India’s selective diplomacy erodes trust in Bangladesh’s ties

The first-ever face-to-face meeting between Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok was hailed as a positive step toward easing strained bilateral ties. 

A closer look at the 40-minute discussion — based on statements from both sides and subsequent media analysis — however, raises questions about how much genuine progress was made towards building a relationship based on trust and respect that benefits citizens on both sides of the border.

For decades, key issues such as water sharing of common rivers and border killings have dominated high-level discussions between Bangladesh and India. 

In this much-anticipated meeting, however, two new issues emerged: Bangladesh's call for the extradition of deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and India's concern over the treatment of minorities in Bangladesh.

These developments prompt a critical question: What qualifies as a bilateral issue versus an internal one? And when do internal matters evolve into bilateral concerns?

India's continued sheltering of Hasina, who has been facing charges of brutal crackdown that left several hundreds dead during the July-August mass uprising, and her inflammatory remarks through various media outlets while in that country, viewed as attempts to destabilise the situation in Bangladesh, remain genuine concerns.

Professor Yunus addressed this directly during his talks with Modi, requesting a status update on the extradition request and expressing concern over her ongoing inflammatory remarks from Indian soil, according to Shafiqul Alam, the press secretary to the chief adviser.

For Modi, there are other issues of concern: a "democratic, stable, peaceful, progressive and inclusive Bangladesh" and the security of minorities in Bangladesh.

"The prime minister [Modi] also expressed his expectation that the government of Bangladesh would ensure that security by hurriedly investigating all cases of atrocities committed against them," Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said after the 4 April talks.   

Notably, this same issue was raised by Modi in a message and also in a phone call to Prof Yunus soon after he assumed office on 8 August.

Bangladesh did not dismiss the minority issue as an internal matter. 

Instead, authorities acknowledged the concern, with over 70 individuals arrested in connection with 88 reported cases of violence against minorities between August and October.

When the same issue reappeared during the 4 April talks, Prof Yunus challenged the narrative asserting that many of the reports were exaggerated or fabricated. 

He invited India to send journalists to verify the claims independently.

India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recently informed the Indian parliament of incidents of attacks on minorities in Bangladesh. 

When approached by India's Frontline magazine to comment on it, Bangladesh's economist and public policy specialist Debapriya Bhattacharya suggested before commenting on the treatment of minorities in Bangladesh, the Indian government must acknowledge that its own treatment of minorities has repercussions.

Ironically, even as India questioned Bangladesh's handling of minority rights, its own parliament passed the controversial Waqf Amendment Bill, which sparked protests from Muslim communities and political opposition parties. 

The new law allows non-Muslims to be appointed to Waqf boards and gives government appointees power over religious institutions, which critics say erodes Muslim autonomy and their rights to operate religious institutions and charities. 

Opposition parties, including Congress, have pledged to challenge the bill in court.

What if Professor Yunus had raised this issue in his meeting with Modi?

India's stance on "internal matters" seems to shift based on convenience. 

During the Awami League's 16-year rule — marred by election manipulation and human rights abuses — India stood firmly by Hasina, dismissing international calls for fair elections.

Years before the last national elections in 2024, when democracy was almost a forbidden word in Bangladesh, opposition voices were suppressed and global pressure was mounting on the Awami League government to ensure free, fair, and participatory elections, India was silent. 

It then chose to call it Bangladesh's internal affairs.

There is "no need for the Indian government to interfere" in Bangladesh's internal matters including elections, Vikram Doraiswamy, then-Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka, said in 2022.

But that non-interference posture changed the moment Hasina fled to India on 5 August last year. 

Since then, the next-door neighbour appeared increasingly concerned about Bangladesh's democracy and inclusivity.  

Now, Bangladesh's internal dynamics have become a topic of interest for Indian politicians and media as well. 

Yet, India's response to long-standing Bangladeshi concerns — such as deadly border shootings — has remained unchanged. 

When Professor Yunus raised the issue during the last meeting, Modi reiterated the old line: Indian troops fire only in self-defence.

This selective approach undermines the trust needed to build what Bangladesh hopes will be a relationship based on fairness, mutual respect, and equity. 

It also falls short of India's professed vision of a "people-centric" partnership that delivers tangible outcomes for ordinary citizens of both countries.