Balancing neighbours, major powers will define Bangladesh's future diplomacy

As Bangladesh steps into a new year and prepares for national elections in February, the country stands at a moment of profound transition. Elections are always important, but this particular one carries added significance. It will determine not only the composition of the next government, but also the tone, direction, and credibility of Bangladesh's engagement with the world—especially with its immediate neighbours.

Foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by domestic realities, public sentiment, historical memory, and geopolitical constraints. Today, Bangladesh's foreign relations—particularly with India are being tested by a convergence of internal turbulence and external uncertainty. What we are witnessing is not merely a diplomatic challenge, but a broader social and political moment that demands maturity, balance, and strategic clarity.

Limits of government-centric diplomacy

One of the most striking developments in recent times has been the visible deterioration of people-to-people sentiment between Bangladesh and India. This is not entirely new, but it has intensified noticeably over the past year and a half. 

Historically, Bangladesh–India relations have operated on two levels, government-to-government and people-to-people. During the Liberation War of 1971, these two levels worked in harmony, reinforcing each other in pursuit of a shared objective.

Over the past decade and a half, however, relations became excessively government-centric. Political leaderships engaged closely, agreements were signed, and cooperation deepened in several areas. Yet, during this period, insufficient attention was paid to sustaining mutual goodwill at the societal level. 

As a result, when political circumstances changed—particularly following the developments of last July in Bangladesh—long-suppressed public sentiments resurfaced, and not always in constructive ways.

Today, negativity is evident among ordinary citizens in both countries. Diplomatic missions have faced pressure, threats, and even attacks. Misinformation and emotionally charged narratives circulate freely on social media and mainstream platforms alike. 

In Bangladesh, a strong anti-dominance sentiment has taken root among large sections of the population. In India, narratives alleging widespread persecution of minorities in Bangladesh—often exaggerated or misleading, have gained traction.

This mutual suspicion has created a volatile atmosphere in which even non-political events can acquire political meaning.

The Mustafizur Rahman episode is a symptom, not an isolated incident

The recent controversy involving Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafizur Rahman is a telling example. Mustafizur, who has played in the Indian Premier League for nearly a decade and has been a respected professional in Indian cricket, was purchased at auction by the Kolkata Knight Riders for a substantial sum. Shortly afterwards, reports emerged that he was dropped under pressure from the Board of Control for Cricket in India, allegedly influenced by politicians affiliated with the ruling party and leaders of certain Hindu groups.

I was not particularly surprised by this development. In the current climate, such outcomes are almost predictable. Sports, culture, and entertainment are no longer insulated from political sentiment. When people-to-people relations sour, these spaces often become the first casualties.

What is important to understand is that this incident should not be viewed in isolation. It reflects broader anxieties and mistrust that now characterise public attitudes on both sides. As long as competing narratives—anti-hegemony on one side, minority persecution on the other—continue to dominate discourse, similar incidents are likely to recur.

At the same time, it would be incorrect to suggest that official diplomacy has entirely broken down. On the contrary, recent actions by senior Indian policymakers indicate a clear awareness of the risks posed by escalating tensions.

India's foreign minister's visit to Dhaka to attend the funeral of BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia was a significant gesture. The personal delivery of the Indian prime minister's condolence message to the acting BNP chairperson carried symbolic weight. Similarly, India's defence minister signing the condolence book at the Bangladesh High Commission in Delhi—explicitly acknowledging the contributions of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia to bilateral relations—sent a carefully calibrated message.

These were not accidental or routine acts. They reflected a coordinated effort by India's top leadership to prevent further deterioration in relations and to signal respect for Bangladesh's political history and sensitivities.

However, while official gestures are necessary, they are no longer sufficient. Without parallel efforts to address public perceptions and social anxieties, diplomatic goodwill alone cannot stabilise the relationship.

Elections, legitimacy, and the space for diplomacy

Bangladesh is currently passing through a period of internal uncertainty. Elections are approaching, and until a peaceful, participatory, and credible electoral process is completed, the country will remain vulnerable—both domestically and internationally.

A legitimate government, backed by public confidence, enjoys far greater space to conduct foreign policy. It can absorb criticism, resist external pressure, and pursue national interests with confidence. Conversely, a government perceived as weak or contested will always struggle to manage sensitive relationships, particularly with powerful neighbours.

This is why a peaceful election is not merely a domestic necessity; it is a foreign policy imperative.

Even after elections, however, the challenge will not disappear. Strong public opposition to what is perceived as hegemonic dominance will remain a defining feature of Bangladeshi political life. The new government will have to navigate this sentiment carefully—acknowledging public concerns while also ensuring stable and productive relations with India.

This is the central contradiction the next government will face: managing domestic expectations while maintaining external stability.

Is a game-changing move required?

