The more progress that is made in improving relations between Bangladesh and India, the greater the pressure seems to be to push the relationship in the opposite direction.
Looking at some recent incidents, and the reactions they have generated, it appears that even taking effective steps to improve ties are faltering.
The latest incident revolved around the prime minister’s information, policy, and strategy adviser, Zahed Ur Rahman.
Dr Rahman travelled to Delhi on June 14 to attend a conference of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA). Upon arrival at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport, Indian immigration officials reportedly made him wait for hours.
Dr Rahman felt insulted by the treatment and later decided to return to Bangladesh without entering India, despite requests from Indian immigration officials that he stay.
He later explained that by returning without attending the conference, he wanted to register a protest against the behaviour of the Indian authorities.
The incident highlights just how fragile relations between the two neighbouring countries remain. It suggests that, on both sides, bureaucratic and political considerations are sometimes being given greater priority than efforts to improve bilateral ties.
Dr Rahman’s decision not to attend the conference has been welcomed by many in Bangladesh. Some have praised it as an example of the courage to stand up to India.
India’s blacklist
Dr Rahman himself has framed the issue in terms of national dignity. He does not regard the behaviour of Indian immigration officials as a personal insult, but rather as a hostile act directed at Bangladesh.
But is that really the case?
According to reports in the Indian media, Dr Rahman has long been on India’s blacklist. Delhi reportedly considers his YouTube channel to be a source of “anti-India propaganda,” and the channel has allegedly been blocked in India for some time.
It is possible that Dr Rahman’s presence on that watch list prompted immigration officials at Delhi airport to conduct additional checks. It is worth remembering that immigration authorities in every country have the right to determine who may enter and who may not.
That does not necessarily mean that the actions of Indian officials were intended to insult Bangladesh. However strongly that claim may be made, the reality appears more complex. The issue seems to have centred on Zahed Ur Rahman as an individual, although he himself does not view it that way.
That said, there is little reason to blame either Dr Rahman or the Bangladeshi High Commissioner in India. The more pertinent question is whether those responsible for sending him to Delhi were aware that he was on India’s blacklist. It cannot automatically be assumed that they were not.
If they did know, why was no diplomatic initiative taken beforehand to remove his name from the blacklist?
Even if immigration officials felt the need to conduct additional verification, they should have explained the situation clearly to Dr Rahman and the Bangladesh High Commission from the outset. Had they done so, Dr Rahman might not have felt personally, or nationally, humiliated.
It is difficult to determine whether officials at Delhi airport were trying to send some other “message” by making the adviser wait. What is clear, however, is that bilateral relations are moving forward too slowly.
Last February, Narendra Modi invited the newly elected Tarique Rahman and his family to visit Delhi. Since then, however, there has been little visible response from Dhaka. Meanwhile, Tarique Rahman’s visit to China appears almost certain.
A few weeks ago, media outlets in both Pakistan and India reported that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir were planning to visit Bangladesh. Although the Pakistan High Commission in Dhaka denied the reports, speculation in India has continued.
Does India therefore assume that its relationship with Bangladesh will continue to deteriorate? This is perhaps not the moment for such conclusions.
India recently departed from convention by appointing an experienced politician, rather than a career diplomat, as its High Commissioner to Bangladesh. Dinesh Hiralal Trivedi, though not a Bengali, has extensive political experience in West Bengal and previously served as a central minister.
Bhupen Hazarika’s song
This unusual appointment carries the potential to inject new momentum into bilateral relations, although one of Trivedi’s early remarks generated controversy in Dhaka.
After entering Bangladesh by land, Trivedi spoke to local journalists and referenced a song by the renowned Assamese singer Bhupen Hazarika about the “same sky, same wind, same pain” shared by the people of the two countries. He spoke of seeing the people of Bangladesh and India as one.
