- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 3,905
- Likes
- 2,112
Absolutely ! Brilliant observation !
[🇧🇩] Indo-Bangla Relation: India's Regional Ambition, Geopolitical Reality, and Strategic Options For Bangladesh
- Thread starter Saif
- Start date
Bangladesh Defense
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 3,905
- Likes
- 2,112
Bangladeshis may want good relations with Indian CITIZENS, but they will not sell out their country to the Indian Govt.
Such is not fair and not expected. Unfortunately, our leader Hasina has betrayed Bangladeshi interests and sold us down the river to the Indians.
Friendship and fellow-relationship does not mean capitulation.
Neighborly Relationships like these have to be at an even keel, and not one-sided and unilateral like it is at present - only benefitting Indian Govt.
We already give too much to Indian Govt. and they never acknowledge it and are still not happy.
It will be #Indiaout boycott in Bangladesh until we re-shape the current kneeling relationship that Hasina practices toward Indian Govt.
Last edited:
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,559
- Likes
- 8,667
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Only Sheikh Hasina and her party want to do the slavery of India. The majority population, on the other hand, wants to get rid of Indian clutches at the soonest. India is nobody's friend.
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,559
- Likes
- 8,667
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
What kind of friendship is this to not ask India any reciprocation?
Bangladesh-India relations strengthen as Sheikh Hasina's visit to India emphasizes friendship over reciprocity, leaving a mark on bilateral ties
en.prothomalo.com
What kind of friendship is this to not ask India any reciprocation?
Kamal Ahmed
Updated: 27 Jun 2024, 19: 27
Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in a meeting with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Hyderabad House in New DelhiFile photo
When the head of government visits a neighbouring state twice within a span of just two weeks, there certainly must be something special about the relations between the two countries. That was clear in the joint statement of the two prime ministers too. They mentioned the fact that prime minister Sheikh Hasina visited Delhi twice in a matter of two weeks, saying that this was proof of the sincerity and strength of friendship.
The Press Journal of India described the distinctiveness of these bilateral relations. Journalist Jayanta Roy Chowdhury wrote there that "Sheikh Hasina's visit to India ahead of a trip to Beijing was thus all about assuring Delhi that if there is one bright spot left where its 'Neighbourhood First' policy was working it was in the corridors of power in Dhaka."
He held up a dismal picture of India's relations with its other neighbours in South Asia, saying that its relations with Pakistan were frozen in time, Nepal has been veering towards the Chinese orbit and squabbling with India over a map which shows bits and pieces of Kumaon as part of its territory, and Bhutan, in its anxious quest to not antagonise a rising China, is currently busy negotiating its border with Beijing. (Neighbourhood Diplomacy: Dhaka, India's Only Best Friend? 23 June 2024).
Over the past few days the reports and articles appearing in the Indian press concerning Sheikh Hasina's visit mostly highlight that till now Delhi is ahead in the race with Beijing to keep Dhaka at their side.
He also reminded the readers that the president of Maldives, Mohamed Muizzu, appeared on stage with the prime minister Modi during his swearing-in ceremony, but continues in his remarkably pro-Chinese decisions including asking India to take back the few dozen soldiers posted there and cancelling several strategic discussions with India.
Sri Lanka, caught in a Chinese debt trap over expensive projects it signed up for with Beijing has recently announced that China would help "restructure" its loans and also develop more infrastructure on the island. He says, "The circumstances are such that India has only Dhaka to fall back on in the neighbourhood as a 'good friend'."
Over the past few days the reports and articles appearing in the Indian press concerning Sheikh Hasina's visit mostly highlight that till now Delhi is ahead in the race with Beijing to keep Dhaka at their side. Though the issue of Teesta River water management is in focus, the extent and expanse of the overall areas of understanding has a lot more significance.
It was undoubtedly unexpected that a nod was given to India to carry out a study without any funding proposal regarding the conservation and management of Teesta water despite the long-standing standstill in the matter of sharing Teesta's waters. However, prime minister Sheikh Hasina did say that, between the proposals or China and India, she would select which ever she felt was more beneficial.
After the Indian election, prime minister Narendra Modi's comparatively weak third term still hasn't gained momentum as yet. Despite that, prime minister Sheikh Hasina's hurried visit is obviously linked to her China schedule. While the Indian news media quite clearly points this out, we haven't quite heard anyone speak of this in such definite terms.
