[🇧🇩] Should we discard our Existing foreign policy and formulate a new one.

[Saif]

Date of Event: Feb 26, 2025

Source : https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/bangladesh-must-discard-its-archaic-foreign-policy-3833226 Short Summary: Discussing the relevance of our foreign policy in the current world order.

Bangladesh must discard its archaic foreign policy

VISUAL: SIFAT AFRIN SHAMS

The mass uprising of July-August 2024 has not only shaken Bangladesh's internal political structure but also brought a monumental shift in its foreign policy and diplomatic approach. One significant outcome has been the government's newfound ability to distinguish between its true allies and adversaries in the international arena. This signifies a break from past submissive policies, marking a new era in Bangladesh's diplomacy—one that prioritises national dignity, self-respect, and equal status on the global stage.

For decades, Bangladesh followed the policy of "friendship to all, malice to none," a principle inherited from its early years of independence. However, the events of 2024 have exposed the weaknesses of this antiquated dogma. A sovereign nation cannot afford to extend equal friendship to all while ignoring the power dynamics and self-interest that define global politics. Instead, Bangladesh must embrace a pragmatic and strategic foreign policy that acknowledges global realities, while serving its own interests.

The government's recent stance reflects a break from dependency-based diplomacy. Despite knowing that India will not support its current leadership, the government has declared its intent to rely on the people rather than foreign powers. This newfound assertiveness signals a shift towards an independent and self-respecting approach, aligning foreign policy with the aspirations of its citizens rather than external pressures.

However, breaking free from a redundant foreign policy is not a new phenomenon; many nations have recalibrated their diplomatic strategies. China embraced economic openness in 1978, Turkey diversified alliances in the 2000s, and France asserted sovereignty in 1966. Yet, Bangladesh's previous regime long adhered to outdated policies, resisting necessary shifts in global engagement.

It prioritised select alliances over national interest and maintained a one-dimensional approach, compromising sovereignty and economic potential. This failure to modernise left Bangladesh diplomatically weak and economically dependent, hindering progress.

However, the previous regime's foreign policy was not merely about "friendship to all"—it extended "extra friendship" to certain countries, often at the cost of Bangladesh's sovereignty. A clear example of this was seen in transit and transshipment agreements with India. Economists and pro-government analysts promoted the idea that Bangladesh would achieve economic prosperity similar to Singapore through these arrangements. However, rather than benefiting from a win-win scenario, Bangladesh found itself trapped in one-sided agreements where its interests were repeatedly undermined. This realisation, fuelled by public sentiments in the wake of the mass uprising, has led to a re-evaluation of diplomatic engagements. Moving forward, Bangladesh must engage only with those who respect its sovereignty, and distance or insulate itself from those who exploit its resources under the guise of cooperation.

A nation's foreign policy should be a reflection of its people's aspirations. For Bangladesh, these aspirations are deeply rooted in the Liberation War of 1971, which was fundamentally a struggle for self-respect and human dignity. The uprising of 2024 has reignited these values, demanding that Bangladesh's diplomatic strategies uphold the same principles that guided its fight for independence.

First, human dignity must be a core principle in foreign relations. Bangladeshis are a major labour force across the globe, and their rights and dignity abroad must be a priority in diplomatic negotiations. Without a strong foreign policy that protects Bangladeshi citizens internationally, the nation will fail to assert itself as a dignified global player.

Also, the legal protection, fair wages, and humane treatment of the growing Bangladeshi diaspora seeking opportunities abroad must be ensured, making them an integral part of foreign agreements. If Bangladesh does not demand equal respect on the global stage, its citizens will continue to face discrimination and exploitation abroad.

This shift marks a significant departure from the submissive policies of previous administrations which often prioritised economic concessions over national pride. The government's new approach emphasises equal status, ensuring that Bangladesh is not treated as a subordinate in global negotiations.

Another key transformation in Bangladesh's foreign policy is the pursuit of equal dignity among nations. This principle dictates that Bangladesh, regardless of its economic or geopolitical stature, must be treated as an equal partner in international relations.

The United Nations Charter guarantees equal dignity to all nations, including Bangladesh, ensuring that no country, regardless of its size or economic power, is treated as inferior in international relations. Article 1(2) affirms the right of all peoples to self-determination and equal participation in global affairs, reinforcing that Bangladesh has the same standing as any other nation.

Similarly, Article 2(1) upholds the sovereign equality of all UN member states, meaning Bangladesh has the right to be treated as an equal partner in diplomacy, trade, and negotiations.

The UN Charter gives Bangladesh the legal and moral foundation to demand equal treatment, ensuring that it engages with the world on its own terms. This shift is not an act of defiance but a rightful alignment with international law, allowing Bangladesh to emerge as a respected and independent voice in global affairs.

Therefore, Bangladesh must reject policies that position it as a dependent state. Just as countries like Belarus, Chile, Mexico, and Pakistan assert their sovereignty, Bangladesh must demand the same level of respect. This shift in policy requires a strong leadership stance, one that refuses to bow to international coercion and instead negotiates from a position of strength. For that, sustainable diplomatic strategy is needed which will ensure that Bangladesh remains resilient against external pressures while steadily strengthening its global influence.

Historically, Bangladesh has been positioned as a "soft state," easily manipulated by regional and global powers. The uprising of 2024 has fuelled a new confidence, pushing the nation to adopt a bargaining stance rather than a submissive one. By shifting from reactive diplomacy to proactive engagement, Bangladesh can strengthen its democracy and economic standing without compromising its values.

The July-August uprising has redefined Bangladesh's approach to governance and diplomacy. The movement has not only exposed internal injustices but also highlighted the flaws of Bangladesh's submissive foreign policy. As the country moves forward, the following principles must guide its diplomatic path: i) self-respect over subordination; ii) human dignity beyond borders; iii) equal status among nations; iv) sovereignty above external influence; and v) a sustainable, assertive approach to foreign policy.

The era of passive foreign policy is over—a new Bangladesh is emerging, and it refuses to be dictated by external forces and instead asserts itself as an equal and sovereign player on the global stage.

Alauddin Mohammad is the secretary of international relations and diplomacy at the Jatiya Nagorik Committee.​

 

[Saif]

What should Bangladesh’s foreign policy be in the changing world order?

Cool-headed rationality standing with feet on the bedrock of pragmatic realism.

images.thedailystar.net

What should Bangladesh’s foreign policy be in the changing world order?

Bangladesh is like a walnut, caught in the jaws of two nutcrackers in today’s world. PHOTO: COLLECTED

These days, I witness a lot of societal fulminations on the directions and goals of our foreign policy. Having been an active practitioner for almost four decades and a continuing interested observer for well over a decade, I am not a little disturbed at some of the things I hear. Perhaps I hear incorrectly, but what I worry about more is that the external actors with whom we maintain interstate relations may also be hearing, and misinterpreting, as incorrectly as I.