Given the persistence of tensions, it is fair to ask whether incremental diplomacy is enough, or whether a more fundamental shift—a game-changing move—is required.

In my view, the first step must come from within. Bangladesh needs a broad national consensus on core national interests. Political competition is natural and healthy, but on issues of sovereignty, dignity, and long-term development, there must be a shared understanding across parties and social groups.

India has demonstrated this capacity for consensus. Governments change, but core foreign policy positions remain remarkably consistent. Bangladesh, at this stage of its history, needs to cultivate a similar culture.

If the new government can articulate a clear framework for relations with India—based on equality, mutual respect, and shared benefit—it may be possible to bring even sceptical voices into a constructive dialogue.

Bangladesh and India share nearly 4,000 kilometres of border. They are economically intertwined, geographically inseparable, and strategically linked. Prolonged tension benefits neither side.

Trade disruptions hurt businesses and consumers in both countries. Investment decisions are delayed or abandoned in the face of uncertainty. Regional connectivity projects lose momentum. Most importantly, diplomatic distraction diverts attention from pressing internal priorities—job creation, inequality reduction, infrastructure development, and social cohesion.

Water security is another critical area. The Ganges Water Treaty, a 30-year agreement, is approaching its expiry. By most objective measures, it has worked reasonably well. Rather than reopening settled issues, it would be wiser to renew and build upon this success. At the same time, the treaty covers only one of 54 shared rivers. Comprehensive water management remains an unfinished agenda, requiring patience, trust, and sustained engagement.

The "July Spirit" and the meaning of dignity

Much has been said about what I call the "July spirit." At its core, it reflects a demand for dignity—dignity in governance, dignity in society, and dignity in international relations.

A dignified society cannot thrive in isolation. Stability in external relations is a prerequisite for internal progress. Investment flows where rule of law, predictability, and regional harmony exist. Young people find opportunities when economies are integrated, not fragmented by political anxiety.

Aligning domestic aspirations with foreign policy realities is not easy. It requires creativity, flexibility, and diplomatic skill. But it is a challenge Bangladesh must embrace.

Pakistan, China, and the question of balance

Beyond India, Bangladesh's relations with other regional and global partners are also evolving.

Relations with Pakistan have improved modestly compared to the past 15 years. There are opportunities in trade, education, connectivity, and people-to-people exchanges. At the same time, unresolved historical issues remain and must be addressed through dialogue. Progress in one area should not be held hostage to stagnation in another. However, Bangladesh must also ensure that engagement with Pakistan does not create unnecessary discomfort for India or invite external interference.

China occupies a distinct place in Bangladesh's foreign policy. There is broad consensus across political and social lines on maintaining strong relations with Beijing. China is a major partner in infrastructure, energy, renewable technology, EVs, artificial intelligence, agriculture, water management, and the blue economy. The potential for cooperation is vast, provided it is managed prudently and transparently.

Balancing relations between India and China is not unique to Bangladesh. Many countries—Vietnam, Japan, and several ASEAN states—have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain productive ties with both, without becoming overly dependent on either. Diplomacy, after all, is not about ceremony; it is about safeguarding national interest.

Economic and Digital Diplomacy: An Urgent Need

In the contemporary world, diplomacy is increasingly economic and digital. Investors, partners, and institutions expect transparency, accessibility, and clarity. A foreign investor should be able to understand Bangladesh's policies, opportunities, and risks with a single click.

This is an area where Bangladesh still lags. Strengthening economic diplomacy and digital outreach must be a priority for the next government if it wishes to compete in an increasingly crowded global marketplace.

Globally, strategic competition—particularly between the United States and China—is likely to intensify, marked by rivalry alongside selective cooperation. India's relationship with the United States appears to be undergoing reassessment, which may, in turn, open space for improved India–China engagement. If such a recalibration occurs, it could benefit smaller South Asian countries and revive initiatives like the BCIM economic corridor.

At the same time, risks remain. Upstream infrastructure projects, water security, and blue economy challenges require constant vigilance and proactive diplomacy.

Choosing stability without surrendering dignity

Bangladesh's foreign policy is indeed at a crossroads. Over the past year and a half, relations with India have moved in a negative direction, particularly at the societal level. Reversing this trend will not be easy, but it is essential.

After February's elections, the priority must be to stabilise relations with neighbours while deepening engagement with key economic partners—the European Union, the United States, China, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. This must be done without compromising national dignity, equality, or long-term development goals.

The task ahead is complex, but not insurmountable. With legitimacy at home, balance abroad, and clarity of purpose, Bangladesh can navigate this challenging moment and emerge stronger—secure in its sovereignty, confident in its diplomacy, and hopeful about its future.

Abridged from an interview on 'TBS Future' hosted by TBS Executive Editor Shakawat Liton