India must choose: Sheikh Hasina or a sustainable relationship with Bangladesh?

The Bangladesh-India relationship has reached a critical juncture. What was once described as a relationship built on history, geography, security and shared interests is now facing a serious test of political trust.

The latest controversy surrounding Sheikh Hasina's appearance before the media in New Delhi has brought this problem into sharp focus. For Bangladesh, the issue is not simply what a former prime minister said or where she said it. The deeper concern is the political space being provided to a former leader whose departure from Bangladesh followed a profound political transformation.

Whether the Indian government directly organised the media interaction or merely permitted it is debatable. But diplomacy is not judged only by formal declarations of responsibility. It is also judged by the political signals that actions create. And the signal received by many Bangladeshis is deeply troubling: India continues to provide Sheikh Hasina with political space.

That perception matters. In international relations, perception can become political reality. The consequences of allowing this issue to continue should therefore concern not only Dhaka but also New Delhi. A former leader cannot become the centre of a bilateral relationship. India and Bangladesh cannot afford to allow their relationship to become permanently defined by the political fate of one individual.

Sheikh Hasina's long tenure undeniably shaped Bangladesh-India relations. During her government, the two countries expanded cooperation in connectivity, trade, energy, security and regional affairs. India regarded her government as a predictable and strategically important partner.

But Bangladesh has changed. The political circumstances that existed during Sheikh Hasina's tenure no longer exist. Whatever one's interpretation of the political events surrounding her departure, the reality is that Bangladesh has entered a new political chapter.

India now faces a fundamental strategic choice.

Does New Delhi want to build its relationship with the Bangladesh of today, or remain closely associated with a political order of the past?

For a major regional power, the answer should be clear. States, not individuals, must ultimately be the foundation of bilateral relations. Governments change, political parties rise and fall, and national priorities evolve. Sustainable diplomacy survives these changes because it is based on national interests rather than personal political relationships.

If Sheikh Hasina continues to use Indian territory as a platform for political communication directed towards Bangladesh, however, the distinction between providing residence to a former leader and providing political space to that leader will become increasingly difficult for Bangladesh to ignore.

That is where the real danger lies. This is becoming a question of sovereignty and political trust.

India has the sovereign right to determine who may remain within its territory. Bangladesh cannot and should not seek to dictate India's domestic decisions. But sovereignty works both ways. Bangladesh also has every right to assess the consequences of political activities undertaken from Indian territory when those activities directly concern Bangladesh's domestic political environment.

For Bangladeshis, the issue is particularly sensitive because Sheikh Hasina is not simply a former political leader living abroad. She remains a deeply consequential figure in Bangladesh's political debate. Consequently, every public political intervention from Indian soil is likely to be interpreted through the wider lens of Bangladesh-India relations.

New Delhi should understand this reality rather than dismiss it as temporary political anger. If India repeatedly provides or permits political space for activities that Bangladesh perceives as interfering in its internal political discourse, the issue will inevitably move beyond one individual. It will become an issue of bilateral trust.

Public trust matters

For too long, discussions of Bangladesh-India relations have focused primarily on governments, treaties, trade figures, border management and security cooperation.

But there is another dimension that cannot be ignored: people-to-people relations.

Millions of Bangladeshis travel to India for healthcare, education, tourism and business. There are deep cultural and historical connections between the two societies. Families, communities and businesses operate across the border.

India has benefited enormously from this human connection. But goodwill is not permanent.

If an increasing number of Bangladeshis come to believe that India is more interested in protecting the political interests of a former Bangladeshi leader than in understanding Bangladesh's present political reality, India's image among the Bangladeshi public will inevitably suffer.

This is not a threat. It is a predictable consequence of deteriorating political trust.

A disagreement between governments can be resolved through diplomatic negotiations. But once distrust becomes embedded in public consciousness, repairing the relationship becomes far more difficult. This should be a serious concern for New Delhi.

Why Bangladesh matters to India

The importance of Bangladesh to India goes far beyond politics.

Bangladesh shares India's longest international land border. The two countries are connected by rivers, trade routes, transport corridors, energy networks and security interests. Bangladesh is also strategically important to India's northeastern states and to New Delhi's broader vision of connectivity between South and Southeast Asia.

Border security is a shared interest. So are the prevention of trafficking, organised crime, terrorism and other forms of transnational crime. Water management, climate change, energy, trade and regional connectivity similarly require sustained cooperation.

For India, therefore, a stable relationship with Bangladesh is not merely desirable. It is strategically necessary.

Is continued political space for Sheikh Hasina worth risking a deeper and longer-lasting trust deficit with Bangladesh? The question deserves serious consideration.

There is also a broader lesson for India.

India is the largest country in South Asia and its dominant economic and military power. Yet power does not automatically create trust, and geographical proximity does not guarantee political influence.

India's relations with Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives have all experienced periods of political tension and public sensitivity concerning India's role. Myanmar presents a particularly complicated case because of its internal conflict, border security challenges and competing regional interests.

These relationships are not identical to Bangladesh's relationship with India. Each has its own history and strategic circumstances. But together they demonstrate an important principle: India cannot assume that its size, geography or economic influence will indefinitely guarantee political goodwill among its neighbours.

Neighbouring countries have their own national identities, political aspirations and strategic interests. Bangladesh is no exception.

If India wishes to remain the leading regional power, it must demonstrate that its influence is based not on political dependence but on mutual respect and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Bangladesh must also protect its interests

Bangladesh is a sovereign country with its own political choices, national interests and public opinion. India may have legitimate security and strategic concerns regarding developments in Bangladesh. It may disagree with particular policies or political actors.

But sustainable diplomacy requires engagement with the Bangladesh that exists today, not an attempt to preserve political relationships associated with a previous era.

This does not mean Bangladesh should adopt an anti-India foreign policy. On the contrary, Bangladesh has every reason to maintain constructive relations with India.

But constructive relations do not mean unquestioning relations. Bangladesh should cooperate with India where interests converge and defend its national interests where they diverge.

The same principle should guide Bangladesh's relations with China, Japan, the United States, Europe and other international partners. Diversifying foreign relations is not an anti-India policy. It is normal statecraft.

The strategic reality is unavoidable. India needs a stable Bangladesh on its eastern frontier. Bangladesh needs a stable relationship with its largest and most powerful neighbour.

Neither country can change geography. India cannot move its northeastern states away from Bangladesh. Bangladesh cannot move its territory away from India.

The two countries must therefore find ways to manage their geographical interdependence through diplomacy, cooperation and mutual respect.

This makes the current political controversy all the more important.

Separate Hasina from bilateral relations

India should separate its relationship with Bangladesh from the political fate of Sheikh Hasina.

If she has legal, humanitarian or other legitimate claims, those matters should be addressed through appropriate legal and diplomatic mechanisms. But activities from Indian territory that have direct political consequences inside Bangladesh should be handled with exceptional sensitivity.

India should recognise that Bangladeshis will judge not only what New Delhi officially says but also what it allows to happen on its territory.

The future of Bangladesh-India relations should be built around national interests, sovereign equality, economic cooperation, security, connectivity and the welfare of the people on both sides of the border.

It should not be determined by the political fate of one individual.

Jobayer Hossain is the former country coordinator of Amnesty International UK. He can be reached at: Jobayer.exceltech@gmail.com. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.