[🇧🇩] Indo-Bangla Relation: India's Regional Ambition, Geopolitical Reality, and Strategic Options For Bangladesh

[Saif]

Dhaka, Delhi agree to establish good working relations: Touhid

“We agreed that we need to reach a good working relationship,” the adviser told reporters at the foreign ministry this afternoon, referring to his recent meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar in Muscat, Oman

www.thedailystar.net

Dhaka, Delhi agree to establish good working relations: Touhid

Photo: BSS

Foreign Affairs Adviser Md Touhid Hossain today said both Dhaka and Delhi have agreed to establish good working relations by addressing the remaining challenges.

"We agreed that we need to reach a good working relationship," the adviser told reporters at the foreign ministry this afternoon, referring to his recent meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar in Muscat, Oman.

He noted that trade between the two countries has regained momentum and is approaching previous levels, but some issues, such as visa-related challenges, still need to be resolved.

Responding to a query, the adviser said no specific challenges were identified during the discussion, but both sides acknowledged the need to overcome certain obstacles to further strengthen bilateral ties.

Touhid said he invited Jaishankar to visit Bangladesh, highlighting the existing foreign minister-level mechanism. The last foreign minister-level meeting took place in New Delhi.

He mentioned that Bangladesh would arrange Jaishankar's visit once a suitable date is set.

Regarding the extradition of ousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina, Hossain said no specific discussions were held on the matter, but general issues were discussed.

He said it is an independent issue, and Bangladesh requested Hasina's extradition following the court order.

About the pause in US funding, Touhid clarified that the funding cut is not a Bangladesh-specific issue.

He said Bangladesh needs to find ways to overcome the challenges posed by the cuts.

On the sidelines of the 8th Indian Ocean Conference (IOC), Adviser Touhid met Jaishankar in Muscat, Oman, on Sunday.

During the meeting, both leaders acknowledged the challenges in bilateral relations, underscoring the importance of working together to address them.​

 

[Saif]

Foreign adviser reacts to Jaishankar’s comments on Dhaka-Delhi ties

India has to decide what kind of relationship it wants with Bangladesh, said Foreign Adviser Touhid Hossain on Monday when asked to respond to the comments of his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar. “Mr Jaishankar said that Bangladesh has to decide what kind of relationship it wants with India,

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Foreign adviser reacts to Jaishankar’s comments on Dhaka-Delhi ties
NGO Bureau finds no entry of $29 million USAID fund
FE ONLINE REPORT
Published :
Feb 24, 2025 20:37
Updated :
Feb 24, 2025 20:37

India has to decide what kind of relationship it wants with Bangladesh, said Foreign Adviser Touhid Hossain on Monday when asked to respond to the comments of his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar.

“Mr Jaishankar said that Bangladesh has to decide what kind of relationship it wants with India, and my comment on the statement is that at the same time, India has to decide what kind of relationship it wants with Bangladesh,” the foreign adviser told the reporters at the foreign ministry.

"This is the issue for both sides, and there is nothing wrong in making this observation.”

"I think we have a very clear decision over the issue, and that is we want good working relations with India. And it is on the basis of mutual respect and reciprocal interest,” the adviser said.

Responding to another question, he said, India needs to decide what kind of relationship they want with us.

"But he (Mr Jaishankar) said that many in Bangladesh are making negative remarks against India. I do not want to say whether it is justified or not, but my point is that people from both sides are making such remarks. A chief minister of one of their states already called for the deployment of UN forces in Bangladesh. Another of their central ministers has been making remarks against Bangladesh frequently. Having this situation, we are trying to advance our relationship.”

"So, our position is that. We need to move forward to have better relations, brushing aside the silly comments made by a handful of people,” he explained.

But Mr Touhid categorically said that the objectionable remarks made by former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, now in India, is an impediment to advancing bilateral ties between Bangladesh and India.

"If any kind of untoward situation arises here, we will address it, but it is recognised by all that her speeches are adding fuel to the fire,” the foreign adviser noted.

"In the same manner, issuing visas to Bangladeshis is absolutely their sovereign right, and we have nothing to say about it. But when we see that the number of visas is reduced, we will definitely look for alternative ways. It is very natural,” he said.