A few years ago, I wrote in The Daily Star, "A fundamental dictum in foreign policy formulation and analysis is unquestionably this: each country, as a sovereign, independent nation-state, contextualises its every move or action within the overall rubric of preservation and advancement of its own national interest. Therefore, each party, in any bilateral relationship, must acknowledge and be fully conscious of these mutual constraints, and also respect 'where' the other party is coming 'from.' It takes two to tango, as they say, and if each dancer in performing this very difficult and complex choreography is not in tune, innately, with the partner, a misstep or miscue would end in serious accident or injury to one or both."

Writing in the annual Journal of the Bangladesh Foreign Service Academy last year, I asserted that our foreign policy configuration must be "buttressed by a hard-nosed pragmatism and understanding that while one may choose one's friends, one cannot choose one's neighbourhood; and that while friendship may exist between peoples and persons (which even then are vulnerable to change), 'friendship' between states is primarily driven by the national demands of each state, rendering such friendship very protean in nature." In this context, friendship between states may best be described as being the state of relatively happy equilibrium between two or more states that have managed to arrive at a mutually acceptable alignment or coexistence of their national interests that serves everyone in perceptibly equitable measure.

When formulating the parameters of foreign relations with other states, whether far or near, there are several essential factors that need to be considered.

First, geography matters. It encompasses geolocation, geomorphology, and geopolitics.

Second, size matters. It alludes to the physical size in terms of land (and water) areas in possession. It also, importantly, alludes to the size of population, combined military capacities, economy including GDP and GDP per capita, and the state of technological advancement.

Third, perception matters. This not only encompasses how the governments of interacting states perceive each other, but also how the domestic population of each state views its governments or governments of other states, near or far from it.

All of the above are variables with their own subsets. They comprise a complex mix that can be volatile and subject to spontaneous combustion by the slightest spark. We can address these either with viscerally charged, emotionally soaked jingoism, or cool-headed rationality standing with feet on the bedrock of pragmatic realism.

The world we know has witnessed two World Wars in the last century. Each ended with global political geography being changed, ending the status quo ante. Former empires crumbled; new states were formed while some were broken apart. Ironically, the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I generated the drivers for World War II. The Wilsonian idealism that eluded the closure of World War I was brought out of the woodworks after World War II, putting in place institutions and building blocks of what was touted by the Allied victors as the "New World Order." The basic unit comprising this new order was the state, which was to be looked upon by all others as being equal in the "comity of nations," their borders hard, impermeable and inviolable, their sovereignty supreme, not brooking any interference in their internal affairs.

The superpowers that emerged set up the new international financial institutions and rules through putting in place the Bretton Woods system. They set up global institutions like the United Nations and its General Assembly and numerous organs like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or much later the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Human Rights Commission, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and so on.

While the UN was set up with the loftily stated ideal of preventing any repetition of the scourge of war, a goal that was to be ensured by the UN Security Council, the most powerful entities of this so-called New World Order have been the instigators or supporters of most wars or conflicts after 1945. While the most powerful are supposed to safeguard a rules-based world order, the last decade has shown that the principles of inviolability of borders, state sovereignty and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the state are flouted, egregiously, by the most powerful of states.

We appear to be already in the early throes of a World War III, with principles of state "sovereignty" and state borders being "inviolable" being rendered figments of the imagination. The mighty can impose their wills on anyone they please, and change borders and lives of settled peoples at their will. The UN, the ICJ, The ICC, and the WTO have all proven to be made of clay. Political geography in former Eastern Europe and Middle East are already being reconfigured from their hitherto accepted positions since 1945. The only overriding principle of inter-state relations today appears to be increasingly the axiom "Might is right." All prior agreements, supposedly inviolable, can be revoked at will. All smaller, less powerful states, anywhere or everywhere, have never been more vulnerable and fragile than they are today.

In such a situation, what should Bangladesh do in what is obviously a far more hostile world today than what existed at the time of its birth, almost five and a half decades ago?

At a recent gathering at the Foreign Service Academy, our foreign affairs adviser asserted that Bangladesh seeks friendship with all countries and does not want to take side with any one country or power against any other. He was absolutely right.

Bangladesh must look at the map of Asia and its own geomorphological location in that. It is almost entirely surrounded by India, which controls all rivers as upper riparian. It is "spitting distance" away from China, the Asian giant aspiring to superpower status and already the second largest economy in the world. By virtue of its propulsion of being at the epicentre of our oceanic planet, with the Bay of Bengal where it is centrally located bridging the Indian Ocean with the Pacific Ocean, Bangladesh finds itself in the strategic crosshairs of competing (or contesting) global powers, located near or far. Its socioeconomic vulnerabilities and the aspirations of its largely youthful population, demanding better lives and opportunities for themselves, necessitate that we must stay out of geopolitical conflicts that will derail our development efforts. Internal internecine factional strife will be self-defeating, even self-destructing.

We must endeavour to develop friendly, mutually beneficial cooperation with all nations, whether they be our immediate neighbours or near neighbours, whether to our east in Southeast and East Asia, or to our west in South, Southwest and Central Asia, without exception.

We must at the same time strive to have peaceful, friendly and mutually beneficial cooperation with all powers, in Asia, Africa, Europe or Americas, regardless of whether those powers behave with each other in terms of friendship or animosity. Ours must be a policy not of isolation with anyone, nor seeking confrontation with anyone, but living in peace with all and promoting peace among all.

Since the earliest times, at least from Fourth Century CE, our location in the Bay of Bengal propelled us to become the richest region, or Mughal suba (province), Colonial British India's presidency. That enabled all the countries of the Bay of Bengal region to comprise a living, thriving, prosperous integrated economic region that invited global covet and respect. World War II fragmented that hitherto regional integration, just as it fragmented our own subcontinent.

We must now collaboratively strive to work with our Bay of Bengal neighbours to ensure that our Bay, from which we derive our identity and historical legacy, remains a zone of peace, neutrality, prosperity and friendship, serving once again as it did in the earlier times as the highway for peaceful interlocution between states and peoples, inclusively, whether in the Eastern or Western Hemisphere. We should strive to be a catalyst for fashioning a fraternity for the Bay of Bengal Economic Cooperation.

Bangladesh is like a walnut, caught in the jaws of two nutcrackers in today's world. One nutcracker is regional, comprising the competing jaws that are India and China. The other nutcracker is global, its jaws comprising the US-led Indo-Pacific narrative facing off the China-led BRI. We must be with both, without being against either. The shell of the walnut gains its strength and firmness from within, and so must we, through developing internal resilience.

Within South Asia, we must champion better relations and cooperation with all countries, from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka, even if some of them have indifferent or even hostile relations with each other. Their fights should not be our fights, but our peace and friendship must also be theirs to emulate. Our policy must strive to tread the razor-edge path of "strategic autonomy"that walks with "active neutrality."

