Dhaka’s ties with Delhi once had a warmth and bonhomie that helped both sides navigate even the most complicated political and security challenges. But now, the relationship is going through one of its most difficult phases. Bangladeshi diplomats are insisting that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman should not visit India until his predecessor Sheikh Hasina is extradited. Deepening the political distance between the two neighbours is the absence of agreements on security, trade and water.
On August 10, the first signs of a possible political thaw came when Rahman met India's envoy to Bangladesh Dinesh Trivedi. Bangladesh’s High Commissioner to India, M. Riaz Hamidullah, says there is now an opportunity to take the conversation beyond closed-door diplomacy, into spaces where it can breathe and acquire new dimensions.
Excerpts from an interview:
You have closely observed Bangladesh transition through three political phases - from Hasina to Muhammad Yunus to Rahman. Has its foreign policy towards India changed?
Foreign policy is, in good measure, an expression of the manifestation of people’s values and interests. During my 10 months under the interim government and the subsequent six months under the present BNP government, I have tried to convey the aspirations of the people of Bangladesh, which remain unchanged irrespective of the political dispensation, to our friends and interlocutors in India.
For any relationship to prosper, it needs to be understood through shared interests, mutuality and interdependence. Dhaka understands this fully. What we need is for our friends to understand it in equal measure. We simply need to blend short-term gains with long-term interests. The long-term interest is a peaceful, harmonious and stable geography in eastern South Asia. If that requires flexibility that may not pass through arithmetic calculations, then we need to exercise it.
Rahman’s first meeting with Trivedi raised hopes of a visit to India by the prime minister. With the demand for Sheikh Hasina’s extradition, are we staring at another cold winter?
Both the high commissioner and the prime minister were candid. The meeting lasted close to an hour; they discussed dominant issues, including sensitive ones. Given our relationship, when there are sensitive issues, it is useful for both sides to hear, understand, appreciate and try to address these.
You have described India-Bangladesh ties as “organic” and “absolutely natural”. But the relationship went through one of its most difficult phases recently. What did the policymakers on both sides missed?
We have a younger democracy that presents not only a challenge but also an opportunity. We need to understand Bangladesh-of-today at the intersection of demography, democracy and development; and proceed in ways that allow Bangladeshi society to generate outcomes premised on dignity, mutual trust and respect and shared benefits with every partner, including India.
India is a seminal relationship for Bangladesh. It has gone through certain phases. Today, generations are changing much faster. What used to constitute a generation over 10 or 15 years, may now be three to five years. We need to continuously and sensitively understand and value people’s aspirations.
Nearly 88 per cent of our population is below their mid-50s. They are young, globally exposed and connected. Understanding their aspirations, and finding ways to fulfil them, is a challenge for Bangladeshi state and society. And, those aspirations also need to be appreciated by others, including India.
If you put the issues between Bangladesh and India on a balance sheet, there are not many intractable ones. As I said, over the preceding months, we have addressed India’s security concerns in good measure. On an equal measure, it is now necessary that India also appreciates Bangladesh. What I recognise is that state-to-state interaction is happening, but it is not sufficiently buttressed by wider societal engagement. Without that, the relationship may not be on a strong wicket.
Trade is one area where people can directly benefit. What are the immediate economic measures that India and Bangladesh should take?
First, we should restore trade to the 2024 level. In May 2025, India arbitrarily closed its [market] land border to [certain] Bangladeshi exports, worth $700-900 million. Bangladesh did not impose the slightest reciprocal measure. So, the first thing is to restore that flow of trade from Bangladesh.
Second, most people wonder why a Bangladeshi entrepreneur interested to invest in India is clubbed with Pakistan and put in the restricted category. Symbolically, it hurts. Why are we being bracketed with Pakistan? Why are we allowing India’s investments while our investors are treated this way?
Third, over the past 10-12 months, some Bangladeshi exports worth only a few million dollars have been subjected to countervailing duties and punitive measures.
Bangladesh’s trade with China is expanding. Does Dhaka still regard India as a preferred economic partner?
Whatever we import from China is mostly machinery and other inputs that are not necessarily coming from India. The question is cost-competitiveness. India has a profound advantage because things can reach in 24 or 48 hours. No one can outbid India on that geographical advantage.
If you look at the import profile, you would be surprised. Many things coming from China simply cannot originate from India at present—chemicals, machinery and so on. From India, Bangladesh imports raw cotton, cotton yarn, maize, wheat and very basic things. There is enormous potential for India if competitiveness is right.
The Teesta issue has yet to result in a legally binding water-sharing agreement. Is Dhaka willing to resolve it bilaterally?
Let us look at the larger, fundamental issue. India needs to understand that water is foremost a cultural and ecological issue for a shared delta and shared agro-ecology. The principles of fairness, equity and responsibility towards nature need to be employed. The Teesta basin constitutes nearly 14 per cent of Bangladesh’s cropping landmass, and 21 million people are dependent on Teesta waters. So, let alone being an emotional issue, it has become a test of our relationship and of its future.