On Jaishankar’s comment about minorities in Bangladesh, he said that India media has created a fake news campaign to establish that minorities are being tortured here, and on the basis of this campaign, many persons are raising such allegations.

“Moreover, minorities living in Bangladesh cannot be the headache of Indians, as minorities in India cannot be our headache. We should stick to a non-interference policy about it,” he said.

He said the government is looking into the issues related to the minority people living here, as they are the citizens of Bangladesh, and they enjoy the same rights as I enjoy here.

"And the government always tries to ensure these rights,” he added.

About Donald Trump’s comment on the 29 million dollar aid to a Bangladeshi NGO, the adviser said the NGO Affairs Bureau of Bangladesh said that they could not find any such entry.

"And no NGO can have a single penny without bypassing the Bureau, he said, adding that he had not any information in addition to that.

Regarding the reports of Bangladeshis fighting in Ukraine, he said that the ministry has asked the mission in Moscow to look into the matter.

But it is hard to prevent; if they are given Russian citizenship, it will be difficult to get them back, he noted.

"Many undesirable things are happening. None want to see that a Bangladeshi is drowned in the Mediterranean Sea, but such incidents are occurring, and we cannot prevent it despite our serious efforts,” he argued.

Asked to comment on the reports that he has failed to give proper leadership in the foreign ministry in the first six months of the present government, the adviser said, "If a better alternative than me is found who can lead the foreign ministry more efficiently, I am ready to welcome him.”​

 

[Saif]

Jaishankar’s remarks on Bangladesh: A deeper understanding is necessary

India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recently made some strong remarks about Bangladesh at the Delhi University Literature Festival.

www.thedailystar.net

Jaishankar’s remarks on Bangladesh: A deeper understanding is necessary

India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. FILE PHOTO: REUTERS

India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recently made some strong remarks about Bangladesh at the Delhi University Literature Festival. Here are some key excerpts from his speech, "Things happened there last year, all of you are aware of it… for us what is very troubling, there are two aspects of it… the spate of attacks on the minorities… it is something which impacts our thinking and… we have to speak up about… they have to make up their mind what kind of relationship they want with us. Because every day, somebody in Bangladesh, who is in the interim government… if they stand up and blame India for everything, and some of the things in the reports are ridiculous… I think this is a decision also that they have to make. About what kind of relationship they want.

"We have sent a very clear signal, okay we are a neighbour, we would like for things to calm down… But we would obviously not like to see the messaging and… signalling which is continuously hostile in a way to India."

Let's start from the very beginning—about what happened in Bangladesh last year. In July-August, a mass uprising erupted against Sheikh Hasina's Awami League government. During the protests, approximately 1,500 students, workers, and citizens lost their lives, while around 20,000 others were injured. A United Nations Fact-Finding Mission reported, "The prime minister herself told security force officials to kill protesters to quell the protests and specifically demanded 'arrest the ringleaders of the protests, the troublemakers, kill them and hide their bodies.'"

Despite these serious allegations, Indian officials and some segments of its media have barely mentioned these facts. They have hardly acknowledged that Sheikh Hasina and numerous other Awami League leaders—whom India has sheltered—stand accused of mass murder. If Mr Jaishankar and other Indian officials are truly aware of what happened in Bangladesh, why this omission?

On the issue of minority attacks, this newspaper, along with other media outlets as well as the interim government itself, have acknowledged and reported on incidents of attacks on minorities after the Awami League's unceremonious ouster. Many of these attacks occurred on August 5-8, when the country totally lacked law enforcement services. A number of minority community members—including Hindu Bangladeshis—were attacked, but some of them were attacked because of their political affiliation with the Awami League and the resentment among people towards the former ruling party.

While this context helps explain the attacks, it does not excuse them. The interim government has repeatedly stated that even a single attack on a member of a minority community is unacceptable.

However, segments of the Indian media have been caught exaggerating reports. And the extent of falsification even extended to presenting events in India as occurring in Bangladesh.

In fact, if we consider how some segments of the Indian media, social media, and commentators on other platforms have covered Bangladesh over the past six months, it has been nothing short of an information war against Bangladesh.

Indian government officials, too, have harped on this matter, with West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banarjee even suggesting that India should seek the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in Bangladesh—raising concerns about Bangladesh's sovereignty.