Tariq Karim, a former ambassador of Bangladesh, is currently president of the Bay of Bengal Institute of the Cosmos Foundation, and adviser to the Centre for Bay of Bengal Studies at Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB).​

 

[Saif]

Bangladesh’s foreign policy mistakes

New Age, a Dhaka-based leading English language daily newspaper, is a major source of news of Bangladesh and international affairs

www.newagebd.net

Bangladesh’s foreign policy mistakes
Md Himel Rahman 02 March, 2025, 00:00

JOHN Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, used to say, ‘domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us.’ This statement signifies the importance of foreign policy of a nation. Indeed, the possession of foreign policy autonomy is a cardinal attribute of sovereignty – the most important element of a state. However, while every state strives to attain its national interests through its foreign policy, a number of factors, including miscalculations, inefficiency, lack of clear objectives and passivity, can lead states into making mistakes in foreign policy.

Mistakes in foreign policy often harm the national interests of states, resulting in political-diplomatic crises, economic-financial losses, or military-strategic reversals. In some cases, foreign policy mistakes can prove deadly for states. For instance, the decision of Napoleon to invade Spain and Russia ruined the French empire; the decision of Kaiser Wilhelm II to concurrently wage wars on Russia and France ultimately destroyed the Second Reich; the decision of the National Socialists to invade the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wrecked the Third Reich; and the decision of the Soviet Politburo to engage in a Cold War against both the Western World and China ultimately shattered the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Since its emergence as an independent state in 1971, Bangladesh has so far succeeded in avoiding foreign policy mistakes of this magnitude. Still, several significant mistakes in Bangladesh’s foreign policy can be identified. These mistakes can be divided along two lines — theoretical and practical case-based.

Theoretical mistakes

FIRST, since the independence of Bangladesh, the theoretical foundation of its foreign policy is primarily based on Article 25 of the constitution and the two maxims ‘friendship to all, malice towards none’ and ‘non-alignment.’ In reality, Bangladesh lacks any long-term foreign policy and instead, its foreign policy is conducted on day-to-day basis. Thus, Bangladesh has so far failed to develop a long-term, well-articulated and coherent foreign policy.

Second, apart from the concise Indo-Pacific outlook, Bangladesh has not yet managed to produce any strategy paper related to its foreign and security policy. Bangladesh’s Indo-Pacific outlook is not as comprehensive and focused as the US Indo-Pacific strategy, and it does not have a foreign policy concept, national security strategy, military doctrine, or naval doctrine.

Third, the political actors in Bangladesh have so far failed to reach a national consensus over foreign policy, because their views of what constitutes Bangladesh’s ‘true’ interests differ widely. Consequently, the change of government in Bangladesh often results in substantial changes in its foreign policy, resulting in an incoherent and short-sighted foreign policy.

Finally, there is a strong tendency to prioritise regime interests over national interests among Bangladeshi policymakers. Accordingly, governments in Bangladesh sometimes pursue foreign policies to further their narrower party-political objectives at the expense of wider national interests.

Hence, the absence of a well-defined foreign policy, the failure to develop national strategy papers related to foreign policy, the lack of a national consensus and the prioritisation of regime interests over national interests have been major mistakes of Bangladesh’s foreign policy.

Case-based mistakes

SINCE its independence, Bangladesh has made several mistakes in making foreign policy decisions on specific issues, and accordingly, it had to face severe consequences.

The decision to export jute and jute products to Cuba in 1974 proved to be a major political disaster for the country. Since Cuba was a communist state closely aligned with the USSR and was subject to a US economic blockade, the US retaliated by suspending food aid to Bangladesh. This, coupled with a devastating flood, contributed to a deadly famine in Bangladesh in 1974, which killed more than a million people. Ultimately, Bangladesh had to abandon its trade with Cuba to facilitate the resumption of US food aid. However, the famine played a significant role in fostering dissatisfaction among the people against the government and is considered to be a major contributing factor in the fall of the Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s administration in August 1975.

Then comes the failure to repatriate stranded Pakistanis to Pakistan. During the late 1970s and 1980s, and again in the early 2000s, Bangladesh shared relatively cordial ties with Pakistan, yet Dhaka failed to exert significant political-diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to repatriate the stranded Pakistanis. Consequently, the stranded Pakistanis, often unintegrated into the mainstream society and involved in criminal activities.

Bangladesh’s inability to capitalise on the Afghan war (1979–1989) proved to be a missed opportunity. During the Afghan war, Pakistan acted as a frontline state for the US and received billions of dollars and massive shipments of advanced weaponry in return. During the 1980s, Bangladesh strongly opposed the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and generally pursued a pro-US foreign policy. Initially, the US had accorded $80 million to Bangladesh in the context of the Afghan war, but the Ershad administration failed to capitalise on the crisis by gaining more economic and military aid from the western powers.

Furthermore, during this period, the government chose to turn a blind eye to the movement of volunteers from Bangladesh to Afghanistan. Later, these Afghan war veterans, known as the Mujahids, created violent extremist groups, such as the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh, which emerged as a serious national security threat to Bangladesh.

Failure to formulate a well-defined and long-term policy towards Myanmar in general and the Rakhine state/Arakan in particular has been a major foreign policy mistake. Bangladesh faced repeated influxes of Rohingya refugees from Arakan, including in 1978, 1991–1997 and 2017–2018, but has not developed a sustainable strategy to deal with the Rohingya crisis. Also, owing to the historical ties between Bengal and Arakan, Bangladesh had an opportunity to develop some sort of ‘special relationship’ with the Arakanese, including both the Rakhines and the Rohingyas, but no concrete step has ever been undertaken by Dhaka in this direction.

Policy towards India, irrespective of the government in power in Dhaka, has not always succeeded in protecting the state’s national interests. In dealing with India, the governments led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jatiya Party have traditionally chosen balancing, while the governments led by the Bangladesh Awami League have usually opted for bandwagoning. Neither approach has achieved substantial success, as demonstrated by the regular killings of Bangladeshi civilians by the Indian Border Security Force, the persistent Indian refusal to share the waters of trans-boundary rivers, the continued Indian occupation of the South Talpatti Island and the Muhurir Char, the ongoing dispute about the continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal, and the growing anti-Bangladeshi rhetoric inside India. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has made substantial unilateral concessions to India, including the crackdown on northeastern Indian insurgents inside its territory and the provision of transit and transshipment facilities, but has received nothing of note in return. The failure to develop a robust foreign policy vis-à-vis India and to utilise all instruments at its disposal, including international legal measures, has been a major mistake for Dhaka.

For the most part, Bangladesh’s policy vis-à-vis the Russian-Ukrainian war has been a correct one. However, Dhaka missed an important opportunity. Following the outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war, a number of states, including China, India, Brazil, Turkey and Pakistan, purchased large amount of crude oil from Russia at cheap prices, taking advantage of the western sanctions on Russia. Through this, they not only ensured their energy security but also earned hard currency by re-exporting some of the imported Russian crude oil to western states. However, Bangladesh failed to utilise the opportunity owing to the fear of western reactions and the reported inability of Bangladeshi oil refineries to refine Russian crude oil.