In the past, we were told that as and when there would be a BJP government both at the Centre and in the state, it would be resolved. We are now really looking forward to conversations beginning and to a constructive resolution. Draft proposals were made years ago, so the basis is already laid out. It is now for Delhi to move forward.
Bangladesh is also looking at a China-backed river restoration plan. What is Dhaka’s position, particularly if India has security concerns?
Let me tell upfront that we approach Teesta river water comprehensive management and restoration project out of our people's existential necessity, deep inside Bangladesh territory. The process has continued essentially driven by pressing social-economic-ecological considerations. In the absence of any progress for decades on the Teesta, there is tremendous anguish and demand among people in our part, particularly in northern Bangladesh. The region is at risk of desertification in some areas and becoming increasingly arid, while at other times there is flooding: you either get flooded or you get dry. That has compelled any government of the day, including the past Sheikh Hasina government, to engage with China to seek a lasting solution.
If Delhi has any inhibition, worry or apprehension, as and when we sit across the table, let this be raised. Bangladesh will be open to elaborate why we are looking at developing Teesta water resources on our side, our way. If there are security concerns, let us hear them. We are ready to share details and allay any apprehension. Ultimately, we are pursuing a solution in our sovereign national interest.
The northeast has become an important part of Bangladesh’s outreach – you recently visited Tripura. Does Bangladesh see itself becoming the eastern gateway in the region?
Our engagement with the northeast India is premised on culture, multiple identities, mutual trust, respect and dignity. These need to be blended and posited on shared benefits. Every undertaking should pass the test of shared benefits. Bangladesh has some expectations and some concerns about connectivity projects. These should not be intractable. What would be useful from India is to engage with Dhaka on an even keel; listen to what Bangladesh has to say and make adjustments, where necessary.
Bangladesh has been saying for some time that some connectivity projects do not appear to be yielding the desirable return on investment. This needs to be factored in. Connecting with the northeast is clearly in the mutual interest of both sides. The water and rainfall in the northeast flows through Bangladesh, nourishing the soil before moving onwards. Sometimes it creates flooding, but at other times, it brings fertility. This shared geography should also guide physical connectivity.
You have a long association with SAARC, having served at its secretariat. Do you think there is still political space to revive the organisation or is it time to move towards smaller regional arrangements?
As a practitioner of regional cooperation and a believer in regionalism in South Asia, I continue to believe that regional cooperation is a necessity across diverse sectors. It complements national undertakings, from culture and agriculture to connectivity. We should value every regional construct on its own merit and in the context in which it was founded. SAARC has already created functioning regional instruments and institutions. The SAARC Agriculture Centre in Dhaka has delivered significant public good for almost four decades. The SAARC Development Fund (SDF) has more than half a billion dollars in its coffers to be disbursed, largely on grant-finance basis. These instruments can create tremendous public good and trust. If we allow these largely apolitical regional institutions to function on their own merit, that can vindicate the benefits of regional cooperation.
One should not characterise it as old or new SAARC. Look at SAFTA and cooperation in health, agriculture and disaster management, for instance. Much of the connectivity we see today had genesis in the SAARC Regional Multimodal Transport Study, undertaken more than two decades ago, when things were almost at ground zero.
The same happened with power and energy. A regional electricity market or common grid was once beyond imagination. Yet, these ideas emerged through regional conversation. We should allow sectoral collaborations to proceed on their own merit. Some areas are politically sensitive, but one sensitive sector should not constrain the overall framework of regional cooperation.
Given India’s security concerns after Operation Sindoor, Bangladesh’s increasing engagement with Pakistan in trade, culture and cricket has been raising eyebrows.
Bangladesh remains engaged with Pakistan, just as every other state. Our people, including our youth, are also fully mindful of the past.
There are elements in the relationship where people in Bangladesh and Pakistan find it worthwhile to engage, particularly economically. If two peoples find economic, social or cultural interaction based on mutual respect and gain, they will engage, naturally.
Our trade (the trade between Bangladesh and Pakistan) is currently below $1 billion. We are mindful that [our] interaction with a country should not hurt the core concerns of another country, particularly concerning security.
I can tell that interlocutors in Delhi are made aware of this by their counterparts in Dhaka. Otherwise, the unease would have reflected at different levels.
You have described some of your conversations in Delhi as extremely difficult. What was your most challenging moment personally, and what was your happiest?
My happiest moments were hearing interesting perspectives, exciting insights, and being able to engage with Indians across the board. For instance, my discussion with [musician] Zubin Garg in Guwahati was about how we must reach out to people across the spectrum regardless of distinctions. Interstate relations are one thing; but they cannot define, and must not define, the relationship between two people at large. That risks ignoring the crucial role of society. Societal reflection shapes, and sometimes even dictates, the state of affairs in politics.
