Dhaka-Delhi: Time to talk, think and act

The latest strain in Bangladesh-India relations should concern both governments, but it need not become a crisis of their own making. Geography, history, trade, rivers, security and deep people-to-people ties bind the two neighbours in ways neither can wish away. Political disagreements are inevitable; allowing them to overwhelm the larger relationship is a choice.

There are now signs that both Dhaka and Delhi understand the need to prevent that from happening.

The meeting between Prime Minister Tarique Rahman and Indian High Commissioner Dinesh Trivedi is an encouraging development after a period of diplomatic strain. Its positive tone suggests that both sides are prepared to look beyond recent irritants and focus on the broader relationship.

That opening should be used carefully.

Sheikh Hasina’s address to journalists in New Delhi has understandably provoked strong reactions in Dhaka. As of now, she is a convicted person under Bangladeshi law, and the Bangladesh government has made its position clear, objecting to what it considers an affront to the country’s sovereignty and national dignity.

New Delhi, however, has also offered an important clarification. India’s Ministry of External Affairs has said that the Indian government had no role in the event, which was organised by a private media entity, and that it does not endorse statements made there, particularly those concerning Bangladesh’s duly constituted government.

That may not settle Dhaka’s concerns, but diplomacy requires governments to recognise constructive signals when they appear.

Trivedi has also struck a conciliatory tone since taking up his assignment. He has emphasised that problems between the two countries can be addressed through mutual understanding and has expressed optimism about taking bilateral relations forward.

The challenge now is to turn that rhetoric into sustained engagement.

Bangladesh and India have been here before. Their history contains difficult disputes as well as examples of successful diplomacy.

It required patience, negotiation and political courage on both sides. A problem that had resisted successive governments was resolved because both countries eventually decided that an unsatisfactory status quo was not sustainable.

The lesson is clear. Difficult issues are rarely resolved by allowing them to fester.

The immediate priority should therefore be to make bilateral engagement more regular and predictable. Foreign ministers and senior officials should meet routinely, rather than only when relations come under pressure. Existing mechanisms should be strengthened to deal with political and legal matters, border management, trade, connectivity, security, energy and water resources.

Such engagement will not eliminate disagreements. It will make them easier to manage.

That matters because Bangladesh-India relations extend well beyond the politics of any particular government or individual. Border communities need stability. Businesses need predictability. Students and families need mobility. Bangladesh has an interest in greater trade, connectivity and energy cooperation, while India has a clear interest in a stable and prosperous neighbour and a peaceful northeastern region.

The wider agenda is substantial. Water management, climate change, food security, energy and maritime cooperation will remain important regardless of political differences.

The Ganges water-sharing issue illustrates the need for serious, sustained negotiations. The 1996 Ganges Water Sharing Treaty is approaching the end of its current term, while the Teesta remains unresolved. These are sensitive matters involving national interests and, in the case of water, the livelihoods of millions.

They cannot be settled through public statements alone. They require technical discussions, political will and an understanding of the concerns on both sides.

The same principle applies to the broader relationship.

Dhaka has legitimate reasons to be sensitive about sovereignty, political activities from Indian territory and any suggestion of interference in Bangladesh’s domestic affairs. New Delhi, for its part, needs to understand the depth of public sentiment in Bangladesh on these issues.

Neither side gains by allowing such sensitivities to become fixed assumptions about the other’s intentions.

This is why the recent meeting between Tarique Rahman and Dinesh Trivedi deserves attention. It should not be treated merely as a diplomatic courtesy. It offers an opportunity to establish a more constructive rhythm in Dhaka-Delhi relations.

The invitation to Prime Minister Tarique Rahman to visit India, including the invitation to attend the BRICS Summit in New Delhi in September, provides another potential avenue for high-level engagement. Whether and when such a visit takes place will be a decision for Dhaka. But the larger principle is worth emphasising: opportunities for direct political contact should be used when they can advance national interests.

A meeting between the leaders of the two countries could help create the political space for difficult bilateral issues to be discussed more candidly and constructively.

For its part, New Delhi should ensure that Bangladesh’s concerns are heard with the seriousness they deserve. The relationship should not be defined by the politics surrounding any single individual or episode.

Dhaka, meanwhile, should recognise that maintaining constructive relations with India does not require Bangladesh to compromise its independent foreign policy. Bangladesh can maintain strong relations with India while also engaging China, the United States, Japan, Europe and other partners according to its national interests.

A confident foreign policy does not require choosing one partner at the expense of another.

Nor does constructive engagement mean that Bangladesh should remain silent on issues where it believes its interests are being compromised. Firmness and friendship are not mutually exclusive. A country can defend its sovereignty while maintaining a stable relationship with its most important neighbour.

Indeed, that balance is a measure of diplomatic confidence.

The stakes are too high for the relationship to be driven by periodic political controversies. Trade routes, supply chains, transport links, border livelihoods and family connections are all affected when tensions rise.

The present moment therefore calls for restraint, but also ambition.

Dhaka should build on the positive atmosphere created by the recent meeting. Delhi should reciprocate. Both governments should give their diplomats and officials the space to work through difficult questions without allowing every disagreement to become a public confrontation.

There will inevitably be differences. The objective should not be to eliminate them, but to ensure that they do not define the relationship.

The choice before Bangladesh and India is not between friendship and firmness. Both are possible. Nor is it between defending national interests and maintaining constructive relations. A mature state should be capable of doing both.

The opportunity created by the recent political engagement should not be wasted.

Bangladesh and India need to talk more, not less. They need to think beyond the immediate controversy and act on the larger interests that bind the two countries together.

The time to do so is now.