Taking into account the existing conditions in South Asia and the near-inoperativeness of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the region is unlikely to witness regional integration in the foreseeable future. Since Bangladesh is located at the crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, Dhaka has an option to pursue a ‘look east’ policy with the view to closer integration with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. By doing so, Bangladesh can attempt to reduce its overdependence on India. However, Bangladesh has not accorded priority to its partnership with the ASEAN, and consequently, no notable progress has been made in this regard.

Bangladesh has been one of the foremost contributors of personnel to the United Nations peace operations in Africa. Yet, Bangladesh’s political, economic and security ties with sub-Saharan African states remain minimal and Dhaka has so far undertaken few initiatives to expand its diplomatic, economic and security footprints on the Sub-Saharan Africa. As the successes of Bangladeshi entrepreneurs in South Sudan indicate, Africa presents large-scale opportunities for the country. Dhaka has made a mistake in not identifying and utilizing these opportunities properly.

Finally, Bangladesh’s reactive policy towards its neighbourhood has been a serious weakness in its foreign policy. Bangladesh has two neighbours — India and Myanmar and the wider neighbourhood includes Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and China. However, Bangladesh often lacks in-depth knowledge about its neighbours. In particular, Bangladesh lacks sufficient knowledge about the conditions in West Bengal, Northeast India, Rakhine state and Chin state, which share borders with Bangladesh. Consequently, Bangladesh is often confronted with foreign policy shocks from its immediate neighbourhood. For instance, the Arakan Army has been operating in the immediate vicinity of Bangladesh for more than a decade. Yet when the Arakan Army’s conquest of Maungdaw resulted in a new influx of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh, it came as a shock to many Bangladeshis.

Since its independence, Bangladesh’s foreign policy has been based on weak theoretical foundations and its failure to articulate robust and interest-driven foreign policy in dealing with the great powers as well as neighbouring states, coupled with its propensity to miss or ignore new opportunities, have harmed the country’s national interests to a considerable degree. Accordingly, Bangladesh should formulate well-articulated, comprehensive and pragmatic foreign policy documents, stop conflating regime interests with national interests and be more calculative, proactive and interest-driven in implementing its foreign policy decisions.

Md Himel Rahman is a Dhaka-based freelance analyst on international and strategic affairs.​

 

[Saif]

Dhaka’s foreign policy now entirely our own: Khalilur Rahman

National Security Adviser and High Representative to the Chief Adviser on the Rohingya issue and priority matters Dr Khalilur Rahman Bangladesh's foreign policy is now entirely their own instead of depending on any country to shape it. "We are no longer reliant on any country to shape it. This mar

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Dhaka’s foreign policy now entirely our own: Khalilur Rahman
UNB
Published :
Apr 13, 2025 23:45
Updated :
Apr 13, 2025 23:45

National Security Adviser and High Representative to the Chief Adviser on the Rohingya issue and priority matters Dr Khalilur Rahman Bangladesh's foreign policy is now entirely their own instead of depending on any country to shape it.

"We are no longer reliant on any country to shape it. This marks a clear reflection of our strategic autonomy," he said describing the visit of Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus to China as a "historic milestone".

Speaking at a seminar, the High Representative also highlighted imperatives for the future beyond the exigency of the present and stressed the significance of employment generation, productivity enhancement, technology immersion, relocation of manufacturing units and supply chain linkages.

"We never view our relationships with China and India as a zero-sum game; rather, our objective is to maintain meaningful and balanced relations with both," he said.

The South Asian Institute of Policy and Governance (SIPG) at North South University (NSU) hosted the high-level seminar titled "Reassessing Sino-Bangla Relations: Chief Adviser's Landmark Visit" at the university's Syndicate Hall.

The event brought together diplomats, scholars, media professionals, and policymakers to explore the evolving contours of Bangladesh-China relations following the recent visit of the Chief Adviser to Beijing.

Yao Wen, Ambassador of the People's Republic of China to Bangladesh, also addressed the seminar as a guest of honour.

Prof Abdul Hannan Chowdhury, Vice-Chancellor of NSU, chaired the session.

Ambassador Yao praised the visit as symbolic and substantive.

He reiterated China's commitment to deepening cooperation with Bangladesh beyond politics, including future education, healthcare, and people-to-people contact.

The ambassador reflected on broader global economic shifts: "This visit reaffirms that our relationship is not based on government change but on people-to-people solidarity."

Dr Liu Zongyi, Senior Research Fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), emphasised the sociocultural and strategic value of bilateral relations.

Dr Liu stressed China's readiness to support Bangladesh's post-LDC graduation and to expand trade and investment cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Mohammad Sufiur Rahman, Senior Research Fellow at SIPG, pointed to transboundary water cooperation and agricultural, vocational, and technical educational training as key areas for future engagement with people's interests at the centre beyond the government-of-the-day-centric approach.

He noted that Bangladesh has long been expecting a meaningful Chinese role in the stabilisation of Rakhine and the improvement of the security situation there so as to create a conducive environment for the repatriation of the Rohingya.

Syed Shahnawaz Mohsin, a foreign affairs analyst, urged a balanced perspective on the outcomes of the visit.

"This is not a one-off event," he said. "It's part of a broader process of foreign policy recalibration."

Professor Sk. Tawfique M. Haque, Director of SIPG, who moderated the event, concluded with a call to build sustained platforms for dialogue.

"This visit reflects a critical foreign policy shift toward regaining Bangladesh's strategic autonomy. At SIPG, we remain committed to fostering informed, inclusive, and policy-relevant academic discussions."

The keynote presentation was delivered by Dr. Mohammed Nuruzzaman, Professor of Political Science and Sociology at NSU.

He noted, "Since the July Revolution, Bangladesh's foreign policy has undergone a strategic recalibration, with relations with China entering a new phase."

He further emphasised how tensions in Bangladesh-India relations have influenced the trajectory of Bangladesh-China ties.

Vice-Chancellor Prof. Abdul Hannan Chowdhury expressed gratitude to all speakers and guests.

He reaffirmed NSU's commitment to research-based policy engagement. He noted that the partnerships built through this visit-including MOUs in investment, technology, and healthcare – represent tangible steps forward for the youth and future of Bangladesh.​

 

[Krishna with Flute]

It should be a gradual shift. It is not possible to discard old policy and move to new policy whether it is foreign policy or any other policy.

 

[Saif]

It should be a gradual shift. It is not possible to discard old policy and move to new policy whether it is foreign policy or any other policy.

We just have to remove India from our priority list. Indian hostility will no longer be tolerated. Peace.

 

[Bilal9]

We just have to remove India from our priority list. Indian hostility will no longer be tolerated. Peace.

My thoughts exactly.