What about the rights of minorities in India, though? Since 2014, leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have made many openly hostile remarks against Muslims. Some examples include:

i) On May 14, 2014, BJP leader Giriraj Singh said, "Is it not true that people involved in terror activities belong to a particular religion?"

ii) On September 14, 2014, MP Sakshi Maharaj claimed, "Terrorism is being taught in madrassas."

iii) In March 2016, BJP leader and Union Minister Anantkumar Hegde stated, "As long as Islam exists, there will be terrorism. Until we uproot Islam, we cannot eliminate terrorism."

iv) On February 6, 2018, MP Vinay Katiyar declared, "Muslims should not stay in this country. They have partitioned the country based on population. So why are they still here? They should go to Bangladesh or Pakistan… They have no business being in India."

And these are only a few examples.

On August 14, 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that since March 2024, of the 173 speeches delivered by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, 110 contained Islamophobic remarks.

Yet, Bangladesh has rarely issued statements of concern about minorities in India, treating these issues as the latter country's internal affairs. Notably, India rarely expressed similar concerns about minority rights during Hasina's tenure, despite similar incidents occurring, leading to some deaths and many injuries. Since Hasina's fall, however, India appears to have taken a different approach towards Bangladesh. This raises questions about the sincerity of these recent concerns from India.

Mr Jaishankar has said India has sent a very clear signal that it wants things to "calm down," but it does not want to see hostile messaging from members of the Bangladesh government. Such restraints, however, should be mutual.

In light of that, it is important to mention that BJP leaders have repeatedly accused Bangladeshis of trying to take over the "rightful land" of Indians, referring to them as "Jihadis," "infiltrators," and "termites," who should be identified and drowned in the Bay of Bengal. Do these remarks not come off as hostile?

And what about BJP leader Dilip Ghosh's comment in December 2024—months after the interim government took office—that Bangladesh's forces are no match for India and that Bangladesh's political leaders should "think carefully" about the ongoing turmoil? Was that a friendly message?

Moreover, the continued killings of Bangladeshis by Indian border forces, despite repeated promises of zero border killings, sends more contradictory signals. So does India's failure to share the water of Teesta River with Bangladesh, despite previous assurances.

India should understand that Bangladesh has a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by these and other unresolved matters. And the Indian government should be willing to listen to these grievances instead of ignoring them.

The Bangladesh government, similarly, should listen carefully to the legitimate concerns raised by India. In this case, for example, Mr Jaishankar's point of not sending hostile signals should be taken seriously by the Bangladesh government.

There are two other important lessons that Bangladesh should draw from this situation. First, for years, India engaged only with one political party in Bangladesh—Sheikh Hasina's Awami League—and treated it as the sole representative of the country. Bangladesh must not make the same mistake. India is a vast, diverse nation. The majority of its people, if they truly understood the oppressive nature of Hasina's regime, would likely sympathise with the Bangladeshi people.

Even if there are groups in India we disagree with, we must continue to engage with the broader Indian population. This will benefit both nations.

Second, we must realise that there is no place for ego in foreign policy. Some Bangladeshi commentators have suggested that India's reaction to Hasina's ouster is driven by bruised egos—because India lost a pliant ally and failed to predict the changing political landscape. But foreign policy must not be driven by ego or emotion—and this also applies to us. It should be rooted in pragmatism, common sense, and mutual benefit.

And so, if Bangladesh and India truly want a stable relationship, and we believe they do, both sides must acknowledge their shortcomings and address each other's concerns with sincerity.

Eresh Omar Jamal is head of the editorial department at The Daily Star.​

 

[Saif]

Will Hasina’s shadow continue to loom over Dhaka-Delhi ties?

Although there appears to have been some encouraging movement on both sides, the bilateral relations remains somewhat wary.

www.thedailystar.net

Will Hasina’s shadow continue to loom over Dhaka-Delhi ties?

VISUAL: SALMAN SAKIB SHAHRYAR

Sheikh Hasina's "leaked" phone call conversations started surfacing about two weeks after she fled to Delhi while facing a people's uprising. The audio clips began circulating on social media with the deposed prime minister feigning a candid conversation, but in fact passing on messages to her party cadres. In one conversation, she said she was not far away, quite close by actually… and she could enter Bangladesh in a jiffy if needed. In another clip, she was heard saying, as she did more recently, that those attacking the houses of Awami League faithfuls had houses of their own, too. The suggestion of counterattacks and incitement of arson was evident.

