Where is Bangladesh–India relations heading?

Sharif Osman Hadi, convener of Inqilab Moncho, was shot, and the assailant has reportedly fled to India. 

India's High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Pranay Verma, was summoned on Sunday morning to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where Dhaka urged that any individuals involved in the attack on Osman Hadi, be arrested and extradited if they enter India. The interim government also raised concerns over what it described as continued provocative statements by deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who is currently in Delhi.

In response, India's Ministry of External Affairs rejected the allegations, stating that India has "never allowed its territory to be used for activities against Bangladesh," and denied claims.

The situation escalated further after National Citizen Party (NCP) Southern Chief Organiser Hasnat Abdullah warned that India's northeastern "Seven Sisters" states could face isolation if Bangladesh is destabilised, alleging that Indian interests are backing efforts to undermine the ongoing election process.

Amid rising rhetoric, the July Oikya launched a march towards the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. Following the march, New Delhi summoned Bangladesh's High Commissioner to India, Muhammad Riaz Hamidullah, and expressed security concerns. India also temporarily shut its visa centre in Dhaka citing security threats, before resuming operations the following day.

Following remarks by Hasnat Abdullah, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that India would not remain silent in response to suggestions of a merger between India's Northeast and a neighbouring country. 

Subsequently, after New Delhi summoned Bangladesh's High Commissioner to India, Foreign Affairs Adviser Md Touhid Hossain underscored the interim government's position on sovereignty, rejecting external advice on the electoral process. He said New Delhi's silence during what he described as "farcical elections" under the previous administration rendered the current advice unacceptable to the interim leadership.

To provide a comprehensive view of these shifting dynamics, The Business Standard spoke with businessmen, politicians, political analysts, and former diplomats. Their insights offer a deeper look into the economic and geopolitical implications of this rift and what it means for the future of the sub-continent.

A more mature approach is required

Altaf Parvez

Political Analyst

What I have observed in Bangladesh is that some people are calling for the Indian High Commission to be shut down, for the Indian envoy to be sent back, and even speaking about breaking India apart by separating the North-East. 

The question is: why are these demands being made? If the issue is about bringing Sheikh Hasina back, or if individuals involved in killings in Bangladesh are currently in India, those matters must be pursued through diplomatic channels.

Can anyone realistically be brought back by going to war with India? I do not think so. In this context, a more mature approach is required. There is also the question of whether a degree of malicious intent underlies these actions.

Those who are making such statements and engaging in this behaviour may not be considering the consequences of this kind of rhetoric. Another possibility is that they are acting deliberately. I cannot say which is the case. However, if it is deliberate, one must recognise that India—and the BJP in particular—would actually welcome such a situation in Bangladesh.

It serves their domestic political interests. They want to portray Bangladesh to the Indian public as an extremist Muslim country, and developments like these make that narrative easier to sustain. From our side, I believe that recent anti-India actions, including talk of attacking or occupying the Indian High Commission, will weaken Bangladesh's standing in international diplomatic circles.

India will then be able to argue that issues which should be resolved through dialogue and discussion are instead being met with open threats against its High Commission in Bangladesh. These threats are real, they are being made publicly, and they are already being reported by the international media.

There must be political will to address issues positively

Anwar-Ul Alam Chowdhury Parvez 

President, Bangladesh Chamber of Industries (BCI)

Bangladesh should not be engaging in confrontations with India. These are essentially political issues, and such political irritations should, as far as possible, be minimised. Overreaction does not serve our interests. We must remember that India is a large country and our immediate neighbour, with nearly two-thirds of our border shared with it.

India is also an emerging economic power, from which Bangladesh stands to benefit—arguably even more than India does. Missing that opportunity would be unwise. In the current global political climate, regional strength has become one of the most decisive factors for economic resilience. With shifts such as those initiated during the Trump era, WTO rules are effectively being rolled back. As a result, regional and bilateral, country-to-country relationships have become critically important. Every country is now searching for strategic and economic partners, and without such partnerships, sustaining economic growth in the future will be extremely difficult.

In a situation where emotions are running high, Bangladesh must focus on its own interests, assess potential gains, and understand its economic realities. Political differences should be resolved as quickly as possible, and this must be done in our own national interest. Failing to do so will create serious challenges in the future.

Ultimately, everything depends on political negotiation. There must be political will to address issues positively. If we approach matters only through a negative lens, that negativity will shape the entire relationship—and that is not in our interest. Our priority should be to protect our national interests. When political negotiations are guided by a clear understanding of those interests, Bangladesh can benefit in many areas, and India will also be compelled to respond. However, if we begin with the assumption that Bangladesh can simply do without India, the political will on both sides will operate very differently.

The greatest cost of this approach is borne by Bangladesh. The damage to our economy is far more severe. For instance, if imports of yarn through land borders are halted, India will continue selling yarn regardless. Bangladesh will still import the same yarn, but at higher prices and through maritime routes. At the same time, India may suspend transhipment facilities, leaving Bangladesh without the capacity to adapt and forcing it to absorb higher costs. This directly undermines our competitiveness.