I hope Indian politicians and their business leaders will see the long term benefit of treating Bangladesh as an equal business partner and with respect, sometime in the future, as opposed to the current attitude prevalent in India, which stresses dealing with Bangladesh as a country to exploit unequally - because the people of Bangladesh "owes India something" or because India is capable of "controlling Bangladesh internal politics and narratives".

But I am not holding my breath.

Until that realization comes in India, Bangladesh leadership will forego India as a 'preferred' trading partner and will protect its market from unfair Indian trading practices.

 

[Saif]

My thoughts exactly.

I hope Indian politicians and their business leaders will see the long term benefit of treating Bangladesh as an equal business partner and with respect, sometime in the future, as opposed to the current attitude prevalent in India, which stresses dealing with Bangladesh as a country to exploit unequally - because the people of Bangladesh "owes India something" or because India is capable of "controlling Bangladesh internal politics and narratives".

But I am not holding my breath.

Until that realization comes in India, Bangladesh leadership will forego India as a 'preferred' trading partner and will protect its market from unfair Indian trading practices.

In order to force India into establishing a bilateral relation with Bangladesh based on mutual respect and interest, we must ban Awami League from Bangladesh politics. Awami League is the greatest Indian as& licker who has a slave mentality.

 

[Bilal9]

In order to force India into establishing a bilateral relation with Bangladesh based on mutual respect and interest, we must ban Awami League from Bangladesh politics. Awami League is the greatest Indian as& licker who has a slave mentality.

That is most likely going to happen. India has let go of their loser horse AL and started their bribing campaign toward semi-bootlickers BNP and other political parties in Bangladesh.

They even tried to bribe Sarjis Alam, one of the student coordinators, as divulged in the Bangladesh media yesterday. Don't know the veracity of the report.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

We just have to remove India from our priority list. Indian hostility will no longer be tolerated. Peace.

You say this because you haven't yet seen the hostility of India. The day we will become hostile, you will not have rice to eat.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

My thoughts exactly.

I hope Indian politicians and their business leaders will see the long term benefit of treating Bangladesh as an equal business partner and with respect, sometime in the future, as opposed to the current attitude prevalent in India, which stresses dealing with Bangladesh as a country to exploit unequally - because the people of Bangladesh "owes India something" or because India is capable of "controlling Bangladesh internal politics and narratives".

But I am not holding my breath.

Until that realization comes in India, Bangladesh leadership will forego India as a 'preferred' trading partner and will protect its market from unfair Indian trading practices.

We had treated BD with preferential treatment but dog can not digest ghee. Our export is 820 BN USD. We don't want a sh*t share of trade from BD. We don't want any trade with treacherous people who hate us.

 

[Bilal9]

You say this because you haven't yet seen the hostility of India. The day we will become hostile, you will not have rice to eat.

We had treated BD with preferential treatment but dog can not digest ghee. Our export is 820 BN USD. We don't want a sh*t share of trade from BD. We don't want any trade with people treacherous people who hate us.

Ooooo! Someone is angry!!

The preferential treatment was only given to Indian stooge Hasina, to help Modi and gang loot Bangladesh.

What're you going to do?

There is actually little India can do - other than scream expletives through Godi media or the mouth of Gobar Arya.

There is a saying in Bangladesh, "Accha ho jao bhai, accha honesey paisey nahi lagta"....

Suit yourselves....

 

[Saif]

The day we will become hostile, you will not have rice to eat.

If you don't sell rice to us then we will buy rice from China, Vietnam, Thailand, and Pakistan. Tell your rice growers to stop selling rice to Bangladesh. I am sure they don't want to lose a lucrative market like Bangladesh.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

If you don't sell rice to us then we will buy rice from China, Vietnam, Thailand, and Pakistan. Tell your rice growers to stop selling rice to Bangladesh. I am sure they don't want to lose a lucrative market like Bangladesh.

But when you will become self sufficient in even food grain. I think you should advice this to Younus who asked India to supply rice instead of China and other nation you mentioned. Please exclude Pakistan. They begs for everything from everywhere.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Ooooo! Someone is angry!!

The preferential treatment was only given to Indian stooge Hasina, to help Modi and gang loot Bangladesh.

What're you going to do?

You see, BD is a rogue nation so helping BD in Hasina regime is not helping BD for many of their citizens. BD is their country only when their favorite government is in power.

 

[Saif]

You see, BD is a rogue nation so helping BD in Hasina regime is not helping BD for many of their citizens. BD is their country only when their favorite government is in power.

No, Bangladesh is not a rogue nation. It is India which is a rogue nation which is hated by all its neighbors.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

No, Bangladesh is not a rogue nation. It is India which is a rogue nation which is hated by all its neighbors.

hated by Rouge nations only and not by civilized nation. One of that nation is ruled by a dictator who has declared himself a life time dictator. Rest 2 are fake democracy where elected government is treated like a condom. Any elected prime minister can be toppled any time by any military dictator. They are either puppet of military or get toppled or hanged or killed any time.

 

[Saif]

hated by Rouge nations only and not by civilized nation. One of that nation is ruled by a dictator who has declared himself a life time dictator. Rest 2 are fake democracy where elected government is treated like a condom. Any elected prime minister can be toppled any time by any military dictator. They are either puppet of military or get toppled or hanged or killed any time.

India is the only nation in the world which elects a murderer as a prime minister. India is in the process of being a radical Hindu nation. Peace.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

India is the only nation in the world which elects a murderer as a prime minister. India is in the process of being a radical Hindu nation. Peace.

Hindus can not be radical as Hindus have many holy books, many messengers and many gods unlike Abrahamic religions having one book , one messenger and one god. Their messenger is a pedophile, their god directs how to kill non-believers and their book is a terror manual which directs the way to torture non-believers, how to distribute mal e ganimat, how to distribute sex slave etc. Such a kind of book in required to keep 1.8 Bn Jahils in sixth century mentality in 21st century.

 

[Saif]

Hindus can not be radical as Hindus have many holy books, many messengers and many gods unlike Abrahamic religions having one book , one messenger and one god. Their messenger is a pedophile, their god directs how to kill non-believers and their book is a terror manual which directs the way to torture non-believers, how to distribute mal e ganimat, how to distribute sex slave etc. Such a kind of book in required to keep 1.8 Bn Jahils in sixth century mentality in 21st century.

Hindus elect a heinous murderer as a prime minister. Hindu religion promotes murderers and racists. Radical Hindus are threats to mankind. Hinduism is a fake religion and all the Hindu Gods are not for real. They exist only in fairy tale.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Hindus elect a heinous murderer as a prime minister. Hindu religion promotes murderers and racists. Radical Hindus are threats to mankind. Hinduism is a fake religion and all the Hindu Gods are not for real. They exist only in fairy tale.

Pakistan be baad tum logo ka number hai bhikh mango. Ask your Younus why he was begging for a meeting. Sab ka ilaj hoga. Wait for few days and see what happens with Pakistan. Next will be your turn. Shyam tak nahi lad paoge. Chicken neck will be converted into elephant neck. Tum log paida hi jalil hone ke liye hue ho. You will soon meet your destiny.