In his interview with the Indian state-run news agency Press Trust of India about a month after taking over as the interim head of government, Prof Muhammad Yunus was clear: India could keep their trusted ally, but they would have to keep her quiet. The Hindu reported on September 5, "Muhammad Yunus, the head of Bangladesh's interim government, has said that former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina making political remarks from India is an 'unfriendly gesture,' asserting that she must remain silent to prevent the discomfort to both countries until Dhaka requests her extradition."

Yunus was quoted saying, "If India wants to keep her until the time Bangladesh (government) wants her back, the condition would be that she has to keep quiet."

The "leaked" phone conversations stopped surfacing.

Within a couple of months, the ousted premier emerged on social media again, this time addressing large crowds virtually. There was one in London on December 10 that attracted much attention.

The Indian foreign secretary's visit on December 9 provided Dhaka with another opportunity to express its ire about Hasina speaking in public. It was clear from deliberations of both sides that the message had been sent and duly received. Vikram Misri went back to report to the parliamentary standing committee on external affairs, headed by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, that "India does not endorse deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's criticism of the interim government in Bangladesh and it remains a pinprick in India-Bangladesh relationship," according to a report in The Hindu. And again, Hasina stopped speaking in public.

More recently, earlier in February, Sheikh Hasina's scheduled address triggered mass anger which is said to have led to the demolition of what remained (it had been partially destroyed in the aftermath of Awami League's fall in August last year) of her father's iconic house on Dhanmondi Road 32. This was the same house where Bangladesh's founding president, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, had been assassinated with his entire family (Hasina and her sister were abroad at that time). This was also the same house that had been one of the nerve centres of Bangladesh's independence movement. It had been turned into a museum and demolition of this house was a loss. But the anger that surged among people was perhaps because Hasina and her cohorts, are still to exhibit even a glimmer of admission, let alone repentance, that they were wrong. The former premier, who will perhaps be remembered as an ousted autocrat, remains boastful and completely oblivious to her misdeeds. Instead, she keeps repeating her intentions to mount a comeback and hold trials of her detractors.

The resulting frenzy lasted for a few days when enraged people also attacked houses of other Awami League leaders in Dhaka and elsewhere in the country, besides the one in Dhanmondi.

The interim government then issued a protest to India saying Hasina should not be allowed to make such "false and fabricated" statements. In response, Delhi summoned the Bangladesh envoy to convey that "India desires a positive, constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with Bangladesh, which has been reiterated several times."

Answering media queries about the Bangladeshi envoy being summoned, Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal went on to add that Delhi had said it was "regrettable that regular statements made by Bangladesh authorities continue to portray India negatively" holding them responsible for internal governance issues. "These statements by Bangladesh are in fact responsible for the persistent negativity."

The foreign ministry official clarified that Sheikh Hasina was speaking "in her individual capacity" and that India had nothing to do with it.

The change of stance is obvious, as is the message. India could not have been clearer that it is not going to hold back Hasina or discourage her from speaking out publicly. The interim government will have to figure out how to resolve whatever problems that might trigger within Bangladesh.

While there are no laws to restrict exiled political leaders—or autocrats, for that matter—from making public statements, precedence might be said to have contributed to certain protocols for the host country.

For instance, Idi Amin of Uganda was granted asylum in Saudi Arabia but forbidden from engaging in politics. In fact, it is reported that Idi Amin was under constant surveillance to ensure that he had no direct contact with Ugandan politics. He was never allowed to return to Uganda.

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines was flown to Hawaii with US military assistance where he was given asylum, but the US refused to let him make a political comeback from US soil. Despite his attempts to maintain influence in Filipino politics, the US discouraged him from such engagement.

Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia fled to Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe's assistance where he was granted asylum. Zimbabwe refused repeated extradition requests from Ethiopia for crimes against humanity, but Mengistu was mostly kept away from politics. He continues to live in Zimbabwe under state protection.