Politicians do not speak in the same measured manner as diplomats. They are not trained to do so. Diplomats think primarily about relations between governments and what is achievable within existing constraints. Politicians, by contrast, tend to think more broadly about relations between peoples and about possibilities even under adverse circumstances.
Yet many in Bangladesh’s political sphere interpreted Trivedi’s remarks as a threat to the country’s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Such an interpretation seems difficult to sustain. It would be absurd to believe that a newly appointed High Commissioner would arrive in Bangladesh and immediately threaten to absorb the country.
But politics rarely rewards nuance. Before the controversy surrounding Trivedi’s comments had subsided, the “Delhi incident” involving Zahed Ur Rahman emerged and added a new layer to the debate.
The Delhi airport incident is being viewed by many observers in India as a bad omen. They believe that since becoming prime minister in 2014, Narendra Modi has moved away from the friendly gestures he once extended to Saarc countries, prioritizing domestic politics instead.
“While expressing hostility towards Bangladesh may be a good move internally, it does not serve India’s regional interests,” wrote veteran Indian journalist Rajdeep Sardesai in a post on social media platform X.
Sardesai noted that the “neighbour first” policy and unfriendly behaviour towards neighbours cannot go hand in hand.
‘Fight for dignity’ in cricket
Just as the authorities at Delhi airport have been questioned in the Bangladeshi media, Zahed Ur Rahman’s stance has been praised.
However, from a more detached perspective, the incident may not appear entirely black and white. Ultimately, the Bangladesh delegation attended the conference without its “leader.” Dr Rahman was sent to this conference for a specific reason and was expected to play a special role there.
The real work of protecting the perceived “dignity” of the state was therefore not accomplished. The calculation of gains and losses must be assessed by the responsible authorities. Yet, the incident inevitably recalls another “national dignity” dispute with India.
A few months ago, the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) of the Indian Premier League, after signing Bangladesh’s Mustafizur Rahman for a significant sum, suddenly announced his release on January 3. It became clear that KKR had acted under orders from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which itself was responding to pressure from extremist Hindutva groups.
Had relations between the two countries been normal and friendly, the situation might have been handled calmly. The Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) could have demanded an explanation directly from the BCCI, leading to discussions and perhaps a compromise.
But the normal path of dialogue was blocked almost immediately, when the sports adviser to the interim government declared that Bangladesh would not play its matches in India during the T20 World Cup starting February 7. With that statement, all diplomatic doors closed for the BCB.
What followed were incidents and dramas -- Pakistan appearing as the “big brother,” threatening to boycott, and so on. But the outcome was predictable: The minister sought political points, raised the banner of “national dignity,” and shut off avenues for resolution.
Bangladesh cornered itself with no way out. Nothing changed in the World Cup -- Pakistan did not boycott, Bangladesh lost its chance to compete, and its cricketers were denied the global stage.
This time, however, the situation is different. Although the PM’s adviser returned feeling humiliated, two officials from his entourage still attended the IORA conference.
It is not surprising that during Yunus’s interim government, advisers voiced anti‑India sentiments. The ideological foundation of Yunus’s supporters was rooted in anti‑India rhetoric and many attempted to diminish the significance of the 1971 Liberation War under the guise of opposing the Awami League.
What is surprising is that from the beginning of the BNP government, expectations were that relations with India would be built on mutual interests. Narendra Modi’s message and invitation after the February elections created such an opportunity.
In the broader context of Bangladesh‑India relations, these recent incidents may seem minor. But one must ask how wise it is to let such small events fuel anti‑India sentiment among the public.
There are larger, more pressing issues on which Bangladesh should engage India directly: Sharing water from common rivers, regional connectivity and transit, border killings, trade deficits, and more.
While recent events have stirred public excitement, the true test will be how the government advances relations with India -- an outcome that will reflect its diplomatic skill.
Sabir Mustafa is former head of BBC Bangla and is currently working as a freelance journalist and podcaster. Views expressed are the writer’s own.