In reality, there is no viable alternative. Bangladesh continues to import yarn from India, but instead of using land ports, it is shipped by sea. This increases both costs and delivery times, adding further pressure on the economy. In the end, Bangladesh does not benefit at all.

We are interested in maintaining a relationship based on equality and dignity

Humayun Kabir

Former ambassador of Bangladesh to the United States

The primary driver of recent tension is the extradition request for the individual who shot Hadi and subsequently fled to India. India's perceived lack of initiative and the absence of high-level statements have caused significant frustration, particularly as Bangladesh navigates a sensitive national election period. This strain led to the summoning of High Commissioners in both Dhaka and Delhi to communicate respective concerns. Ideally, such escalation should have been avoided, as it risks further intensifying an already delicate relationship.

This complication is largely unnecessary. As Bangladesh pursues a sustainable democratic transition and internal reforms, it is vital that India refrains from making irresponsible or sensitive remarks. Such distractions are unhelpful to our goal of establishing a stable democratic structure through the election process, and avoiding them would be the wisest course of action for both nations.

A deterioration in ties threatens both political and economic stability. Our national priority is conducting a successful election despite internal efforts to derail the process; any external distraction risks hindering this transition. Furthermore, while the economy is currently stable, increased bilateral tension could damage our standing with international development partners who are waiting for the next elected government to finalise future assistance plans. Internal stability and smooth relations with neighbours are inextricably linked to our continued progress.

Assigning blame for the decline in relations since 5th August is complex. While India may feel the loss of facilities enjoyed over the last 15 years, we must prioritise our own interests without unnecessary provocation. Our relationship should be based on reciprocity, equality, and dignity, as stated by the Chief Advisor. Focusing on achieving our national objectives is more productive than assigning blame, as a relationship defined by mutual respect remains our primary goal.

To improve these ties, we must rely on our internal strength, national unity, and institutional capacity. We should maintain positive collaborations while proactively renegotiating problematic areas through direct dialogue. Additionally, keeping this relationship smooth is essential for securing the cooperation of other global development partners. Ultimately, fostering internal cohesion and normalising relations with India will increase our national capacity, creating a more stable and balanced partnership.

We cannot change our neighbour, but we must prevent instability

Firoz Ahmed

Member, Constitution Reform Commission

The escalating tension in the Bangladesh–India relationship requires a candid assessment. My first observation is that the people of Bangladesh have legitimate reasons for their current grievances. Since 1971, India has consistently exhibited an attitude—particularly in relation to intervening in Bangladesh's internal politics and issues concerning shared rivers—that has been unfavourable to the interests of the Bangladeshi people and, indeed, to nature itself. This has long been a source of justified discontent.

More specifically, the establishment of an election-less government in Bangladesh over the past 15 years, combined with India taking advantage of this period to secure transit facilities and other strategic benefits, as well as its conduct regarding the Rampal issue, has gradually fuelled strong anti-India sentiment among the Bangladeshi public. As noted earlier, there are many valid reasons behind this sentiment.

However, we must remember that we cannot change our neighbour, even if we wish to. Therefore, in the face of any provocation, we must strive to prevent extreme instability in state-to-state relations.

The situation is deeply concerning if the attacker on Sharif Osman, also known as Hadi, has indeed fled to India—though this remains unconfirmed—or if they received encouragement or covert support in carrying out the act. That would be an extremely dangerous development. Nevertheless, I have consistently maintained that the primary source of provocation in the Bangladesh–India relationship has largely originated from the Indian side.

We need to move towards a relationship grounded in legitimate mutual respect, and we must pursue this firmly with the other side. At the same time, unresolved issues demand attention. There must be a solution to the problem of India sheltering fugitive criminals from Bangladesh, and clear safeguards must be established to protect our interests in shared areas such as rivers and other common sectors. Most importantly, it must be ensured that there will be no future intervention in Bangladesh's politics that runs contrary to the will of the Bangladeshi people.

In the current climate, caution is imperative. We must ensure that India does not launch any international campaign against us by exploiting our reactions to provocation. It is vital to remember that respecting an embassy or a country's representative—even that of an adversary—is a cornerstone of diplomatic history and practice.

When a country gains an international reputation for disrespecting embassies or ambassadors, it suffers serious reputational damage. Political leaders must keep this firmly in mind. Such moments demand wisdom, dignity and an understanding of historical lessons. Unfortunately, many of our young people appear to be failing to demonstrate this. Whether those who contribute to provocation can emerge as future political leaders will depend on their ability to make sound and judicious decisions.

Finally, one point must be emphasised clearly: ensuring the security of any citizen, and certainly of Osman Hadi, is the responsibility of the state. The manner in which this killer escaped and carried out the murder represents a grave failure. While identifying responsibility on the part of a neighbouring country is necessary and should be pursued, the primary failure lies with us. Our police and intelligence agencies are in urgent need of reform. What concrete steps have we taken in this regard? The initial responsibility, undeniably, is our own.