Our
investigation shows clear grounds for expelling Pranay Verma from Bangladesh
The
Listening Post
This
investigation was conducted over several months and involved the verification
of communications, meetings, public statements, and contemporaneous reporting
related to the conduct of the Indian High Commissioner during Bangladesh’s 2024
political crisis.
Certain
sensitive personal information was examined solely to establish context and
assess potential conflicts of interest. No private or personal financial
information has been published, as it was not necessary to substantiate the
findings presented here. The investigation adheres strictly to principles of
public interest, proportionality, and accountability.
——
Bangladesh’s
International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) has convicted former Home Minister
Assaduzzaman Khan Kamal and former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for crimes against humanity, specifically murder.
Of
the many charges, Kamal was found guilty of committing crimes against humanity
through his abetment and failure to act. His boss Hasina was given the death penalty.
Under
charge 5, she and Kamal were charged with shooting six student protesters in
Ashulia, five of whom were later burned after death, while the sixth was set on
fire while still alive.
These
verdicts mark a historic milestone in the country’s pursuit of accountability
for political violence. They have also cast a spotlight on the conduct of
foreign diplomats during the crisis.
Conduct
of the Indian High Commissioner
This
newspaper’s investigation, corroborated by multiple independent sources,
establishes the following verified facts:
·
On
19 July 2024 at 12:48 pm, Indian High Commissioner Pranay Kumar Verma placed a
65-second phone call to Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal.
It
was an eventful day in the July uprising; 56 people were killed, of
which 46 died in Dhaka alone. Bangladesh announced the imposition of a curfew in
the late evening and the deployment of military forces was declared.
Three
leaders of the uprising were arrested by the police on that very day. They
were: Nahid Islam, Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuiyan and Abu Baker Mojumder. At
this point, Abdul Kader declared their nine-point demand.
·
On
5 August 2024 at 12:58 pm, the day a mass uprising led to the collapse of the
Hasina regime, Kamal contacted Verma. That call lasted 153 seconds.
·
On
31 July 2024, during a period of escalating lethal violence, High Commissioner
Verma met Sheikh Hasina in Dhaka. This meeting was publicly reported by Indian
state-run media.
·
Following
the meeting, Indian media outlets, including DD News, quoted Verma as welcoming the “gradual
restoration of normalcy” and reaffirming India’s support for stability and
development in Bangladesh.
Call
records were verified through two independent sources. At the time of these
communications and statements, large-scale lethal force was being used against
civilians.
The
Scale of the Violence
The
scale of violence during the time of the meeting was immense. According to the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as many as 1,400 people were killed
between 1 July and 15 August 2024, with thousands more injured.
The
report goes on to say that the vast majority of deaths resulted from firearms
used by security forces, and children accounted for approximately 13 per cent
of those killed.
It
concludes that the events display patterns consistent with serious human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.
This
context is critical.
The
High Commissioner’s communications, meetings, and public statements occurred
during an internationally documented campaign of lethal repression.
Knowledge
and Diplomatic Responsibility
Diplomatic
practice recognises that high-level engagement during periods of mass violence
is rarely perceived as neutral.
Meetings,
private communications, and public statements by senior envoys function as
signals to both state authorities and security forces regarding international
scrutiny and tolerance.
In
this context, continued engagement without public qualification or expression
of concern carried a foreseeable risk of being interpreted as tacit acceptance
of ongoing conduct.
This
risk is heightened when such engagement is followed by public statements
characterising the situation as returning to “normalcy” while lethal repression
is ongoing.
Multiple
officials of the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, including individuals with
access to briefings and reporting during July and August 2024, independently
confirmed that senior mission leadership, including the High Commissioner, was
regularly briefed on the scale and lethality of state security operations.
According
to these officials, information from international organisations, local civil
society, and diplomatic partners was circulating within the mission.
The
High Commissioner was contacted via his official email for comment and afforded
the right of reply. No response was received.
Given
the urgency of the matter, we also undertook to publish any fuller response
that may be received after publication promptly and with appropriate
prominence.
That
offer remains open, and any substantive reply will be considered in accordance
with our editorial standards.
This
investigation does not assert criminal liability. However, it establishes that:
·
High
Commissioner Verma maintained direct contact with senior Awami League leaders
later convicted of crimes against humanity during the period those crimes were
being committed.
·
He
publicly characterised the situation as returning to “normalcy” while mass
killings were ongoing.
·
He
did not publicly express concern, condemnation, or distance from the use of
lethal force against civilians.
Such
conduct departs from the expectation of diplomatic restraint and neutrality
during mass atrocity situations.
International
Law and Diplomatic Accountability
Under
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), diplomats enjoy immunity
from prosecution in host states.
Bangladesh
therefore cannot prosecute the Indian High Commissioner, regardless of any
evidence concerning his knowledge or conduct.
The
same legal framework, however, provides a clear mechanism for accountability.
Article
9 permits a host state to declare a diplomat persona non grata at
any time and without explanation, if confidence in that diplomat has been lost.
Declaring
a diplomat persona non grata is a lawful diplomatic measure
reflecting a breakdown of trust or a determination that continued
representation is no longer compatible with national interests, sovereignty, or
ethical norms.
What
This Tells Us
Based
on the verified timeline of communications, meetings, public statements, and
the documented scale of atrocities occurring at the same time, this
investigation concludes that the conduct of the Indian High Commissioner
compromised the standards of diplomatic responsibility expected during crimes
against humanity.
Bangladesh
has taken decisive steps to hold its own leaders accountable for mass violence.
The
question now is whether similar ethical standards should apply to international
representatives whose actions, during the same period, contributed to the
public legitimisation of a regime engaged in crimes against humanity.
Declaring
the Indian High Commissioner persona non grata would be a
lawful, proportionate, and internationally recognised response to a
demonstrated loss of diplomatic confidence.
It
would affirm Bangladesh’s sovereignty, uphold ethical norms, and reinforce the
principle that silence or public normalisation during mass atrocities carries
consequences in international relations.
About
the author
No comments:
Post a Comment