You can't stay ‘friendzoned’ in a marriage

For two years, Bangladesh and India have been trying to perform one of the most ambitious political experiments…pretending that a divorce never really happened while continuing to share the same apartment block.

The arrangement, to be fair, held together ‘surprisingly’ well.

Even when large sections of India's public imagination were convinced Bangladesh had descended into a post-apocalyptic carnival where Hindus were hunted for sport and civilization had taken an indefinite leave of absence during the time of interim administration, bilateral trade quietly marched toward record highs. Markets, unlike television panels, rarely panic on schedule.

Which is why the latest diplomatic explosion deserves a closer look.

The storm itself has already passed. The shouting has subsided. But the relationship now sits in what might best be described as uncharted shallow waters. Not deep water. That comes later. Shallow water is where ships scrape the seabed without realizing it.

Bangladesh's foreign ministry recently abandoned the centuries-old diplomatic tradition of saying "go to hell in a way that the other party would ask for direction.” Instead, it came remarkably close to saying "go to hell" with the sort of refreshing directness usually reserved for family Whatsapp groups.

It called Sheikh Hasina a "convicted genocider." It declared Bangladesh would never become a "client state." It described her appearance from Indian soil as an affront to sovereignty and an insult to the martyrs of the July Revolution.

Diplomats around the world probably spilled their coffee or earl grey.

The statement ‘violated’ nearly every textbook rule of diplomatic communication. Diplomats are generally expected to sound like elderly butlers…measured and understated and probably permanently disappointed. You are not supposed to write official communiqués as though you have just discovered Twitter.

In many respects, Sheikh Hasina probably welcomed every adjective that was used in the statement.

Her political project has always depended on persuading New Delhi that Bangladesh has only one reliable operating system, and that every alternative comes preloaded with instability. An ‘emotional’ response from Dhaka inevitably reinforces that narrative more than a carefully calibrated one would. 

The mechanics of the shove, however, are almost beside the point.

Was it elegant? Not particularly. Was it diplomatically beautiful? Absolutely not. But history occasionally remembers the shove more vividly than the technique. That explains why the statement itself became the event rather than merely responding to one.

It also explains why arguments about diplomatic etiquette, while perfectly valid in ordinary times, suddenly feel a little academic. When something unprecedented happens, conventional scorecards lose some of their authority.

Still, catharsis is not a strategy.

Donald Trump demonstrated repeatedly that anger projected in capital letters rarely translates into strategic advantage. Governments are expected to shape perceptions, not merely ventilate emotions. Yet Bangladesh's intended audience was never confined to diplomatic circles.

Domestically, the statement landed almost perfectly. Few issues unite Bangladesh's otherwise permanently quarrelling political landscape quite like Sheikh Hasina. The foreign ministry gave the public precisely the language it wanted to hear.

But make no mistake. The real audience sat across the border. Because this entire dispute is not fundamentally about one press conference in New Delhi. It is about something considerably more awkward.

Friendzoning.

Bangladesh and India once liked describing themselves as having a relationship similar to husband and wife. Former foreign minister AK Abdul Momen made that comparison famous. It sounded wonderfully poetic when both partners appeared to agree on the definition of marriage.

Then came August 2024.

Since Sheikh Hasina's fall, Bangladesh has increasingly found itself occupying the least enviable corner of modern relationships: still expected to behave like a spouse while being treated like someone India would rather "just stay friends" with.

New Delhi indicated that Hasina would not conduct political activities from Indian soil. Political activity was precisely what followed. India spoke enthusiastically about building stronger people-to-people ties. Meanwhile, illegal cross-border push-ins became a recurring irritant.

One side continued discussing the future relationship. The other kept receiving mixed signals from the present. Every relationship can survive misunderstanding.

Very few survive permanent ambiguity.

Diplomacy, after all, is not an exercise in exchanging pleasantries over tea. It is also about drawing lines early enough that negotiations later become possible. Sometimes what appears to be an undisciplined outburst is actually an attempt to reset the terms of engagement.

The foreign ministry almost certainly understood this. Bangladesh's current foreign policy is being shaped by the country's most shrewd diplomat. Whatever one thinks of the statement's literary qualities, it is difficult to imagine its tone emerging accidentally.

The message was there that post-2024 Bangladesh expects India to deal with the Bangladeshi state rather than through the political afterlife of one former ruler. That, more than any colourful phrase, was the actual diplomatic payload.

Geography, inconveniently, remains undefeated. Bangladesh and India share borders, rivers, electricity grids, trade routes and security interests. Neither has the luxury of relocating. They are condemned to coexist.

Which is precisely why neither country can afford to remain trapped in relationship limbo. Friendzoning works on university campuses. It works considerably less well inside a ‘marriage.’

—

Faisal Mahmud is the Managing Editor of Daily Waadaa