Deccan Herald's enthusiastic headlines read, "India elbows out China from river conservation project in Bangladesh." Kolkata's Telegraph read, "Delhi's Teesta offer to scuttle China ambition in Bangladesh, Dhaka focus on water-sharing." It wrote, "India is desperate to prevent the Teesta's management going into Chinese hands, for that will not only signal a failure of hydro-diplomacy with its most trusted neighbour but also carry major strategic concerns." Times of India wrote: "Eye on China: India to held Bangladesh conserve Teesta river."
Meanwhile, the letter sent by Mamata Banerjee to prime minister Modi in all likelihood will pose as a considerable obstacle to both management of Teesta's waters and renewal of the Ganges treaty. It is because of Mamata Banerjee's contention that river water management is the state's jurisdiction, that Delhi could not, or did not, approve the Teesta agreement for over the past decade. It would be more accurate to say "did not", rather than "could not", because if Delhi had decided upon implementing the Teesta agreement, the matter possibly would have been settled in India's Supreme Court.
It is not that the influence of geopolitics is limited to foreign policy or defence policy alone. Surely there is no need to reiterate how harmful and intense the impact is on democracy and human rights as well.
It is because of the Indian Supreme Court's role in resolving inter-state water conflicts that this reasoning may arise. After blocking Teesta, the manner in which Mamata Banerjee has written to Modi about the various complications created by Farakka, it seems that the frustration over not receiving the promised share of Ganges water will simply be exacerbated in the days to come.
There is noticeably a difference within the media in India as to whether Bangladesh has proven its trustworthiness as friend to India or not. Almost all of them have expressed concern over the direction of the movement in Bangladesh to boycott India goods, comparing this to the Maldives. But this has been outweighed by the outward expression of their satisfaction with the outcome of prime minister Sheikh Hasina's visit, despite the boycott movement.
The achievements that they list include the agreement to start talks on the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), expanding railway connectivity, joint military hardware manufacture and modernisation of the armed forces, digital and green partnership, and joint space projects. Of this, special importance has been attached to defence cooperation, as an opportunity to curb China's long-standing upper hand in this sector.
When the prime minister returned after such a trip to India in 2018, she had said that India will forever remember what we have given them (30 May 2018, at a press briefing in Ganabhaban). From the MoUs signed this time it is evident that the giving has not ended. When asked about a headline in Anandabazar Patrika to the effect that 'Bangladesh wants reciprocation from India', she had replied, "I do not want anything in return. What is there to return?" It seems she still maintains that stand of not wanting anything in return.
Europe is a good example of railway connectivity. However, our so-called connectivity can in no way be compared to the railway network throughout the European continent. The benefits of expanding our connectivity are basically restricted to India and only one side stands to gain. Only if the connectivity is extended to the entire South Asia can this be compared to Europe. Yet the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is more or less dead and that is because of the political conflict between India and Pakistan. This has now been compounded by the impact of India's political conflict with China.
It is not that the influence of geopolitics is limited to foreign policy or defence policy alone. Surely there is no need to reiterate how harmful and intense the impact is on democracy and human rights as well.
* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist
Kamal Ahmed
Updated: 27 Jun 2024, 19: 27
Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in a meeting with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Hyderabad House in New DelhiFile photo
When the head of government visits a neighbouring state twice within a span of just two weeks, there certainly must be something special about the relations between the two countries. That was clear in the joint statement of the two prime ministers too. They mentioned the fact that prime minister Sheikh Hasina visited Delhi twice in a matter of two weeks, saying that this was proof of the sincerity and strength of friendship.
The Press Journal of India described the distinctiveness of these bilateral relations. Journalist Jayanta Roy Chowdhury wrote there that "Sheikh Hasina's visit to India ahead of a trip to Beijing was thus all about assuring Delhi that if there is one bright spot left where its 'Neighbourhood First' policy was working it was in the corridors of power in Dhaka."