Clearly, then, India's refusal to discourage, or restrict, Hasina indicates that it is not too eager to placate the Bangladesh government. Is this a sign for the kind of relationship India wants with Bangladesh? Although it has not been always articulated, except that one time by the Indian army chief, the Indian undertone has always been that it does not quite consider this interim government worthy of its full attention or due consideration since it is not elected.

The latest statement clarifies that India will let Hasina speak whether it bothers Bangladesh or not. But that is just one aspect. It also suggests that India still considers Hasina valuable (or might we say bankable?) and will not lay down restrictions for such a friend only to please Bangladesh's incumbent government. Although there appeared to have been some encouraging movement on both sides, the bilateral relations have remained somewhat wary.

The interim government has always made it clear that it does not mind if Hasina remains in India for the time being (provided that she refrains from public speeches) until her trial is completed when the Bangladesh government will look to have her extradited. So far, India has not spoken about it definitively and will presumably drag its feet for as long as possible. If the bilateral relations remain as they are, India is unlikely to extradite the ousted premier to face trials in Bangladesh, for which she could be given the capital punishment. But that will be later.

Following the foreign ministers' meeting in the Omani capital, there was little substance in what either of them said about their discussions. They touched all the points but refused to give away the specifics. But since then, Bangladesh's council of advisers have quieted down on their India rhetoric, while Hasina has also gone quiet in what appears to be a strained détente.

Tanim Ahmed is digital editor at The Daily Star.​

 

[Saif]

Indo-Bangla border haats suspended since August

The operations of border haats between Bangladesh and India, dominated by industrial products from the latter, have remained suspended since August after a mass uprising toppled the Awami League regime on August 5, 2024...

www.newagebd.net

Indo-Bangla border haats suspended since August
Shakhawat Hossain 02 March, 2025, 22:26

The operations of border haats between Bangladesh and India, dominated by industrial products from the latter, have remained suspended since August after a mass uprising toppled the Awami League regime on August 5, 2024.

Not only the operations of seven border haats on both sides of the borders, inaugurated since 2011, but also building of physical infrastructure of three has also remained suspended, said commerce ministry officials.

The border haats were envisaged by the governments of India and Bangladesh as an instrument primarily to generate livelihood for people living at the border areas of the two countries.

Each border haat is managed and organised by haat management committee of the respective border haat.

Trade at the border haats is permitted to be carried out either on a barter basis or in currency of the country with which the haats share a border.

Besides the aforementioned haats, the previous AL regime had also reached a consensus with the Indian government to make groundwork for six more in future despite criticisms at home that the border haats encouraged black marketers on both sides of the border.

Sunamganj District deputy commissioner Mohammad Ileas Mia told New Age on Sunday that the concerned authority in Meghalaya suspended the operation of haat in Balat without informing them after the change in regime in Bangladesh in August.

Subsequently, the operation of haat at Lauwarghar in Sunamganj was stopped, he said, adding that they had not received any plea from anybody from the local side to resume the operation of the haat.

Officials said that the Sunamganj DC Office had received some e-mails from the other side of the border to resume the operation.

However, those mails were not generated from official channel, they said.

The border haat at Lauwarghar in Sunamganj on the Bangladesh side and at Balat in Meghalaya on the Indian side was the second among those opened between 2010 and 2015.

The other haats are Kurigram (Rangpur)- Kalaichar (Meghalaya), Purba Modhunagar (Feni)- Srinagar (Tripura) and Tarapur (Brahmanbaria)-Kamalasagar (West Tripura).

The World Bank in a report released on September 24, 2018 in its blog said that the total trade at each haat as estimated by the state governments was $6,00,000 a year.

Even if the purchase limit at the haats were doubled, the number of days of operation increased to two days a week and many more haats, say 50, were established along the border, these markets could generate total trade of $120 million a year, said the WB report.

Three more haats were established at both sides in 2021 despite criticisms in Bangladesh mentioning that industrial products from mainland India such as chocolates, cosmetics, baby food and sharis were available in those haats that undermined memorandum of understanding, said the officials.

The operations of the border haats also remained suspended for almost two years due to Covid pandemic.

The operation resumed on May 2022 because of demand placed by stakeholders from both sides.

