When the Environment for Talks Is Unfavourable, There Is Little Reason for Optimism

Bangladesh is no longer the country it was five decades ago. It has matured, accumulated experience, and developed relations with an increasingly diverse group of countries. Its diplomacy, too, is changing.

There is little scope today for an uncompromising, one-sided approach to foreign relations.

National interest must remain the highest priority, while global realities and regional geopolitics must also be carefully considered.

This is particularly important in Bangladesh’s relationship with India.

Prime Minister Tarique Rahman has received invitations to visit India, including one from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi on September 12-13.

Dhaka has said that the invitation is under consideration. More importantly, Bangladesh has made clear that a conducive environment is necessary before the Prime Minister undertakes such a visit.

That position should not be interpreted as hostility towards India. Rather, it reflects a basic diplomatic principle: dialogue becomes meaningful when both sides have sufficient confidence that their concerns will be heard and addressed.

The deterioration in Dhaka-New Delhi relations following the political upheaval in Bangladesh in 2024 has left a number of unresolved issues.

India provided shelter to former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina after her departure from Bangladesh, while Dhaka has subsequently sought her extradition.

India has acknowledged receiving the request and stated that it is examining the matter under its applicable legal framework and judicial procedures.

For Bangladesh, this is not merely an abstract diplomatic question; it has acquired considerable political and legal significance. At the same time, India has its own legal procedures and national interests.

A durable solution, therefore, requires serious diplomatic engagement rather than public rhetoric.

The appointment of Dinesh Trivedi as India’s new High Commissioner to Bangladesh has created an opportunity for such engagement.

Trivedi assumed office in June and has since spoken positively about the prospects for improving bilateral relations.

In July, he said that there were no problems between the two countries that could not be resolved through mutual understanding, and he expressed the hope that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s visit to India would help move relations forward constructively.

Such optimism is welcome, but optimism alone cannot resolve difficult bilateral questions.

The Indian envoy’s argument—that once the two leaders sit together, the problems will gradually be resolved—sounds attractive.

Diplomacy, however, is rarely that simple. If personal chemistry between political leaders were sufficient, many long standing disputes around the world would have disappeared long ago.

The Teesta issue provides an obvious example.

Bangladesh and India have maintained close political relations at different times, yet a long-term water-sharing agreement on the Teesta has remained elusive.

The issue has political, economic, and humanitarian consequences for millions of people, particularly in northern Bangladesh.

Even now, both sides speak of dialogue and mutual understanding, but the core dispute remains unresolved.

Dhaka has increasingly signalled that it cannot simply wait indefinitely for a solution. Bangladesh has also explored cooperation with China on the development of the Teesta basin.

India, understandably, watches such developments closely because the river and the proposed projects have strategic as well as environmental implications.

This does not mean Bangladesh wants to choose China over India; that would be a false choice.

Bangladesh has important interests in maintaining good relations with all major powers and neighbouring countries.

Japan, China, and other development partners have played significant roles in Bangladesh’s infrastructure development.

The United States and European countries are vital to Bangladesh’s trade, investment, and export markets, particularly the ready-made garment sector.

Millions of Bangladeshis work abroad, especially in Muslim-majority countries, and their remittances are an important pillar of the national economy.

Bangladesh has also been seeking closer relations with Pakistan while maintaining its traditional ties with other partners.

The sensible policy, therefore, is not to become an appendage of any major power, but rather to maintain balanced relations with all, based on mutual respect and national interest.

Geography makes India particularly important. Bangladesh shares a long border with India and is connected to it by rivers, roads, railways, trade routes, culture, and history.

Cooperation between the two countries is indispensable in areas such as water management, border security, connectivity, energy, trade, and environmental protection.

But geographical proximity also makes mutual sensitivity essential.
Recent developments in West Bengal illustrate how historical memory can influence contemporary perceptions.

In June, Kolkata’s Suhrawardy Avenue was renamed Gopal Mukherjee Road by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

The decision generated considerable controversy because of the historical and communal associations surrounding the names involved.

Historical accounts also point out that the original road was named after Sir Hassan Suhrawardy, a physician and former Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, rather than Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the political leader associated with the 1946 Calcutta violence.

Whatever the historical interpretation, such symbolic actions inevitably have political and emotional consequences in the region.

Responsible diplomacy requires sensitivity to how such developments are perceived across borders.

Bangladesh, meanwhile, has made relatively modest demands. It has asked India to refrain from provocative statements against Bangladesh and has sought the return of convicted persons under the bilateral extradition framework.

Dhaka is waiting for substantive responses. The credibility of any renewed dialogue will depend partly on whether such concerns are addressed.

The people of Bangladesh have not forgotten their history. They have struggled for political rights, economic justice, and national dignity.

The country’s independence was not achieved so that Bangladesh could become a satellite of another state.

Bangladesh may be smaller than India in territory and population, but size does not determine a nation’s dignity.

A sovereign state expects its larger neighbour to recognise its legitimate interests, just as it must recognise the legitimate interests of its neighbour.

There is, therefore, every reason for Bangladesh and India to improve their relations, and there is no reason for either country to seek permanent confrontation. But friendship cannot be sustained by rhetoric alone.

It must be supported by fairness, reciprocity, restraint, and tangible progress on outstanding issues.

If New Delhi genuinely wants Prime Minister Tarique Rahman’s visit to open a new chapter in bilateral relations, the best preparation would be to create the conducive environment that Dhaka has asked for.

A successful summit should not merely produce warm photographs and reassuring statements; it should produce a roadmap for resolving the issues that have created mistrust.

The door to dialogue should remain open. But before asking Bangladesh to walk through that door, both sides must ensure that the atmosphere inside is conducive to a meaningful conversation.

(The writer is the Advisory Editor of The New Nation)