He held up a dismal picture of India's relations with its other neighbours in South Asia, saying that its relations with Pakistan were frozen in time, Nepal has been veering towards the Chinese orbit and squabbling with India over a map which shows bits and pieces of Kumaon as part of its territory, and Bhutan, in its anxious quest to not antagonise a rising China, is currently busy negotiating its border with Beijing. (Neighbourhood Diplomacy: Dhaka, India's Only Best Friend? 23 June 2024).
Over the past few days the reports and articles appearing in the Indian press concerning Sheikh Hasina's visit mostly highlight that till now Delhi is ahead in the race with Beijing to keep Dhaka at their side.
He also reminded the readers that the president of Maldives, Mohamed Muizzu, appeared on stage with the prime minister Modi during his swearing-in ceremony, but continues in his remarkably pro-Chinese decisions including asking India to take back the few dozen soldiers posted there and cancelling several strategic discussions with India.
Sri Lanka, caught in a Chinese debt trap over expensive projects it signed up for with Beijing has recently announced that China would help "restructure" its loans and also develop more infrastructure on the island. He says, "The circumstances are such that India has only Dhaka to fall back on in the neighbourhood as a 'good friend'."
Over the past few days the reports and articles appearing in the Indian press concerning Sheikh Hasina's visit mostly highlight that till now Delhi is ahead in the race with Beijing to keep Dhaka at their side. Though the issue of Teesta River water management is in focus, the extent and expanse of the overall areas of understanding has a lot more significance.
It was undoubtedly unexpected that a nod was given to India to carry out a study without any funding proposal regarding the conservation and management of Teesta water despite the long-standing standstill in the matter of sharing Teesta's waters. However, prime minister Sheikh Hasina did say that, between the proposals or China and India, she would select which ever she felt was more beneficial.
After the Indian election, prime minister Narendra Modi's comparatively weak third term still hasn't gained momentum as yet. Despite that, prime minister Sheikh Hasina's hurried visit is obviously linked to her China schedule. While the Indian news media quite clearly points this out, we haven't quite heard anyone speak of this in such definite terms.
Deccan Herald's enthusiastic headlines read, "India elbows out China from river conservation project in Bangladesh." Kolkata's Telegraph read, "Delhi's Teesta offer to scuttle China ambition in Bangladesh, Dhaka focus on water-sharing." It wrote, "India is desperate to prevent the Teesta's management going into Chinese hands, for that will not only signal a failure of hydro-diplomacy with its most trusted neighbour but also carry major strategic concerns." Times of India wrote: "Eye on China: India to held Bangladesh conserve Teesta river."
Meanwhile, the letter sent by Mamata Banerjee to prime minister Modi in all likelihood will pose as a considerable obstacle to both management of Teesta's waters and renewal of the Ganges treaty. It is because of Mamata Banerjee's contention that river water management is the state's jurisdiction, that Delhi could not, or did not, approve the Teesta agreement for over the past decade. It would be more accurate to say "did not", rather than "could not", because if Delhi had decided upon implementing the Teesta agreement, the matter possibly would have been settled in India's Supreme Court.
It is not that the influence of geopolitics is limited to foreign policy or defence policy alone. Surely there is no need to reiterate how harmful and intense the impact is on democracy and human rights as well.
It is because of the Indian Supreme Court's role in resolving inter-state water conflicts that this reasoning may arise. After blocking Teesta, the manner in which Mamata Banerjee has written to Modi about the various complications created by Farakka, it seems that the frustration over not receiving the promised share of Ganges water will simply be exacerbated in the days to come.
There is noticeably a difference within the media in India as to whether Bangladesh has proven its trustworthiness as friend to India or not. Almost all of them have expressed concern over the direction of the movement in Bangladesh to boycott India goods, comparing this to the Maldives. But this has been outweighed by the outward expression of their satisfaction with the outcome of prime minister Sheikh Hasina's visit, despite the boycott movement.
The achievements that they list include the agreement to start talks on the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), expanding railway connectivity, joint military hardware manufacture and modernisation of the armed forces, digital and green partnership, and joint space projects. Of this, special importance has been attached to defence cooperation, as an opportunity to curb China's long-standing upper hand in this sector.
When the prime minister returned after such a trip to India in 2018, she had said that India will forever remember what we have given them (30 May 2018, at a press briefing in Ganabhaban). From the MoUs signed this time it is evident that the giving has not ended. When asked about a headline in Anandabazar Patrika to the effect that 'Bangladesh wants reciprocation from India', she had replied, "I do not want anything in return. What is there to return?" It seems she still maintains that stand of not wanting anything in return.
