by Maryam Noureen Janjua
India’s foreign policy has long been shaped by its strategic interest in neighboring countries, and Bangladesh has historically been a central focus of this policy. During the rule of Sheikh Hasina Wajid, Bangladesh aligned itself closely with India, benefiting from economic, political, and diplomatic ties. However, recent developments, including diplomatic tensions between the two countries, suggest that India’s influence on Bangladesh may be waning. While India has always framed its relationship with Bangladesh as mutually beneficial, recent statements from both nations, including a recent visit by Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri to Dhaka, highlight underlying tensions that reveal a complex and evolving dynamic.
On December 9, 2024, Vikram Misri visited Bangladesh for bilateral talks. During a joint press conference, he emphasized India’s desire for a “positive, constructive, and mutually beneficial relationship” with Bangladesh. However, his comments regarding “regrettable incidents of attacks on cultural, religious, and diplomatic properties” raised diplomatic concerns. Misri’s remarks, which many interpreted as an indirect reference to the treatment of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, were met with a stern rebuttal from Bangladesh’s Foreign Secretary, Mohammad Jashim Uddin. He rejected India’s comments as an intrusion into Bangladesh’s internal affairs, affirming that religious freedom was a matter for the people of Bangladesh to handle independently.
This diplomatic exchange highlights the evolving nature of the India-Bangladesh relationship and raises questions about the role of sovereignty in state-to-state relations. Despite Bangladesh’s close ties with India under Sheikh Hasina, the response from Dhaka underscores the fact that states, irrespective of their alliances, remain driven by the quest for sovereignty and self-determination. In this context, India’s waning influence over Bangladesh signals a shift in the dynamics of South Asian geopolitics. This, at the same time, is a stark reminder to Indian polity that each country in the region, regardless of its size and prowess, has an earnest desire to live beyond any external influence.
Historically, India played a significant role in the creation of Bangladesh, providing critical support during the 1971 Liberation War. In the years following independence, India and Bangladesh established strong diplomatic and economic ties. The Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, has often been seen as a party that leaned towards India, particularly in matters of trade, security, and water-sharing agreements. The two nations have collaborated on various fronts, including counterterrorism initiatives, economic cooperation, and infrastructure development. However, despite the apparent alignment, the relationship has not been without its challenges.
India’s strategic interests in Bangladesh have often led to accusations of undue influence and interference in domestic politics. For instance, India’s support for the Awami League-led government has been seen as a means of maintaining a favorable political alignment in Dhaka. Additionally, India’s role in shaping Bangladesh’s foreign policy has raised concerns about the balance of power in the region. Critics argue that India has used its political and economic leverage to impose its will on Bangladesh, particularly in areas like water-sharing agreements and security cooperation.
India’s recent statements on Bangladesh’s internal affairs underscore the tension between the principles of sovereignty and the exercise of influence in international relations. The concept of non-interference in the internal matters of sovereign states is a foundational principle in international law and diplomacy. Bangladesh’s response to India’s comments about religious attacks reflects its commitment to this principle. By asserting that religious freedom and the handling of internal issues are the prerogative of the Bangladeshi state, Dhaka is emphasizing its desire to maintain autonomy over its domestic affairs.
This is particularly relevant in the context of India’s framing of itself as a protector of Hindu minorities in neighboring countries. India’s concern for the treatment of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh is often seen as paternalistic by the Bangladeshi government. It also raises uncomfortable questions about the state of religious freedom in India itself, where religious minorities, particularly Muslims, face growing discrimination. In the recent past, several international bodies including Amnesty International and UNHRC have raised concerns about squeezing space for minorities in India.
While India is one of Bangladesh’s largest trading partners, the trade relationship is often viewed as imbalanced. India enjoys a significant trade surplus with Bangladesh, which fuels resentment within Bangladesh. Exports to Bangladesh rose from USD 3.2 billion in 2010-11 to a peak of USD 16.2 billion in 2021-22. The imposition of non-tariff barriers by India on Bangladeshi exports has further aggravated tensions, creating a perception that India’s economic policies are geared towards benefiting Indian interests at the expense of Bangladesh’s economy. In addition, India’s failure to resolve key issues such as the Teesta water-sharing agreement has led to frustration in Bangladesh.
Security concerns, particularly along the India-Bangladesh border, have also been a source of tension. The killing of Bangladeshi nationals by the Border Security Force (BSF) of India remains a contentious issue. These incidents often spark public outcry in Bangladesh and raise questions about India’s commitment to bilateral trust and respect. Bangladeshis view the killings as a violation of their sovereignty and a reflection of the lack of regard for human rights by the Indian security forces.
Moreover, the influence of Indian soft power in Bangladesh, particularly in the form of Indian media and entertainment, has been a topic of debate. Many in Bangladesh view the overwhelming presence of Indian culture and media as an erosion of local culture and identity. Critics argue that India’s soft power is not a benign cultural exchange but a strategic tool to maintain its hegemonic influence over Bangladesh. This perception has led to a growing sense of resentment, particularly among younger generations who are increasingly wary of the cultural dominance of their larger neighbor.
While the relationship between India and Bangladesh remains important, recent diplomatic exchanges indicate that Bangladesh is asserting its independence and rejecting foreign interference in its internal matters. As both countries navigate the complexities of their relationship, it is clear that India’s influence, while significant, is not absolute. Bangladesh’s growing sense of sovereignty and its refusal to allow India to dictate its internal affairs signals a shift in the region’s geopolitical landscape. In the end, both nations will need to find a balance between cooperation and mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty if they are to maintain a positive and constructive relationship.