Whenever I talk about Bangladesh-India relations, I remember two incidents from a long time ago, around or a little after the birth of Bangladesh. The first was in Dhaka in the third week of December 1971; the second in Siliguri in West Bengal in the middle of 1974.
After Victory Day, Dhaka became a happy city but completely chaotic. There were processions in the streets, often of young people, some with rifles (freedom fighters or posturing as such), but all carrying the flag of Bangladesh. For the first couple of days, Indian troops were seen with military vehicles but very few police. There were many foreign journalists, especially Indians, on the streets. One of these Indian journalists I met was in a house in Dhanmondi. In that house lived a senior officer of our civil service, Mokammel Haq, in whose house I often spent time when I left Manikganj subdivision under duress in October, 1971.
The journalist came to know Mokammel Haq by chance and used to come to meet him after Indians arrived in Dhaka. I met the journalist at Haq’s home. He used to ask us with great interest about the events of 1971. This journalist once told us that he had been allowed by Indian army officials to go to Dhaka Cantonment to meet some imprisoned Pakistani army officers. The day after his visit I went to see the reporter. He excitedly narrated his visit and interview of the imprisoned army officers. He was surprised to see that they were staying not in a prison but in bungalows even though under army guard.
He didn't say much about what questions he asked or answers. But I will always remember what he said at the end: “You know, a senior officer said a strange thing to me at the end of the interview. He said to me, you are an Indian. You don't know the Bengalis. They are treacherous. The way the Bengalis are driving us out today, they will drive you out after a few days. Can you tell me why he said that?” The reporter asked in surprise. I said it was probably because he was in great shock and anger at the defeat of Pakistan.
It is difficult to say how much surprise or disbelief was behind the Indian journalist's question, but it is conceivable that he did not want to believe the words of the Pakistani army officer that Bangladesh would develop dislike for India, a country which helped bring independence to Bangladesh. On the flip side should Bangladesh be always grateful to India and behave like a debtor?
The second incident took place in July 1974 in Siliguri, West Bengal. I went there as a member of a delegation of Bangladesh through the Banglabandha border of then Thakurgaon subdivision by road. The road was closed during the Pakistan period. The delegation went to discuss with the Indian Oil Company how to bring fuel from Jalpaiguri to Dinajpur-Rangpur by road. Our talks lasted four days. The discussion was held in the conference room of the oil company. We used to go to the conference room from the rest house every day in our own government car. I had a Land Rover, while others had Toyotas. Our cars were parked in the conference room car park. The oil company officials who negotiated with us had Indian cars such as Hindustan Standard or Ambassador.
One day my driver asked me, "Sir, can India take over our country?" When I retorted why he was asking such a strange question, he said that he had been listening to local drivers in the parking lot the day before. The drivers were asking each other where the foreign cars were coming from. When one driver said ‘Bangladesh,’ the first one asked again where Bangladesh was. Then a third driver said, ‘hey, this is a new country, which was another country before. But don't worry, after a few days it will be like Sikkim for us’.” After saying this, my driver asked in a tone of fear, “Sir, can this happen?” I laughed at him out loud and dismissed it as gossip -- but whenever I say something about India-Bangladesh relations, this dialogue comes to mind.
Although these two anecdotes are two years apart, the events reflect India's thoughts on its Bangladesh relations from the beginning of our existence as a sovereign country. The first was the surprise of an Indian journalist that Bangladesh may view Indian soldiers like Pakistanis in the foreseeable future. And the second showed how the common people of India initially saw the independence of Bangladesh. In fact, how the people of India, whether journalists, businessmen, or completely apolitical people viewed Bangladesh from the beginning influenced the bilateral relations between India and Bangladesh.
From the War for Independence to post-independence, India's intent was to have a government in Bangladesh, which would be a great ally of India, if not a vassal state. Second, India had put great efforts to ensure that the Bangladesh government did not allow communal parties any room in politics. Third, a government in Bangladesh that would facilitate an unfettered trade relationship with India. The first government of Bangladesh was able to do two of the first three, although the third was the India-Bangladesh Trade Agreement in 1972 and later renewed in 1973. The main pillar of India's first goal was the India-Bangladesh Friendship Treaty of 1972. The 25-year agreement was signed in March 1972 by visiting Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and our own Sheikh Mujib. One immediate result of the agreement was Indira Gandhi's withdrawal of Indian troops from Bangladesh ahead of the earlier planned. (But the agreement was disliked by many in Bangladesh, especially left-wing parties.)