Europe is a good example of railway connectivity. However, our so-called connectivity can in no way be compared to the railway network throughout the European continent. The benefits of expanding our connectivity are basically restricted to India and only one side stands to gain. Only if the connectivity is extended to the entire South Asia can this be compared to Europe. Yet the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is more or less dead and that is because of the political conflict between India and Pakistan. This has now been compounded by the impact of India's political conflict with China.
It is not that the influence of geopolitics is limited to foreign policy or defence policy alone. Surely there is no need to reiterate how harmful and intense the impact is on democracy and human rights as well.
* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,559
- Likes
- 8,667
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
The Bangladesh-India friendship dilemma
India’s current leaders along with big business oligarchy have been pursuing a one-sided foreign policy.
The Bangladesh-India friendship dilemma
There is a common perception that the bilateral relationship benefits India much more than it does Bangladesh. FILE PHOTO: AFP
India is Bangladesh's biggest neighbour. We are connected through our shared border, history, cultural traits, and language, among other things. Various threads bind us, including Bangladesh's Liberation War in 1971. Considering all this, having a friendly, healthy relationship with India is as important for us as it is for them.
However, India's current leaders along with big business oligarchy have been pursuing a one-sided foreign policy. Their dominant mindset to extend their influence in the neighbourhood has created an unbalanced relationship in South Asia. This has raised questions and created reservations among the people in other countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that, except for Bangladesh, India is not on the best terms with the South Asian governments.
As our current government has said on a number of occasions, the relationship between Bangladesh and India has reached new heights since it came to power. That is true for the government, but not for the people. And there is a common perception that this relationship benefits India much more than it does Bangladesh. Our prime minister recently went on a formal visit to India, and all the memorandums of understandings and agreements made there seem to re-establish that notion. Bangladesh's interests seem to have been downplayed considerably, and objective critical questions of our citizens have once again been ignored.
Consider the fact that Bangladesh shares the border with India on three sides, and India is putting up a barbed wire fence on this entire border. This is not an example of friendship. Surrounding an entire country is akin to holding it captive. While the Bangladesh government has not spoken against this issue, our citizens are concerned. India's reasoning behind putting up the barbed wire fence is to prevent criminals from Bangladesh from entering India. If India's understanding is that criminals are going to enter its territory from Bangladesh, how can it ask for a transit through Bangladesh? If they believe ours is a country filled with criminals who must be contained with a barbed wire fence around our entire border, how can they ensure the security of their goods while using our roads and rivers for transit? Last month, the countries agreed on railway transit through Bangladesh as well.
We have been hearing about transit benefits even before our current government came to power, with promises of billions of dollars in earnings for Bangladesh. But in reality, now that the transit is being formalised during this government's time, we are not seeing the financial benefits for us—not even one percent of what was promised. On the contrary, Dr Mashiur Rahman, the economic affairs adviser to the prime minister, once regarded demanding any such financial benefits or gains as "uncivilised." This means India will get transit benefits through Bangladesh, which gives them economic gains, while Bangladesh gains nothing. Moreover, the additional pressure on our roads, bridges, and rivers and the resulting damage to our environment, economy, and businesses will be significant.
While India will be able to transit through Bangladesh, the latter still cannot have the same access for a mere 30-40 kilometres to establish business ties with Nepal or Bhutan. Our government says that ties with Nepal and Bhutan will be established, but nothing has been formalised yet. There are many direct and indirect barriers to this, caused by India.
Also, in terms of business, thousands of Indian products find a place in Bangladesh's markets. But when it comes to exporting goods from Bangladesh to India, there are many barriers, tariffs, and non-tariffs, so we don't get the same business benefits in India as it does in Bangladesh. India is also gaining access to our seas. I can't help but ask: how can we ensure our country's national security in this state of affairs?
Then there is the water-sharing issue. Many of Bangladesh's rivers originate in India. Being upstream, India has constructed dams and other structures to control the water flow in the rivers, preventing us from getting the water we need. Instead of giving us the water, India now wants management responsibilities of the Teesta River.