 

[Saif]

Pakistan be baad tum logo ka number hai bhikh mango. Ask your Younus why he was begging for a meeting. Sab ka ilaj hoga. Wait for few days and see what happens with Pakistan. Next will be your turn. Shyam tak nahi lad paoge. Chicken neck will be converted into elephant neck. Tum log paida hi jalil hone ke liye hue ho. You will soon meet your destiny.

Kashmir attacks will not end as long as India keeps doing what it is doing in Baluchistan. India is the source of all terrorism in South Asia and Canada. Tamil Tiger, Shanti Bahini, BLA are the creation of India. It is high time all the neighbors of India unite and destroy it.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Kashmir attacks will not end as long as India keeps doing what it is doing in Baluchistan. India is the source of all terrorism in South Asia and Canada. Tamil Tiger, Shanti Bahini, BLA are the creation of India. It is high time all the neighbors of India unite and destroy it.

Attack on Indian begun in 1948 when Balochistan issue was not there. You guys have bad habits of wishful thinking and applying illogical arguments everywhere.

Now answer me one thing. Why did Pakistani army killed 3 million Bengalis and raped one million of your women? What Bangladesh had to provoke Pakistan so much? Why Pakistan has bad relations with Iran and Afghanistan, their brotherly Islamic nations?

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Hindus elect a heinous murderer as a prime minister. Hindu religion promotes murderers and racists. Radical Hindus are threats to mankind. Hinduism is a fake religion and all the Hindu Gods are not for real. They exist only in fairy tale.

Had he been even 1% of what you say, BD would have been divided in 4 Parts by now at least. Had Hinduism been fake, it would not have been the only surviving religion and civilization of the world. The specialty of Islam is that it convinces its believer that their forefathers were radicals, they used to worship false god. Thats is why China calls Islam a mental disease. If you are an Islamist, you are bound to be a mentally *&*&*&*&*&*&.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

No, Bangladesh is not a rogue nation. It is India which is a rogue nation which is hated by all its neighbors.

How many times in BD the elected government were toppled? This happened in rogue nations only.

 

[Saif]

Attack on Indian begun in 1948 when Balochistan issue was not there. You guys have bad habits of wishful thinking and applying illogical arguments everywhere.

Now answer me one thing. Why did Pakistani army killed 3 million Bengalis and raped one million of your women? What Bangladesh had to provoke Pakistan so much? Why Pakistan has bad relations with Iran and Afghanistan, their brotherly Islamic nations?

Pakistan used force in 1948 to get Kashmir which was under India's illegal occupation. The partition was done along the religious line. The Muslim majority regions were supposed to join Pakistan and the Hindu majority regions were supposed to join India. But India broke this rule and illegally occupied Kashmir.

It is true that the two wings of Pakistan could not get along well and had to separate but rest assure we will not give you the chance to play politics with this. The statistics that you have put forth is not correct. Right after the independence of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujib put forth the unsubstantiated claim that 3 million Bengalis were killed by the Pakistan army. The United Nation refused to acknowledge Mujib's statistics because it was not backed by proper evidences.

 

[Saif]

Had he been even 1% of what you say, BD would have been divided in 4 Parts by now at least. Had Hinduism been fake, it would not have been the only surviving religion and civilization of the world. The specialty of Islam is that it convinces its believer that their forefathers were radicals, they used to worship false god. Thats is why China calls Islam a mental disease. If you are an Islamist, you are bound to be a mentally &&&&&&.

Your claim of Hinduism being the only surviving region is false. It is the BJP/RSS version of Hinduism that you are promoting on this forum. Have respect for other religions.

 

[Saif]

How many times in BD the elected government were toppled? This happened in rogue nations only.

The political instability in Bangladesh hasn't caused any harm to its neighbors. So, Bangladesh is not a rogue nation. But India's foreign policy has affected almost all its neighbors in various ways which makes India a rogue nation. Period.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

The political instability in Bangladesh hasn't caused any harm to its neighbors. So, Bangladesh is not a rogue nation. But India's foreign policy has affected almost all its neighbors in various ways which makes India a rogue nation. Period.

Ohhhh we kept your more than 1 crore refugees , taxed our people to feed bhule Bangalis and you say that it has not harmed the neighbors. Chakmas run away from BD to take refuge in India and you say that neighborhood is not affected.

 

[Saif]

Ohhhh we kept your more than 1 crore refugees , taxed our people to feed bhule Bangalis and you say that it has not harmed the neighbors. Chakmas run away from BD to take refuge in India and you say that neighborhood is not affected.

First off, your statistics is incorrect. Second of all, sending Bangladeshi nationals to India is not Bangladesh's state policy. Chakmas would not have taken refuge in India if your government did not help Shanti Bahini by providing arms and ammunition to wage insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

First off, your statistics is incorrect. Second of all, sending Bangladeshi nationals to India is not Bangladesh's state policy. Chakmas would not have taken refuge in India if your government did not help Shanti Bahini by providing arms and ammunition to wage insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts.

This is an acceptance of Bangladeshi state sponsored terrorism.

 

[Saif]

This is an acceptance of Bangladeshi state sponsored terrorism.

How did you come to this conclusion? You have serious comprehension problem.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

It is true that the two wings of Pakistan could not get along well and had to separate but rest assure we will give you the chance to play politics with this.

Chakmas would not have taken refuge in India if your government did not help Shanti Bahini by providing arms and ammunition to wage insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts.

What does this mean Billu? Assume that India really does that. Will you oppress your own citizens to take take revenge? You don't find anything wrong in this? That is why I say that BD is a rogue state. It is full of Jahil, radical Mullahs whose thinking is dominated by a terror manual called Quran.
@Bilal9

 

[Saif]

What does this mean Billu? Assume that India really does that. Will you oppress your own citizens to take take revenge? You don't find anything wrong in this? That is why I say that BD is a rogue state. It is full of Jahil, radical Mullahs whose thinking is dominated by a terror manual called Quran.
@Bilal9

Where did I say Bangladesh oppressed its own people? The Chakmas were the victims of insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts sponsored by the state machinery of India. Due to the insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts, the daily lives of all the residents in Chittagong Hill Tracts became unbearable which forced the Chakmas and others to migrate to India for safety. The Indian sponsored insurgency in CHT claimed 40000 lives of Bengalis. Many military personnel got killed while fighting the insurgency sponsored by India. Terrorist India provided arms, ammunition, training to Shanti Bahini. Your pathetic country tried to dismember Bangladesh.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Where did I say Bangladesh oppressed its own people? The Chakmas were the victims of insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts sponsored by the state machinery of India. Due to the insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts, the daily lives of all the residents in Chittagong Hill Tracts became unbearable which forced the Chakmas and others to migrate to India for safety. The Indian sponsored insurgency in CHT claimed 40000 lives of Bengalis. Many military personnel got killed while fighting the insurgency sponsored by India. Terrorist India provided arms, ammunition, training to Shanti Bahini. Your pathetic country tried to dismember Bangladesh.

