Veteran Indian journalist and ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta has warned against India treating Bangladesh and Pakistan as comparable strategic adversaries, arguing that such “hyphenation” could undermine New Delhi’s own interests.
“India is, therefore, caught in a trap of its own making,” Gupta wrote in his weekly National Interest column published by ThePrint on Saturday.
Gupta argued that relations with Bangladesh have emerged as a new challenge for India since the fall of Sheikh Hasina and the rise of Prime Minister Tarique Rahman, while relations with Pakistan have deteriorated under the growing dominance of army chief Asim Munir.
But he said Bangladesh should not be viewed as a mirror image of Pakistan, particularly as India's domestic political discourse increasingly places the two Muslim-majority neighbours in a similar frame.
“Compulsions of our domestic politics, or rather the choices we make in our constant electioneering, have resulted in hyphenating Bangladesh with Pakistan,” Gupta wrote.
He pointed to Indian election campaigns centred on alleged “Bangladeshi infiltrators”, particularly in Assam and West Bengal, as well as hostile rhetoric on social media.
Gupta said influential establishment-friendly voices on Indian social media increasingly portray Bangladesh as an adversary comparable to Pakistan. He cited derogatory labels used online against both countries and said such discourse had angered Dhaka, particularly when combined with what he described as a “smaller neighbour syndrome”.
The veteran journalist said public and establishment anger in India over Hasina’s ouster should not make her return to power a condition for restoring normal relations with Bangladesh.
“A regime change in Bangladesh isn’t on India’s agenda. The Modi government understands this,” he wrote, pointing to New Delhi’s diplomatic approach towards Dhaka as evidence of an effort to stabilise relations.
Gupta also examined the pressures facing Rahman, arguing that the prime minister has to contend with the growing political weight of Jamaat-e-Islami and public sentiment towards India.
From Rahman’s perspective, Gupta wrote, concerns over Jamaat and “the mood on ‘the streets’” make an abrupt declaration of normal relations with India politically difficult, particularly while Hasina remains in India and continues publicly attacking his government.
At the same time, Gupta argued that Dhaka could reasonably complain that Indian domestic politics was making rapprochement harder.
He said the strategic question for New Delhi was whether it wanted Bangladesh and Pakistan placed “in the same basket”.
While Pakistan has long featured prominently in Indian political discourse, Gupta said Bangladesh had become a more recent addition, feeding a narrative of India facing two Muslim-majority strategic threats on its eastern and western borders.
That approach could prove counterproductive, he argued.
“While the BJP finds it convenient to play on these insecurities, it gives Pakistan, and by association Bangladesh, leverage in our domestic politics,” Gupta wrote.
Gupta said Bangladesh did not possess the same leverage over Indian politics as Pakistan, but closer alignment between Dhaka and Islamabad would still hurt Indian strategic interests.
“How well does it serve India if the largest neighbours on both wings are hostile and hyphenated?” he asked.
“India’s imperative should be to break this.”
Gupta concluded that placing neighbourhood policy at the centre of India’s polarised domestic politics was reducing New Delhi’s room for diplomatic manoeuvre.
He suggested that repairing relations need not begin with a dramatic diplomatic initiative.
“This needs correction,” Gupta wrote. “It can begin with something as small as accepting Bangladesh’s invitation for a cricket tour there.”
--