The textbook definition of plausible deniability is the ability of a person, often a high-ranking official, or organization, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for controversial, illegal, or unethical actions because there is a lack of clear, conclusive evidence connecting them to the act.
It ensures that leaders remain officially uninformed or disconnected from risky operations. The definition is further expanded to say that in such situations, communication is often kept vague, implicit, or unwritten (such as verbal nods or winks) so that subordinates carry out tasks without a direct paper trail.
If the operation is exposed, leadership can credibly claim ignorance and shift the blame downward to "rogue" agents or lower-ranking staff. Traditionally it is used by governments undertaking covert actions abroad so the state or executive can disclaim responsibility if operatives are caught.
The recent press conference held by the former prime minister of Bangladesh (referred to as virtual because she participated in it through audio call) under the auspices of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of New Delhi, is a flagrant example of plausible deniability by no less an authority than the government of India.
The Indian government has officially denied any involvement in this press conference of so-called foreign correspondents calling the entity a private organization.
How private or how foreign is this organization?
The Foreign Correspondents' Club of South Asia (FCC) is based in New Delhi and is often referred to as the Foreign Correspondents' Club of New Delhi. It is a club of more than 500 journalists and photographers covering India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, Afghanistan, and Tibet.
The club web page says, while the club was started by "foreign" correspondents, or those who work for news outlets outside of the region, it also welcomes journalists from local newspapers, magazines, and television. It also admits associate members such as diplomats, lawyers, and people dealing with the media from NGOs and companies.
In other words, the Foreign Correspondents’ Club is as foreign as all residents of New Delhi. The 500 or so members include some foreign journalists, but the overwhelming number are Indian journalists. Its executive committee mostly comprises Indians.
For example, its current president is Syrian-born Waiel Awwad, but an Indian national, and Secretary Prakash Nanda, another Indian journalist.
The August 5 audio press conference was titled "Bangladesh at the Crossroads" -- also promoted as "Save Democracy in Bangladesh." The invitation card identified Hasina as "The Honourable Prime Minister of Bangladesh" even after her ouster, which drew attention in Dhaka.
How credible is it that an entity of such a huge number of journalists who are Indian nationals can hold a political conference with a fugitive political leader of another country without knowledge or clearance from the government?
Was it a political masquerade, or sheer disregard of any fallout from a weaker neighbour, for allowing this event to take place in the lair of government?
The purpose of this article is not to debate whether or not Indian authorities had a priori knowledge of the press conference. The press conference was advertised by the Indian media and reflected in Bangladesh long before it took place.
If an ordinary person knew about it, it is common sense that the Indian authorities also knew about it.
Both the organizers and the chief guest participating virtually were doing it from Indian soil, a stone’s throw from South Block, administrative headquarters of the Indian government.
The Indian government had both the power and wherewithal to prevent this provocative conference if it had wanted to.
Instead, it chose the traditional political ploy of deniability because the conference was organized by a private entity.
This took place despite pleas from Bangladesh that allowing the former PM to address journalists is giving her a political platform which will severely jeopardize the already fragile relationship between two countries.
This press conference, where Sheikh Hasina made political statements, happened despite the official position that India has taken regarding her stay in India.
Officially, she is not a political asylee as Indian law does not allow asylum. In its report 'The Future of India-Bangladesh Relationship' chaired by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, it was stated :
"The former prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, stays in India on humanitarian grounds however, the government does not provide her with a political platform or any space to undertake political activity from Indian territory."
It described the formula as: “Humanitarian refuge, no political space.”
Despite this “official position” of India that Sheikh Hasina is in India on humanitarian grounds, with no political space, the press conference was allowed to take place and Sheikh Hasina announced her political plans to the world.
This is from a person who has been convicted of crimes against humanity by the country she fled from. The Indian government may hide behind plausible deniability, but Sheikh Hasina has proved that she could use her shelter as a political space, contrary to assertion by the Indian parliament.
Sheikh Hasina’s press conference proves two things. She is not retiring from politics anytime soon, and she intends to retain the leadership of her party. But there is a gap between her desire and reality.
The reality is that the anger and outrage against her 16-year rule which led to her ouster is still prevalent in the country. However defiant she may sound when she declares that she will return to the country to challenge her conviction, she will also have to reckon with the anger of the population.
Sheikh Hasina was in total control of her party while she was in power. But that party is broken in pieces with its members running helter skelter.
Despite being the oldest political party of the country, the organization has suffered badly from the Hasina effect which not only tarnished her image but also many of its leaders.
Her statement in the press conference that she will return to Bangladesh sounds like empty rhetoric given that her own party is unable to rally around her now.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.