Ohhh so the victims of Indian sponsored terrorism in BD flee from their houses to take refuge in India. Is that your logic? Or India oppressed BD citizens to flee from their houses to come to India as migrant. This illogical wishful thinking makes BD a rogue nation.

 

[Saif]

Ohhh so the victims of Indian sponsored terrorism in BD flee from their houses to take refuge in India. Is that your logic? Or India oppressed BD citizens to flee from their houses to come to India as migrant. This illogical wishful thinking makes BD a rogue nation.

India sponsored insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tract to disintegrate Bangladesh. In this endeavor the tribal people of CHT were friends and the Bengalis were enemies of India. Shanti Bahini, the puppet of RAW, sent Chakmas and other tribal people to India for safety so that they can concentrate on killing as many Bengalis as possible.

Let me enlighten you about India's terrorist activities against its own people. Indian army killed thousands of Sikhs in Amritsar, Killed Muslims in Kashmir, Gujarat and Assam. India created several terrorist organizations to use them against its neighboring countries. A few of such terrorist organizations were Shanti Bahini, Baluchistan Liberation Army, Tamil Tigers and Karen rebel groups.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

India sponsored insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tract to disintegrate Bangladesh. In this endeavor the tribal people of CHT were friends and the Bengalis were enemies of India. Shanti Bahini, the puppet of RAW, sent Chakmas and other tribal people to India for safety so that they can concentrate on killing as many Bengalis as possible.

Let me enlighten you about India's terrorist activities against its own people. Indian army killed thousands of Sikhs in Amritsar, Killed Muslims in Kashmir, Gujarat and Assam. India created several terrorist organizations to use them against its neighboring countries. A few of such terrorist organizations were Shanti Bahini, Baluchistan Liberation Army, Tamil Tigers and Karen rebel groups.

Had R&AW decided to disintegrate BD, BD would have disintegrated a little ng back. It was your Bengali radicals who used to oppress Chakmas. Had Shanti Bahini been sponsored by India, why would they do anything against Chakmas? Rather, they would cleanse Bengalis from that area so that Chakma's majority can be established.

It was Shikh militant who killed thousands of Hindus before Indian army finished them off. Tamil tigers emerged in response of inhuman atrocities of Srilankan army. Srilanka had no guts to flight Tamil Tigers. They could finish of TT with the help of India. *&*&*&*&*&*&*& Pakistani army is killing Hindus in Kashmir for 4 decades. Now you will see in few days what is done to them. Then next term will be yours. Pot of Sin of Pakistani army is now full. They would get disproportionate response this time. Modi has told this. BD shall be the next. Wait for your turn. The day we shall do that, you will realise how kind India was, who are inspite of all capacities tried its best to maintain best relationship with BD. Till then, keep bluffing and keep begging rice.

 

[Bilal9]

Hindus can not be radical as Hindus have many holy books, many messengers and many gods unlike Abrahamic religions having one book , one messenger and one god. Their messenger is a pedophile, their god directs how to kill non-believers and their book is a terror manual which directs the way to torture non-believers, how to distribute mal e ganimat, how to distribute sex slave etc. Such a kind of book in required to keep 1.8 Bn Jahils in sixth century mentality in 21st century.

@PakistanProud, @Old School, @ghazi and @Mainerik brothers, just an FYI.

 

[Bilal9]

Ohhhh we kept your more than 1 crore refugees , taxed our people to feed bhule Bangalis and you say that it has not harmed the neighbors. Chakmas run away from BD to take refuge in India and you say that neighborhood is not affected.

Refugees were fed and housed by UNHCR and other Western sources, India didn't do anything other than keep a cut of the money.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Refugees were fed and housed by UNHCR and other Western sources, India didn't do anything other than keep a cut of the money.

We had taxed our citizen by way of taxing railway and bus tickets to feed 10s of millions of Bhukha Bengalis entering India. They were victims of their own army who wanted to change the genes of Bengalis. Since then, we have been helping BD by one way or other. BD has survived only because of India. Now we have reduced our help. Just watch what happens to BD in couple of years.

 

[Bilal9]

We had taxed our citizen by way of taxing railway and bus tickets to feed 10s of millions of Bhukha Bengalis entering India. They were victims of their own army who wanted to change the genes of Bengalis. Since then, we have been helping BD by one way or other. BD has survived only because of India. Now we have reduced our help. Just watch what happens to BD in couple of years.

Oh we will do just dandy Krishan Dada.

In fact we have banned most of the Indian imports which is nothing off our backs. Just stop "helping" us - we don't NEED YOUR HELP !!

The time when Modi could freely exploit our economy is long gone. Indian businesses got rich by exploiting Bangladesh to the tune of at least $10 Billion market a year on average since 1971, which is lately (officially) $16 Billion a year at last count. Selling shoddy Indian goods to us and forcing Indian imports on us so we could not develop our own industrial infra.

This is NOT counting Medical tourism and retail tourism by Bangladeshis in India (to the tune of at least $20 Billion a year), Indian remittance sucked away from Bangladesh by illegal Indian workers (visa overstayers) - Bangladesh is the fourth largest (now maybe third largest) source of remittance for India which is probably in the range of some $15 Billion a year.

These will all be halted now - Bahaduri ka baat-chit mat kijiye....

No wonder Modi and company is so angry....

 

[Saif]

Had R&AW decided to disintegrate BD, BD would have disintegrated a little ng back. It was your Bengali radicals who used to oppress Chakmas. Had Shanti Bahini been sponsored by India, why would they do anything against Chakmas? Rather, they would cleanse Bengalis from that area so that Chakma's majority can be established.

It was Shikh militant who killed thousands of Hindus before Indian army finished them off. Tamil tigers emerged in response of inhuman atrocities of Srilankan army. Srilanka had no guts to flight Tamil Tigers. They could finish of TT with the help of India. &&&&&&*& Pakistani army is killing Hindus in Kashmir for 4 decades. Now you will see in few days what is done to them. Then next term will be yours. Pot of Sin of Pakistani army is now full. They would get disproportionate response this time. Modi has told this. BD shall be the next. Wait for your turn. The day we shall do that, you will realise how kind India was, who are inspite of all capacities tried its best to maintain best relationship with BD. Till then, keep bluffing and keep begging rice.

First off, you have serious comprehension problem. Second of all, your RSS trained brain would not accept anything other than the fact that all of your neighbors are bad and India is an angel. Also you overestimate the capability of your armed forces. It was your army which got spanked by the Tamil Tigers. Scores of Indian army personnel got killed at the hands of Tamil Tigers which forced the Indian government to bring back your army promptly.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

In fact we have banned most of the Indian imports which is nothing off our backs. Just stop "helping" us - we don't NEED YOUR HELP !!