With the ongoing suspension since August 2024 the border haat management committees are yet to receive any official plea from stakeholders to resume the operation, said Feni District deputy commissioner Saiful Islam.​

 

[Saif]

Rethinking Bangladesh-India relations

BANGLADESH is a dynamic and strategically significant nation, known for its struggles for language, democracy, and independence. Despite its potential to inspire globally, 53 years after independence, it has failed to establish a strong democratic framework or implement an independent foreign...

www.newagebd.net

Rethinking Bangladesh-India relations
Md Farid Talukder 03 March, 2025, 00:00

BANGLADESH is a dynamic and strategically significant nation, known for its struggles for language, democracy, and independence. Despite its potential to inspire globally, 53 years after independence, it has failed to establish a strong democratic framework or implement an independent foreign policy. While global democracy has expanded, Bangladesh has regressed over the past 15 years. Since the controversial 2009 election, Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League has used state resources to build a fascist regime, eroding democratic values. The clearest signs are the 2014, 2018, and 2024 elections, where citizens were systematically denied their voting rights.

In The Coalition Years: 1996 to 2012, a book, former Indian president Pranab Mukherjee reveals India’s involvement in securing the Awami League’s 2009 election victory. In the 2014 election, India influenced smaller parties like the Jatiya Party to participate, while major opposition parties boycotted, citing an uneven playing field. The 2018 ‘midnight election’ was rejected by opposition parties due to irregularities, including ballot stuffing at night before the election day. In the 2024 elections, the ‘dummy‘ election, the Hasina regime supported ‘dummy’ independent candidates, who were also from the Awami League, to make the election appear credible, leading the international community to label the election as flawed. Despite these issues, India consistently backed the legitimacy of the elections held from 2009 to 2024, bolstering the Awami League’s grip on power. Besides, India played a significant role in softening international criticism of Sheikh Hasina’s repressive regime until her escape to India on August 5, 2024. Reports indicate India pressured Washington to ease its firm stance on Hasina’s government.

Under Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s foreign policy increasingly fell under India’s regulatory influence, shaping its diplomatic and commercial decisions. A notable example is her 2024 state visit to China, where discussions centred on the Teesta project, a river shared with India, and India has unilaterally exploited it, depriving Bangladesh of fair water rights. China expressed interest in financing the project, even conducting feasibility studies, but India opposed its involvement under the guise of security concerns. Before visiting China, the deposed prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, travelled to India twice and ultimately handed the project to India, despite its lack of feasibility studies or the capacity to execute it effectively. Experts argue that this decision was driven by India’s aim to prevent strong Bangladesh-China ties. During her China visit, Hasina faced a lack of expected protocol and economic support, leading her to cut the trip short and return to Bangladesh.

Despite being neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh have experienced a strained relationship in the past. Particularly for the past 15 years, many in Bangladesh believe that, due to Pakistan’s strained ties with India and under India’s pressure, Bangladesh has been unable to establish a mutually respectful relationship with Pakistan.

Moreover, India has strategically and profitably used Bangladesh’s territory for connectivity with its seven northeastern states (the Seven Sisters). However, when Bangladesh sought to establish road links with neighbouring countries like Nepal and Bhutan, India did not respond positively to using its territory for these connections.

These events clearly demonstrate how India has confined Bangladesh’s independent foreign policy.

Even after the fall of Sheikh Hasina following the July mass uprising, there has been no visible shift in India’s perspective on Bangladesh that developed during her tenure. The UN Human Rights Commission has found Sheikh Hasina’s direct involvement in the mass killings during the July uprising. However, Hasina still finds refuge in India. In addition, she continues to use phones and social media platforms from there to direct her party members to carry out killings and other forms of repression against students and protesters involved in the uprising.

The Bangladesh government has formally requested India to stop Hasina from using its territory for conspiracies against Bangladesh. Unfortunately, India has taken no visible effective action in response. Indian media outlets spread misinformation about the Bangladesh government, and India still views the overthrow of Hasina’s regime as a conspiracy, with some Indian leaders issuing threats to annex Bangladesh. After crippling Bangladesh’s democracy, human rights, social system, and global respectful positions, Hasina fled to India. This presents a new opportunity for Bangladesh to restore its democracy, rebuild a fair social system, and foster respectful diplomatic relationships with the global community.

Bangladesh has recently signed an important agreement with the US-based company, Argent LNG, as part of its effort to expand international business ties. In this context, Bangladesh continues to work on strengthening its ties with both neighbouring and distant countries.

