Would New Delhi tolerate an Indian political leader taking refuge in Dhaka while advocating the violent overthrow of India’s government? The question exposes a fundamental weakness in South Asian diplomacy: powerful states expect their security concerns to be respected, yet sometimes struggle to extend the same consideration to smaller neighbours.

Bangladesh’s concerns about political activities conducted from Indian territory belong within that framework of reciprocity. They require serious examination, supported by evidence, rather than dismissal or political exaggeration. Geography makes cooperation unavoidable. Mutual respect makes it sustainable. Neither country benefits when legitimate disagreements harden into permanent public hostility.

Recent reporting about discussions in New Delhi involving India’s envoy to Bangladesh, including a reported meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, suggests renewed diplomatic attention. A possible visit by Tarique Rahman has featured in those reports, although the reported agenda of the Modi meeting was not officially confirmed. Separately, the Indian Army acknowledged discussions concerning bilateral and defence cooperation.

These contacts create an opportunity. Their value will depend on whether they produce substantive policy changes. More than two years after Bangladesh’s political upheaval, India should recognise that durable influence cannot rest on privileged relationships with one leader or party. Engagement must encompass institutions, businesses, civil society and public expectations.

For Bangladesh, credibility requires discipline. Peaceful opposition, criticism and incitement to violence are different matters. The presence of political opponents abroad does not itself establish a security threat. Allegations involving the organisation or financing of violence must be supported by specific evidence and addressed through proportionate legal and diplomatic channels.

Likewise, judicial questions involving Sheikh Hasina should proceed through applicable legal processes. Her presence in India must not consume the entire relationship, but neither should it justify ignoring credible concerns. Both governments must distinguish national security from partisan convenience. Cooperation against violence should never become cooperation against peaceful political dissent.

The broader challenge is the distribution of power across South Asia. India’s size, economy and military capabilities give it exceptional influence. Those advantages also create responsibilities. A regional leader earns confidence by making cooperation beneficial and predictable. Pressure may secure temporary compliance, but agreements require public legitimacy to outlast governments.

Strategic autonomy cannot be a privilege reserved for major powers. India maintains relationships with competing international partners because it considers that freedom essential. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and other neighbours deserve equivalent latitude. Their engagement with China, Japan, Western economies or Gulf countries should be judged by its substance, not automatically interpreted as hostility towards India.

Smaller countries also need restraint and competence. Competition among powerful partners can improve bargaining opportunities, but opaque contracts and excessive borrowing can undermine sovereignty. Bangladesh must assess financing conditions, commercial viability, operational control and security implications before accepting major projects. Diversification strengthens independence only when domestic institutions can manage it.

The Bay of Bengal gives these choices wider significance. Ports, shipping routes, energy infrastructure and digital networks connect economic ambition with security exposure. Bangladesh should pursue maritime cooperation, disaster preparedness and reliable commerce while retaining authority over its infrastructure. Its geography can support prosperity, provided investment decisions serve enduring public interests.

Economic cooperation offers perhaps the clearest argument for a better relationship. The World Bank’s regional overview places trade within South Asia at barely 5 per cent of total trade, compared with 25 per cent in ASEAN. This longstanding disparity reveals how much economic opportunity the region sacrifices through persistent fragmentation and mistrust.

Border delays, restrictive procedures and expensive transport reduce competitiveness. Their costs reach factories, small businesses and household budgets. Bangladesh and India should prioritise predictable customs rules, transparent standards and efficient transport. Connectivity will gain stronger support when its benefits extend across Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and India’s northeastern states.

Interdependence, however, must include protection against disruption. Electricity arrangements need transparent pricing, dependable delivery and credible dispute resolution. Trade access should be sufficiently predictable for businesses to plan. Essential economic links become politically fragile when citizens suspect that dependence could be used to extract unrelated concessions.

Shared rivers demand equal attention. Water affects agriculture, ecosystems, public health and livelihoods. Negotiations should combine equitable consideration of needs with dependable data exchange, flood forecasting and practical cooperation. Climate pressures make institutional continuity especially important. Communities cannot afford to have essential information become collateral damage in political disputes.

Border management is another test of whether diplomatic goodwill reaches ordinary people. Security operations should protect life, observe accountability and distinguish criminal activity from the everyday vulnerabilities of border communities. Effective cooperation requires investigation, communication and public confidence. A relationship described as friendly must make that friendship tangible along its frontier.

Human mobility matters too. Medical travel, education, family connections and legitimate business sustain relationships beyond official diplomacy. Procedures should be transparent, accessible and predictable. Broad restrictions can punish ordinary citizens without resolving the disputes that prompted them. Governments should preserve essential channels even when political negotiations become difficult.

The regional perspective must also extend beyond bilateral tensions. Rivalry between India and Pakistan should not indefinitely obstruct practical cooperation elsewhere. Sri Lanka and the Maldives have interests that exceed competition between larger powers. Afghanistan’s humanitarian needs likewise deserve consideration alongside security concerns. Regional stability requires attention to human welfare.

Where comprehensive agreements prove difficult, willing countries can advance specific projects through BIMSTEC or other suitable arrangements. Electricity trade, disaster warnings, public health cooperation and simpler customs procedures offer practical starting points. Progress should be measured through reduced costs, faster responses and wider access, rather than declarations alone.

Bangladesh’s domestic preparation is equally decisive. Strong diplomacy depends on capable officials, reliable information, legal expertise and parliamentary scrutiny. Major agreements should withstand informed public examination. Cooperation with India should not automatically invite accusations of submission, just as criticism should not automatically confer patriotism. Outcomes must determine the judgement.