This is fair. Moreover, you haven't banned anything. Not more than a month ago, you asked for rice and other food products. You requested Adani to restore electricity supply. In response to we canceled shipment agreement, you have responded some fake ban as a result of face saving. However, I well come that as well. Muizu also asked India to quite. In couple of months, ended up giving more island as under different name. Anyhow, I well come all ban on Indian products by BD irrespective of reason behind that.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

First off, you have serious comprehension problem. Second of all, your RSS trained brain would not accept anything other than the fact that all of your neighbors are bad and India is an angel. Also you overestimate the capability of your armed forces. It was your army which got spanked by the Tamil Tigers. Scores of Indian army personnel got killed at the hands of Tamil Tigers which forced the Indian government to bring back your army promptly.

So far as neighbours is concerned, we have problem mainly with 2 nations. Primarily only 1. Both are radical Islamists nation who are totally dysfunctional. Pakistan has issues with Afghanistan, Iran and India. BD has issues with Myanmar and India. Both are radical Islamists nation with very bad reputation. They are so radical that their citizens are lined up separately and strip searched. They come here teaches RSS brain how it is not good. They advise a country known as CEO fectory of world how they have regressive thinking.

So far as capacities is concerned, we had the capacities to create a country like BD 54 years back when US was fully in support of Pakistan.

 

[Saif]

So far as capacities is concerned, we had the capacities to create a country like BD 54 years back when US was fully in support of Pakistan.

You did not win the war against Pakistan all by yourselves. Our Mukti Bahini fought for 9 months and crippled the Pakistani army and this is precisely why the Indian armed forces could finish the war in just 13 days. We lost hundreds of thousands of people in the war. You glorify your 13 days war against Pakistan but conveniently forget our Mukti Bahinis 9 months long war against the Pakistani army. Our 2 hundred thousands Mukti Bahini soldiers sacrificed so much for the nation which you conveniently deny. It's a shame.

 

[Krishna with Flute]

You did not win the war against Pakistan all by yourselves. Our Mukti Bahini fought for 9 months and crippled the Pakistani army and this is precisely why the Indian armed forces could finish the war in just 13 days. We lost hundreds of thousands of people in the war. You glorify your 13 days war against Pakistan but conveniently forget our Mukti Bahinis 9 months long war against the Pakistani army. Our 2 hundred thousands Mukti Bahini soldiers sacrificed so much for the nation which you conveniently deny. It's a shame.

Your Mukti bahini was a toy made by R&AW. Had your Mukti bahini had that much of power, 3 million of Bangladeshis wouldn't have been butchered by Punjabi army and not about million of your women been raped. Kahan Gaya tha tumhara Mukti bahini?

 

[Saif]

Your Mukti bahini was a toy made by R&AW. Had your Mukti bahini had that much of power, 3 million of Bangladeshis wouldn't have been butchered by Punjabi army and not about million of your women been raped. Kahan Gaya tha tumhara Mukti bahini?

You are a monumental stupid who is not ready to accept any fact other than the fact promoted by RSS. Idiot listen, in 13 days war against Pakistan 18 thousand of your mighty Indian soldiers got killed at the hands of the Pakistani army. Bangladesh is a densely populated country and a 9 month long war could kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed people. If our Mukti Bahini did not resist the Pak army then the number of deaths could have been even more. Your mighty army intervened in 3rd December 1971. What was our Mukti Bahini doing in the previous 9 months of the war? They were fighting the Pakistani army without any help from the Indian army. The war started in 25th March 1971. Why did your super strong army intervene in 3rd December but not in 25th March? Was your super strong army drinking cow cola in the meantime?

 

[Krishna with Flute]

You are a monumental stupid who is not ready to accept any fact other than the fact promoted by RSS. Idiot listen, in 13 days war against Pakistan 18 thousand of your mighty Indian soldiers got killed at the hands of the Pakistani army. Bangladesh is a densely populated country and a 9 month long war could kill hundreds of thousands of unarmed people. If our Mukti Bahini did not resist the Pak army then the number of deaths could have been even more. Your mighty army intervened in 3rd December 1971. What was our Mukti Bahini doing in the previous 9 months of the war? They were fighting the Pakistani army without any help from the Indian army. The war started in 25th March 1971. Why did your super strong army intervene in 3rd December but not in 25th March? Was your super strong army drinking cow cola in the meantime?

You are such a typical Islamists idiot who thinks that the biggest genocide of 3 million people was less and it could have been more. Who trained Mukti bahini and gave them weapons? Your lungi army on 2025 can not even defeat the rogue Arakan army in 2025 and you claims to defeat Pukjabi army in 1971? Can you defeat Pakistani army with all your bahinis and BD army put together? You can not do it today than how did you do that in 1971? You are presenting Pukjabi army as macho army today and proudly bluff about genociders of Bangladeshis but you forget that 93000 of that macho army had surrendered in front of us in world's biggest ever surrender. I have never seen people being so proud of their own genociders. I have not seen people proud of an army with a history of world's biggest ever surrender. This is how C grade losers and people without self-esteem behave.

 

[Saif]

You are such a typical Islamists idiot who thinks that the biggest genocide of 3 million people was less and it could have been more.

I think your English is poor. I was emphasizing the point that if Mukti Bahini did not take up arms against the Pakistani army the death toll could have been more.

Who trained Mukti bahini and gave them weapons?

The training was provided to the freedom fighters mostly by the East Bengal Regiment. The Indian army did provide training to Mujib Bahini though. But Mujib Bahini had a different agenda who latter killed so many pro-Peking freedom fighters. Most of the arms of Mukti Bahini came from the stock of East Bengal Regiment. Some were looted from the Pakistani army and some were donated by the Indian army.

Your lungi army on 2025 can not even defeat the rogue Arakan army in 2025 and you claims to defeat Pukjabi army in 1971?

Bangladesh army has no reason to wage a war against Arakan Army. But if Arakan Army breaches our sovereignty they will be given befitting reply. Arakan Army has captured the military bases of the Myanmar army but operating within the limits of Myanmar border so no military response was given by Bangladesh army.

Can you defeat Pakistani army with all your bahinis and BD army put together?

There were only 4 light infantry divisions of Pakistani army deployed in East Pakistan. So our Mukti Bahini did not have to face the full strength of the Pakistani army. Actually they faced only a fraction of the total strength of Pakistani army.

You are presenting Pukjabi army as macho army today and proudly bluff about genociders of Bangladeshis but you forget that 93000 of that macho army had surrendered in front of us in world's biggest ever surrender.

Nowhere in my post did I present Pakistani army as macho. You just manufactured it. Pakistani troops and their family members were included in the 93000 figure that you have posted.

I have never seen people being so proud of their own genociders

Whatever you have said above has been manufactured by your RSS trained brain. It has no truth in it.