The border killings have still not stopped. Even after our prime minister returned from her India tour last month, there have been reports of border killings.
Is India truly interested in the multilateral development of South Asia? To unlock the power in this region, we need to have multilateral cooperation among all the countries. Bilateral relationships can only take us so far. To justify the new bilateral agreements that happened during her recent visit to India, our prime minister mentioned the European Union as an example. But in reality, our bilateral relationship with India and the transit deal do not compare with the agreements in the EU in any way. The EU is a comprehensive economic and political system, where every country has rights over every other country, and they give the same rights to each other. Economic and communication benefits are ensured for all the countries in the EU. There is the European Central Bank, the euro currency, and an institutional structure.
A union of South Asia is truly important for our future, and that is something in which I firmly believe. But it is probably not going to be possible with India's current mindset of extending influence and the one-sided relationship-building approach. If we have a South Asian Union, we can utilise the massive amount of wealth and opportunities that lies here. Doing so can put a stop to communalism, corruption and the massive waste of wealth. It can create a multi-language, multinational, multi-ethnic community. This is only possible if the rights, wants, and needs of all the nations are ensured, and one country is not given priority over another. It should be a political demand of all the South Asian countries: a South Asian solidarity. It is for the sake of the citizens of South Asia that this should be prioritised.
The current leaders in India, and the business stakeholders, are not doing this to the rest of South Asian nations only. In truth, they are doing it to the majority of the Indian citizens as well, prioritising their own interests. So it is also for the sake of Indian citizens that a multilateral, multicultural union needs to be planned, finalised, and brought to reality. It should be clear to everyone that subordination and friendship are not the same. We want friendship, and that can only be achieved when we are treated as equals.
Anu Muhammad is a former professor of economics of Jahangirnagar University.
There is a common perception that the bilateral relationship benefits India much more than it does Bangladesh. FILE PHOTO: AFP
India is Bangladesh's biggest neighbour. We are connected through our shared border, history, cultural traits, and language, among other things. Various threads bind us, including Bangladesh's Liberation War in 1971. Considering all this, having a friendly, healthy relationship with India is as important for us as it is for them.
However, India's current leaders along with big business oligarchy have been pursuing a one-sided foreign policy. Their dominant mindset to extend their influence in the neighbourhood has created an unbalanced relationship in South Asia. This has raised questions and created reservations among the people in other countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that, except for Bangladesh, India is not on the best terms with the South Asian governments.
As our current government has said on a number of occasions, the relationship between Bangladesh and India has reached new heights since it came to power. That is true for the government, but not for the people. And there is a common perception that this relationship benefits India much more than it does Bangladesh. Our prime minister recently went on a formal visit to India, and all the memorandums of understandings and agreements made there seem to re-establish that notion. Bangladesh's interests seem to have been downplayed considerably, and objective critical questions of our citizens have once again been ignored.
Consider the fact that Bangladesh shares the border with India on three sides, and India is putting up a barbed wire fence on this entire border. This is not an example of friendship. Surrounding an entire country is akin to holding it captive. While the Bangladesh government has not spoken against this issue, our citizens are concerned. India's reasoning behind putting up the barbed wire fence is to prevent criminals from Bangladesh from entering India. If India's understanding is that criminals are going to enter its territory from Bangladesh, how can it ask for a transit through Bangladesh? If they believe ours is a country filled with criminals who must be contained with a barbed wire fence around our entire border, how can they ensure the security of their goods while using our roads and rivers for transit? Last month, the countries agreed on railway transit through Bangladesh as well.
We have been hearing about transit benefits even before our current government came to power, with promises of billions of dollars in earnings for Bangladesh. But in reality, now that the transit is being formalised during this government's time, we are not seeing the financial benefits for us—not even one percent of what was promised. On the contrary, Dr Mashiur Rahman, the economic affairs adviser to the prime minister, once regarded demanding any such financial benefits or gains as "uncivilised." This means India will get transit benefits through Bangladesh, which gives them economic gains, while Bangladesh gains nothing. Moreover, the additional pressure on our roads, bridges, and rivers and the resulting damage to our environment, economy, and businesses will be significant.