Dhaka should therefore propose a regular mechanism for assessing evidence of threats originating across the border, with reciprocal obligations and safeguards for peaceful expression. It should simultaneously pursue water, trade, energy and mobility negotiations. Firmness becomes effective when it is accompanied by workable proposals and consistent standards.

Any eventual visit by Tarique Rahman should advance an agreed programme with clear responsibilities and arrangements for reviewing implementation. A summit can improve the atmosphere, but delivery builds trust. Neither government should mistake ceremonial warmth for resolution of the difficult issues that shape public opinion.

The stakes extend beyond a single diplomatic visit or political dispute. A stable neighbourhood can attract investment, support resilient supply chains and strengthen collective responses to emergencies. A mistrustful one diverts attention and resources towards avoidable friction. The choice will shape economic opportunities for a generation across the entire region.

For India, respecting Bangladesh’s choices would strengthen its regional standing. For Bangladesh, constructive engagement backed by institutional competence would make sovereignty more effective in practice. Both countries should understand that public confidence is a strategic resource. It grows through fairness, reliability and visible benefits, and diminishes when promises repeatedly fail.

South Asia will always contain unequal concentrations of wealth and power. It need not institutionalise unequal dignity. India’s leadership will be judged by how its neighbours experience it. Bangladesh’s diplomacy will be judged by what it secures for its people. India will remain the bigger neighbour. Bangladesh must never be expected to accept a lesser status.

The writer is a political analyst based in Geneva, a private banking financial crime compliance specialist, columnist and poet. He writes on South Asian geopolitics, international relations, global financial transparency and strategic affairs. He can be reached at shahidul.alam@bluewin.ch.

Bangladesh’s concerns about political activities conducted from Indian territory belong within that framework of reciprocity. They require serious examination, supported by evidence, rather than dismissal or political exaggeration. Geography makes cooperation unavoidable. Mutual respect makes it sustainable. Neither country benefits when legitimate disagreements harden into permanent public hostility.

Recent reporting about discussions in New Delhi involving India’s envoy to Bangladesh, including a reported meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, suggests renewed diplomatic attention. A possible visit by Tarique Rahman has featured in those reports, although the reported agenda of the Modi meeting was not officially confirmed. Separately, the Indian Army acknowledged discussions concerning bilateral and defence cooperation.

These contacts create an opportunity. Their value will depend on whether they produce substantive policy changes. More than two years after Bangladesh’s political upheaval, India should recognise that durable influence cannot rest on privileged relationships with one leader or party. Engagement must encompass institutions, businesses, civil society and public expectations.

For Bangladesh, credibility requires discipline. Peaceful opposition, criticism and incitement to violence are different matters. The presence of political opponents abroad does not itself establish a security threat. Allegations involving the organisation or financing of violence must be supported by specific evidence and addressed through proportionate legal and diplomatic channels.

Likewise, judicial questions involving Sheikh Hasina should proceed through applicable legal processes. Her presence in India must not consume the entire relationship, but neither should it justify ignoring credible concerns. Both governments must distinguish national security from partisan convenience. Cooperation against violence should never become cooperation against peaceful political dissent.

The broader challenge is the distribution of power across South Asia. India’s size, economy and military capabilities give it exceptional influence. Those advantages also create responsibilities. A regional leader earns confidence by making cooperation beneficial and predictable. Pressure may secure temporary compliance, but agreements require public legitimacy to outlast governments.

Strategic autonomy cannot be a privilege reserved for major powers. India maintains relationships with competing international partners because it considers that freedom essential. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and other neighbours deserve equivalent latitude. Their engagement with China, Japan, Western economies or Gulf countries should be judged by its substance, not automatically interpreted as hostility towards India.

Smaller countries also need restraint and competence. Competition among powerful partners can improve bargaining opportunities, but opaque contracts and excessive borrowing can undermine sovereignty. Bangladesh must assess financing conditions, commercial viability, operational control and security implications before accepting major projects. Diversification strengthens independence only when domestic institutions can manage it.

The Bay of Bengal gives these choices wider significance. Ports, shipping routes, energy infrastructure and digital networks connect economic ambition with security exposure. Bangladesh should pursue maritime cooperation, disaster preparedness and reliable commerce while retaining authority over its infrastructure. Its geography can support prosperity, provided investment decisions serve enduring public interests.

Economic cooperation offers perhaps the clearest argument for a better relationship. The World Bank’s regional overview places trade within South Asia at barely 5 per cent of total trade, compared with 25 per cent in ASEAN. This longstanding disparity reveals how much economic opportunity the region sacrifices through persistent fragmentation and mistrust.

Border delays, restrictive procedures and expensive transport reduce competitiveness. Their costs reach factories, small businesses and household budgets. Bangladesh and India should prioritise predictable customs rules, transparent standards and efficient transport. Connectivity will gain stronger support when its benefits extend across Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and India’s northeastern states.

Interdependence, however, must include protection against disruption. Electricity arrangements need transparent pricing, dependable delivery and credible dispute resolution. Trade access should be sufficiently predictable for businesses to plan. Essential economic links become politically fragile when citizens suspect that dependence could be used to extract unrelated concessions.

Shared rivers demand equal attention. Water affects agriculture, ecosystems, public health and livelihoods. Negotiations should combine equitable consideration of needs with dependable data exchange, flood forecasting and practical cooperation. Climate pressures make institutional continuity especially important. Communities cannot afford to have essential information become collateral damage in political disputes.

Border management is another test of whether diplomatic goodwill reaches ordinary people. Security operations should protect life, observe accountability and distinguish criminal activity from the everyday vulnerabilities of border communities. Effective cooperation requires investigation, communication and public confidence. A relationship described as friendly must make that friendship tangible along its frontier.

Human mobility matters too. