The incidents related to the Deputy High Commission of Bangladesh in Kolkata (Kolkata Mission) and the Assistant High Commission of Bangladesh in Agartala (Agartala Mission) on November 28 and 2 December, respectively, have not only created political tensions between Bangladesh and India but have also raised questions about the latter’s adherence to its international legal obligations, especially under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (VCDR or 1961 Convention).
Although India has expressed its regret for the Agartala incident and declared its intent to strengthen its security measures for all Bangladeshi diplomatic representations in India, this does not resolve all the legal issues. The gravity of these incidents necessitates a closer examination of India's legal obligations under the VCDR.
Both incidents are part of the ongoing political tensions between the two neighbouring countries, which have been exacerbated by the recent arrest of the expelled former ISKCON leader, Chinmoy Krishna Das. On November 28 2024, supporters of Bangiya Hindu Jagran violently demonstrated in front of the Kolkata Mission to protest Chinmoy's arrest. The demonstrators desecrated the Bangladeshi flag and burned an effigy of Bangladesh's Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus. Bangladeshi authorities immediately protested the incident, prompting the Indian authorities to reportedly reinforce security at all Bangladeshi Missions in India.
The Agartala incident is also linked to Chinmoy’s arrest. It has been reported that supporters of the rightist group Hindu Sangharsh Samiti had been protesting the arrest since November 25, 2024. On December 2, 2024, the demonstration escalated into extreme violence when a large group of protesters forcefully breached the premises of the Agartala Mission by breaking the gate, demolishing the flagpole, desecrating the Bangladeshi flag, and vandalizing the property.
The attack, described by Bangladeshi authorities as “pre-planned,” highlighted a significant lapse in local law enforcement, which failed to restrain the violent mob. Bangladesh strongly protested, asserting that the incident constituted a violation of the VCDR. In response, Indian authorities expressed regret and reaffirmed their commitment to uphold the inviolability of diplomatic premises under the VCDR.
The international law of diplomatic protection is one of the oldest branches of international law. The VCDR reflects the modern manifestation of this branch of law, and both Bangladesh and India are parties to it. The 1961 Convention regulates various aspects of diplomatic representation in foreign countries. The States adhere to the VCDR norms even during their extreme times, essentially due to the principle of reciprocity. A cornerstone of these aspects is the inviolability of diplomatic premises, incorporated in Article 22 of the VCDR.
Article 22(1) of VCDR states that diplomatic premises are inviolable, and the agents of the receiving state, ie, where the premises are located, cannot enter them without the head of the mission's consent. Article 22(2) of the same imposes a “special duty” on the receiving State to take “all appropriate steps” to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the mission's peace or impairment of its dignity.
The former paragraph prohibits the state agents from intervening in diplomatic premises, while the latter obliges the receiving State to prevent private parties from performing certain prohibited acts. In the current situation, Article 22(2) of VCDR is the most relevant provision due to the nature of the attack in question. As a result, it warrants a situational analysis.
As both Bangladeshi and Indian authorities agreed on the facts that the Indian mob violated the diplomatic premises of the Agartala Mission through intrusion and property damage, it is necessary to examine India’s responsibility and its (non-)compliance.
India has a positive obligation to prevent private individuals from violating the prohibitive acts mentioned in Article 22(2) of VCDR. This obligation constitutes a “special duty”, requiring the Indian authorities to exhaust “all appropriate steps” to achieve the ends. The meaning of “all appropriate steps” is subject to interpretation and depends on the situation on the ground.
In this case, it is evident that India failed to uphold its special duty to take all appropriate steps to prevent the violation of the Agartala Mission premises. It is regrettable that the measures taken by the Indian authorities four days after a near-similar situation in Kolkata and seven days of violent demonstrations in the same city fell short of the protection required under Article 22(2) of the VCDR.
Furthermore, the local law enforcement agencies were alleged to be complicit in the attack due to their inaction. Considering Bangladeshi authorities labelled the incident as “pre-planned,” it can also be viewed as an intelligence failure by the Indian government.
While the Kolkata incident has been overshadowed by the Agartala incident, the former also warrants analysis under the VCDR. Although it fell short of violating diplomatic premises, it can still be seen as a “disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.”
The violent demonstration and subsequent derogatory actions in front of the Kolkata Mission cannot be justified under the protection of freedom of expression and association. Instead, the intensity and gravity of the demonstration suggest that the Kolkata incident violated the latter part of Article 22(2) of the VCDR.
Turning to India’s post-event response, an expression of regret alone is insufficient. Instead, Bangladesh should demand a thorough investigation, full accountability from India, compensation for the damages caused, and guarantees of non-repetition under India’s international legal obligations. These demands align with Bangladesh’s position as stated in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ press release.
Although late, it is promising that India has committed to reinforcing security measures at Bangladeshi diplomatic premises throughout India. Notably, India made similar commitments following the Kolkata incident; however, the failure to prevent the subsequent Agartala attack underscores deficiencies in implementation. It is not sufficient for such commitments to be made -- they must also be effectively implemented.
In addition to the legal dimensions of the Kolkata and Agartala incidents, it is essential to examine the political context that contributed to these events. It is concerning that these incidents stemmed from the Indian government’s reaction to what is fundamentally a domestic matter of Bangladesh.
The Indian authorities’ apparent failure to counter the disinformation campaigns originating within their territory directed towards Bangladeshi political development since August 5 together with the reactions of the political quarters of India on the same can reasonably be linked to the development of the situation culminating in the disregard for protection of foreign diplomatic premises. Moreover, India’s omission to regulate these campaigns constitutes a failure to fulfill its special duty under Article 22(2) of the VCDR.
At the same time, the government of Bangladesh must remain vigilant in preventing similar incidents at Indian diplomatic premises in Bangladesh. The VCDR does not allow countermeasures, ie, measures involving violations of international law by a State in response to earlier violations by another State. The International Court of Justice confirmed this principle in the Tehran Hostage case between the US and Iran. Even if India fails to fulfill its obligations under the VCDR as already mentioned above, Bangladesh must adhere to its special duty under Article 22(2) of the VCDR.
Bangladesh’s accomplishment in ensuring the protection of Indian diplomatic representations would not only represent a legal victory but also a political and moral success for the current government. Bangladesh should thus promptly take adequate measures to fulfill its legal and moral duty of diplomatic protection.
Quazi Omar Foysal is an international law expert.