Moreover, whenever Bangladesh endeavours to strengthen its business ties with China and Pakistan, India lodges complaints with the United States and western nations, alleging that Bangladesh is tilting toward China and attempting to brand it as a ‘militant state.’ This poses a significant challenge to Bangladesh’s foreign policy. Given India’s systematic interference in Bangladesh’s politics, cultures, economy, and foreign policy spheres, it appears that India carries a colonial attitude towards Bangladesh.

Bangladesh, with a population of nearly 200 million, is a huge market with significant potential to grow politically and economically. If Bangladesh, a small country, strengthens its economy, politics, and foreign policy, it could, as India anticipates, further inspire the people in India’s various states struggling for independence. This is perhaps why India seeks to establish control over Bangladesh, aiming to achieve two main objectives: first, to reap economic benefits, and second, to ensure Bangladesh does not become a model that can stir further ongoing movements for political economy and independence in some Indian states.

Md Farid Talukder is an assistant professor of management at McNeese State University, Louisiana, USA and chairman of the South Asia Initiative, a US-based think tank.​

 

[Saif]

India’s influence and the quest for a democratic South Asia

Just because the Indian people supported Bangladesh in 1971, does that mean Bangladesh should now be indebted to the Indian government?

www.thedailystar.net

India’s influence and the quest for a democratic South Asia

Visual: Monorom Polok

During British rule, present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were part of the same colonial structure: British India. Therefore, we have a shared history of resistance against British imperialism, where the people of the subcontinent fought together, bound by common aspirations and cultural connections. However, to counteract this unified struggle, the colonial rulers and their local allies, including the emerging capitalist class and ideological forces, contributed to creating communal divisions. This led to the rise of Hindutva politics and, as a reaction, Muslim-centric political movements, strengthening identity politics. As a result, those who were earlier involved in the anti-British movement later became adversaries based on religious identity. When the British eventually left, the region was left in turmoil, where Hindus and Muslims saw each other as enemies while the British remained the common "friend" of all.

During British rule, investments were made in various sectors, leading to the emergence of a capitalist class that later became the driving force behind the region's development path. After independence, under Jawaharlal Nehru's leadership, India adopted policies that facilitated the growth of a state-sponsored capitalist class. Because of sustained political stability, this capitalist expansion continued uninterrupted, leading to the rise of powerful business groups and a strong industrial foundation in India. However, by the late 1980s, Congress began to weaken, allowing Hindutva politics and the BJP to gain significant traction. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed how large capital and Hindutva politics have merged, reinforcing each other. This connection became especially evident in the 1990s.

While India has witnessed the expansion of large capital, what has been the condition of its people? India is home to some of the world's richest people, but it is also home to the largest number of poor people, where caste- and class-based discrimination is rampant, despite the country's consistent economic growth.

Meanwhile, to sustain its expanding capital, India needs more markets and raw materials. Thus it is easier to understand why India seeks to assert its influence beyond its borders. Alongside economic expansion, the country has also aspired to become a global military power. In the 1990s, India became a nuclear-armed state, conducting nuclear tests that prompted Pakistan to do the same. India has one of the largest military forces globally and is the largest importer of arms.

Within India's own borders, there has been a heavy militarisation process, closely linked to capital interests. In mineral-rich areas, entire communities have been displaced to pave the way for corporate exploitation; this has even led to the emergence of armed resistance movements. Today, a number of areas in India is under some form of militarised control. The most extreme example of this is Kashmir. Beyond Kashmir, military forces have been used to displace people in resource-rich areas under the guise of "development."

Due to the nature of global capitalism, Indian capital cannot always be separated from multinational capital. Indian capital is practically interlinked with, among others, US, Japanese, and German capital through subcontracts, partnerships, and joint ventures, forming a multinational economic dominance. This is why the US has been promoting India as the regional leader for decades. Washington relies on India as a strategic counterbalance to China, seeking to establish its footing in the region through India.

International financial institutions like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) have promoted policies such as structural adjustment programmes, privatisation, commercialisation, and globalisation. Indian capital has been one of the major beneficiaries of these policies. This is evident in the various agreements Bangladesh has signed with India concerning electricity, water, rivers, and industrial sectors. While these agreements reflect competition between capital interests, they also highlight strategic alliances.