While India will be able to transit through Bangladesh, the latter still cannot have the same access for a mere 30-40 kilometres to establish business ties with Nepal or Bhutan. Our government says that ties with Nepal and Bhutan will be established, but nothing has been formalised yet. There are many direct and indirect barriers to this, caused by India.
Also, in terms of business, thousands of Indian products find a place in Bangladesh's markets. But when it comes to exporting goods from Bangladesh to India, there are many barriers, tariffs, and non-tariffs, so we don't get the same business benefits in India as it does in Bangladesh. India is also gaining access to our seas. I can't help but ask: how can we ensure our country's national security in this state of affairs?
Then there is the water-sharing issue. Many of Bangladesh's rivers originate in India. Being upstream, India has constructed dams and other structures to control the water flow in the rivers, preventing us from getting the water we need. Instead of giving us the water, India now wants management responsibilities of the Teesta River.
The border killings have still not stopped. Even after our prime minister returned from her India tour last month, there have been reports of border killings.
Is India truly interested in the multilateral development of South Asia? To unlock the power in this region, we need to have multilateral cooperation among all the countries. Bilateral relationships can only take us so far. To justify the new bilateral agreements that happened during her recent visit to India, our prime minister mentioned the European Union as an example. But in reality, our bilateral relationship with India and the transit deal do not compare with the agreements in the EU in any way. The EU is a comprehensive economic and political system, where every country has rights over every other country, and they give the same rights to each other. Economic and communication benefits are ensured for all the countries in the EU. There is the European Central Bank, the euro currency, and an institutional structure.
A union of South Asia is truly important for our future, and that is something in which I firmly believe. But it is probably not going to be possible with India's current mindset of extending influence and the one-sided relationship-building approach. If we have a South Asian Union, we can utilise the massive amount of wealth and opportunities that lies here. Doing so can put a stop to communalism, corruption and the massive waste of wealth. It can create a multi-language, multinational, multi-ethnic community. This is only possible if the rights, wants, and needs of all the nations are ensured, and one country is not given priority over another. It should be a political demand of all the South Asian countries: a South Asian solidarity. It is for the sake of the citizens of South Asia that this should be prioritised.
The current leaders in India, and the business stakeholders, are not doing this to the rest of South Asian nations only. In truth, they are doing it to the majority of the Indian citizens as well, prioritising their own interests. So it is also for the sake of Indian citizens that a multilateral, multicultural union needs to be planned, finalised, and brought to reality. It should be clear to everyone that subordination and friendship are not the same. We want friendship, and that can only be achieved when we are treated as equals.
Anu Muhammad is a former professor of economics of Jahangirnagar University.
Last edited:
Saif
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 18,559
- Likes
- 8,667
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Hasan Mahmud meets Jaishankar in New Delhi
Bangladesh Foreign Minister Hasan Mahmud today held a meeting with his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar in New Delhi and discussed ways to further promote bilateral ties
Hasan Mahmud meets Jaishankar in New Delhi
Photo: X/Dr S Jaishankar
Bangladesh Foreign Minister Hasan Mahmud today held a meeting with his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar in New Delhi and discussed ways to further promote bilateral ties.
After the meeting, Jaishankar wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "Good to meet Bangladesh FM @DrHasanMahmud62 this evening in New Delhi."
In a separate post, he said, "The frequent high-level exchanges reflect the strength of India-Bangladesh Maitri. Discussed ways of advancing it further."
Mahmud, who had accompanied Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on a visit to China recently, is in New Delhi to attend the two-day meeting of Foreign Ministers of BIMSTEC countries -- Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand, reports our New Delhi correspondent.
Photo: X/Dr S Jaishankar
Bangladesh Foreign Minister Hasan Mahmud today held a meeting with his Indian counterpart S Jaishankar in New Delhi and discussed ways to further promote bilateral ties.
After the meeting, Jaishankar wrote on X, formerly Twitter, "Good to meet Bangladesh FM @DrHasanMahmud62 this evening in New Delhi."
In a separate post, he said, "The frequent high-level exchanges reflect the strength of India-Bangladesh Maitri. Discussed ways of advancing it further."
Mahmud, who had accompanied Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on a visit to China recently, is in New Delhi to attend the two-day meeting of Foreign Ministers of BIMSTEC countries -- Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand, reports our New Delhi correspondent.
