[🇧🇩] 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.​