Over the past decade, Bangladesh has entered into agreements with India that have significantly favoured the latter's big capital interests. Previous governments also made unequal agreements with India, but the Sheikh Hasina administration showed unprecedented submission. Hasina needed a guarantee of perpetual power without elections, leading to her complete dependence on India. She openly admitted, "What we have given to India, they will remember forever." She further stated that she expected no return. However, it now seems she does seek something in return: her own security.

Whenever Bangladesh's issues with India are discussed, the 1971 Liberation War is brought up. It is true that India supported Bangladesh during our Liberation War. When Pakistan's military launched a brutal genocide, around one crore Bangladeshis took refuge in India. The Indian people provided invaluable support, demonstrating unparalleled empathy and solidarity. We must always remain grateful for this. However, it is important to note that the government in power at that time was led by Congress, not the BJP, which did not even exist then.

Another critical question is: just because the Indian people supported Bangladesh in 1971, does that mean Bangladesh should now be indebted to the Indian government? Should Bangladesh be forced to favour Indian conglomerates like Adani? Must we sacrifice the Sundarbans, our airports, seaports, and borders to serve India's interest over our own? A state is never benevolent—its actions are always driven by strategic interests. India's decision to support Bangladesh in 1971 was also strategic. However, the support from the Indian people was driven by humanity and ideology. While we remain thankful for the Indian people's past support, that does not mean that we have to give in to India's capitalist exploitation.

The people of Bangladesh have specific grievances, problems, and opinions regarding India. Among these are water and river disputes, border killings, transit issues, unbalanced trade, and political interference in Bangladesh's internal affairs. And grievances against India's current foreign policy stance are not limited to Bangladesh alone; it has also attempted to exert influence over Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka. Consequently, India has different levels of distrust, conflicts, and tensions with these countries as well. The problems between us, therefore, are not just communal issues; rather, they stem from the "big brother" attitude of a powerful state and its large capital.

For the interest of the people of the region, we badly need a peaceful, democratic South Asia. To eliminate unrest, violence, and inequality in South Asia, we need collective efforts. In this regard, it is also important to recognise how the Indian people themselves are victims of the existing system. Ultimately, the interests of the people of South Asia, including India, are fundamentally aligned.

Our common struggle should, therefore, be for a South Asia free from oppression, inequality, and imperialistic control. To achieve this, it is now more crucial than ever to build solidarity among the people of the entire region.

Anu Muhammad is former professor of economics from Jahangirnagar University.​

 

[Saif]

India seeks friendly ties with Bangladesh: Rajnath Singh

Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh has said that India seeks to uphold amicable relations with Bangladesh, just as it does with all its neighbouring countries.

en.prothomalo.com

India seeks friendly ties with Bangladesh: Rajnath Singh
Dhaka
Published: 09 Mar 2025, 14: 40

Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh UNB

Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh has said that India seeks to uphold amicable relations with Bangladesh, just as it does with all its neighbouring countries.

“India always wants to maintain good relations with its neighbours, and Bangladesh is no exception. Former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee used to say that we can change friends, but not our neighbours. So, we would like to maintain good relations with Bangladesh,” Rajnath said in an exclusive interview with IANS on Saturday.

At a media briefing in New Delhi on Friday, official spokesperson at the Indian Ministry of External Affairs Randhir Jaiswal said they support a “stable, peaceful, inclusive and progressive” Bangladesh in which all issues are resolved through democratic means and by holding “inclusive and participatory” elections.

He expressed concerns over "deteriorating law and order situation" in Bangladesh which has been further exacerbated by the release of violent extremists who were sentenced for serious crimes.

Officials of Bangladesh and India held the 86th meeting of the Joint River Commission in Kolkata where they discussed the pros and cons of renewing the 30-year-old Ganges water-sharing treaty which comes up for renewal next year.

Spokesperson Jaiswal said the two sides discussed technical issues pertaining to the Ganga Water Treaty, measurement of water flows and other issues of mutual interest.

On alleged violence against minorities, including Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, the MEA Spokesperson said they expect Bangladesh to thoroughly investigate and bring all perpetrators of killings, arson and violence to justice without making such distinctions.​