After the bloody change of government in August 1975, it was feared that India might not only break with Bangladesh but also try to install a subservient administration again through military operations. But due to the political wisdom of the then Indian government and the prevailing international situation, India observed the situation in Bangladesh for quite some time and maintained normal relations between the two countries. Relations which continued for the next two decades, although at that time two military commanders were the supreme leaders of Bangladesh, part under Martial Law and part under a pseudo democracy. India-Bangladesh relations were more or less tolerant towards each other.
India's relationship with Bangladesh had a dramatic shift after the elections of 1996 when the Awami League won, ousting the government of Bangladesh Nationalist Party with Jamaat-e-Islam, and formed the government for the first time since the 1975 coup. It was a matter of regret, however, that due to the short-sightedness of this government and some rash political decisions, the BNP defeated this party in the next election and formed the government again. Serious political instability and violence during this latter period, resulting from confrontational politics between government and opposition parties, resulted in the military once again intervening and installing a caretaker government in 2006. This caretaker government had the blessings of major international powers, including India. India, once again had a vested interest in seeing a pro-Indian party in government.
India-Bangladesh relationship soared high again after the Awami League returned to power in 2009 under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina. It has been remarked that Sheikh Hasina was allied with India by legacy since her party and the founder of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujib, have been favourably disposed towards India. To further strengthen this relationship, Sheikh Hasina signed one agreement after another with India after forming her second government, which took India-Bangladesh relations to a new level -- these agreements included the transfer of enclaves, transit agreements, electricity imports, and preliminary agreements for rail links with India's northeastern states through Bangladesh. It is also said that to ensure safeguards of India and uninterrupted continuance of these treaties, the Modi government made all efforts (overt and covert) to keep Sheikh Hasina in power in the next three elections of Bangladesh (2014, 2018, and 2024).
But Sheikh Hasina won the elections at the cost of losing people’s support and exacerbating common people’s resentment and rage toward India. Sheikh Hasina retained her power, but India lost the support of the people of Bangladesh. The culmination of this dislike and anger would be seen in the July Revolution of the last year which led to the fall of Sheikh Hasina's government and Sheikh Hasina’s flight to India.
The Indian government, especially the present one, not only wants a friendly administration in Bangladesh but a loyal one. For the first four years, Bangladesh's bilateral relations with India were very good because Sheikh Mujib, with his wisdom and his extraordinary personality, had tactfully guided the Indian government to keep this relationship at a respectable level. But India’s attitude changed rapidly after the sudden assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the military coup in Bangladesh. The relationship was stressful between the countries for the next 20 years under President Ziaur Rahman and then President Ershad. However, both military leaders managed the relationship tactfully, but also due to political pragmatism of Indian leaders of the period. But it is not so now since the fall of Sheikh Hasina and her government in 2024.
Today, 54 years after the birth of Bangladesh, we are once again discussing yet another rift in India-Bangladesh relations. Was the relationship flawed from the beginning, or did it gradually decay over time? Did the honeymoon end after August 1975?
The irony is that, after the fall of the Sheikh Mujib government, for the next 20 years, two army chiefs ruled the country (first under martial law and then with their own political party), but none of them followed the policy of appeasement of India. In these decades, neither the Indian government nor the Indian media had termed Bangladesh as “anti-India”. The question is, why is there so much bitterness in India-Bangladesh relations after the fall of Sheikh Hasina's government? Does India think that with Sheikh Hasina's removal from Bangladesh, India has lost its control over our country? When Sheikh Mujib and his party were removed from power in Bangladesh nearly 50 years ago, did India end relations with us? It didn't. Fifty years later, why would this relationship be in doubt?
There are a few realities to keep in mind about India and Bangladesh. First of all, Bangladesh is not the gift of any country -- it is the result of a movement of crores of people, a struggle, with which India joined hands. Bangladesh has never had any conflict with India. The second reality is that India is the only neighbour of Bangladesh whose 1,800 miles of territory is surrounded by India. In fact, India is on the other side of the courtyard of many houses in Bangladesh. Third, the language and culture of Bangladesh have been closely associated with West Bengal for ages. There is no conflict or adversity here. The reason for which the hostility between the two countries has been created or is being done is purely for politics of convenience. Today, if India considers an individual or a political party as its only ally to control Bangladesh, it will be an ill-conceived and damaging idea.
An adverse relationship between Bangladesh and India may not last long due to geo-politics or national interests because mutual dependence between the two countries is a reality. Both India and Bangladesh need to take this relationship to a people-to-people level so that in the future it does not crack with a change of government in one country. Both should understand that a country is not just run by members of a political party or its leader. India needs to understand people of Bangladesh have a right to reject or accept their leader -- not a leader that is of another country’s choice. The sooner this attitude and understanding changes, the better it will be for both countries.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.
