Neighbourhood miswatch

The relationship between India and Bangladesh was once heralded by diplomats in New Delhi and Dhaka as an ‘unshakeable’ bond forged in history, geography, culture and mutual security. But that bond is now bedevilled by a lack of political trust and at the center of this deteriorating relationship lies the sanctuary and political platform accorded to Sheikh Hasina.

For the citizens of Bangladesh, her continued presence and public pronouncements from Indian territory represent a troubling indication of New Delhi’s strategic intent, raising a fundamental question for Indian statecraft: should regional power be tethered to a fallen ruler, or to the enduring reality of a sovereign neighbour?

Whether the Indian government actively facilitated Hasina’s recent media engagement in New Delhi or merely looked the other way is secondary to the geopolitical signal it sent. In statecraft, perception swiftly hardens into reality. To many in Bangladesh, the hospitality provided to their former leader looks suspiciously like political patronage. 

Diplomacy cannot be reduced to the personal fortunes of a single exile. By allowing its territory to serve as a launchpad for her political rhetoric, India risks transforming a complex bilateral relationship into a dispute over one individual’s survival. This is a hazardous gamble for a nation that aspires to global leadership.

Sheikh Hasina’s long tenure undoubtedly yielded tangible gains for both nations. During her rule, New Delhi enjoyed unprecedented cooperation on counterterrorism, border management, energy sharing, and transport links vital to connecting India’s landlocked northeastern states. 

To Indian policy planners, her administration offered predictability in an otherwise volatile neighborhood. Yet Bangladesh has fundamentally changed. The political architecture that sustained her decade and a half in power has collapsed, ushering in a new domestic reality. Nostalgia is a poor substitute for strategy. 

New Delhi now faces a stark choice: construct a sustainable partnership with the Bangladesh of today, or remain emotionally bound to the political order of yesterday.

For an aspiring superpower, the correct path ought to be evident. Mature diplomacy relies on institutional arrangements, not transient personal alliances. Governments inevitably change, regimes fall, and national priorities evolve over time. Durable bilateral relations survive these political shocks precisely because they are rooted in mutual interest rather than personal loyalty to a specific regime. 

If Indian territory continues to be used by Hasina as a pulpit to intervene in Bangladeshi politics, Dhaka will logically view it as an infringement upon its domestic sovereignty. Sovereignty is inherently reciprocal; while India retains the absolute right to host whom it pleases, Bangladesh possesses an equal right to evaluate the threat posed by activities hosted across its border.

The fallout extends far beyond diplomatic protocol. For ordinary Bangladeshis, Hasina remains a polarizing figure whose legacy dominates public discourse. Every statement she issues from Indian soil damages India’s image among the Bangladeshi populace. Millions of Bangladeshis routinely cross the border for medical treatment, higher education, commercial trade, and tourism. 

Human connections, economic integration, and cultural ties have generated immense strategic value for India over decades. Yet public goodwill is an exhaustible resource. If the perception takes hold that New Delhi prioritizes the political interests of an ousted autocrat over the aspirations of the Bangladeshi public, hostile sentiment will deepen rapidly. 

Rebuilding damaged political trust among a skeptical population is vastly harder than repairing a broken diplomatic channel.

This growing friction fits into a broader, troubling pattern across South Asia. From Kathmandu to Colombo, and Male to Naypyidaw, India has repeatedly struggled to translate its economic heft and geographical dominance into lasting political influence. 

In Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives, New Delhi’s partisan alignment with specific political factions has periodically provoked severe diplomatic blowback and fueled nationalist resentment. Myanmar offers a similar cautionary tale of strategic overreach amidst domestic upheaval. 

Size and economic dominance do not automatically guarantee goodwill. If India seeks to remain the preeminent regional power, it must demonstrate that its leadership rests on sovereign equality and mutual respect, rather than regional hegemony or factional interference.

Geography dictates that India and Bangladesh are permanently bound to one another. Bangladesh surrounds India’s vulnerable northeastern corridor, while India completely encircles Bangladesh on three sides. Shared rivers, trade corridors, border security, and regional supply chains require continuous cooperation between Dhaka and New Delhi. 

Neither nation can alter its geography, nor can they afford a prolonged freeze in relations. A pragmatic foreign policy requires New Delhi to separate its broader bilateral interests from Hasina’s personal legal and political fate. If she has legitimate claims to asylum, let them be handled through formal legal mechanisms, detached from active political agitation.

The choice is clear: embrace Bangladesh today or forfeit strategic trust tomorrow.

—

Jobayer Hossain is the Former Country-Coordinator, Amnesty International UK. He can be reached at Jobayer.exceltech@gmail.com