without the resignation letter, Yunus’s authority is perceived as lacking a constitutional foundation, putting the new administration on shaky ground. This unresolved issue has made the president’s role increasingly central, with Shahabuddin’s refusal to definitively confirm Hasina’s resignation deepening the crisis.
As a former Awami League leader, now in hiding and requesting anonymity, explained: “The interim administration’s leaders, many of whom are former student protesters, see the president as an impediment to the revolutionary change they believe they achieved by ousting Hasina. They argue that Shahabuddin’s reluctance to fully support the new administration reflects his alignment with the old regime, and they fear his position could open the door for Hasina’s return. As a result, they are leading the charge to remove him, believing his resignation would clear the way for a more unified government.”
“But this stance is fraught with risk. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and other Opposition groups, though not allies of Hasina, are uneasy about removing the president without a clear legal mandate,” he said.
They argue that pushing Shahabuddin out could compromise the country’s democratic fabric, exposing the administration to accusations of authoritarianism. Arbitrary removal would mean bypassing the checks and balances that make a functioning democracy, potentially setting a precedent for extra-constitutional changes in power that could haunt Bangladesh’s future.
Some within the government are exploring constitutional workarounds, such as invoking Article 52 of the Bangladesh Constitution, which permits removal of the president under conditions of mental or physical incapacity. However, given the lack of definitive evidence against Shahabuddin’s fitness for office, this route remains legally tenuous and politically controversial. Pursuing such a measure without broad support could backfire, making the interim government appear opportunistic and eroding what little credibility it retains.
The BNP’s opposition to his removal underscores the balancing act faced by the Yunus-led administration: any deviation from constitutional procedure could erode public confidence and risk international condemnation.
Statements from Hasina’s son, Sajeeb Wazed, have fuelled this controversy, as he insists that the prime minister was unable to submit her resignation before fleeing and remains the legitimate head of government. For Yunus and his supporters, this “missing” letter has become a symbol of the former government’s hold on power, undermining their efforts to claim a constitutionally sound transition.
The implications of this missing letter go beyond simple paperwork. Without documented proof of Hasina’s resignation, critics argue that the current administration lacks legitimacy. President Shahabuddin’s admission that he has no record of such a resignation letter has only intensified scrutiny, leading many to question whether the administration is constitutionally valid. This is more than a domestic issue; it opens Bangladesh to criticism on the world stage and could complicate diplomatic relations, especially with neighbouring India.
The absence of the letter also opens the door to allegations of a de facto coup.
Bangladesh has a painful history of authoritarian overreach, from military takeovers to government overthrows, often with foreign powers playing a behind-the-scenes role. For an administration attempting to paint itself as the product of a mass uprising, lacking a constitutional foundation undercuts its claims and casts a shadow over its authority.
For India, Bangladesh’s turmoil presents a delicate situation. A stable, democratic Bangladesh is crucial to India’s eastern security and economic strategy, particularly in combating cross-border terrorism and ensuring regional stability. The porous 4,000-kilometre border between the two countries has long been a source of illegal migration and potential terrorist infiltration, with groups like Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) operating on both sides. Rising Islamist sentiments in Bangladesh add to India’s security concerns, especially given the potential for proscribed terrorist outfits like Hizb ut-Tahrir to find support amid the political chaos.
Moreover, India has historically enjoyed strong ties with Sheikh Hasina, who has supported cooperative security measures and trade initiatives. While India is cautious not to interfere in Bangladesh’s internal affairs, its support for Hasina means that her ouster by an untested interim government could disrupt established diplomatic and security protocols.
Add to that the insistent reports of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh being harassed and intimidated by Islamist goons, which puts pressure on its ability to balance its support for democratic norms with the pragmatic need to maintain a constructive relationship with whichever government emerges from this crisis.
At the same time, India’s measured approach contrasts with the involvement of other regional players suspected of influencing events in Bangladesh. Reports suggest that Pakistan and possibly other Western powers have been quietly supporting Opposition factions, seeking to tilt the scales in their favour and challenge India’s influence. This external dimension adds further complexity to India’s role, as New Delhi must navigate a volatile landscape where both regional and global powers have vested interests.
The interim government’s desire to push out President Shahabuddin reflects the tensions between revolutionary zeal and the need for constitutional propriety. But removing Shahabuddin without legal grounds could lead to an even greater crisis of credibility, threatening the administration’s already fragile legitimacy.
As Bangladesh stands at a crossroads, the missing resignation letter serves as a powerful reminder of the dangers of short-circuiting due process. Whether the students who have tasted political power and their supporters abroad understand the implications is another matter.
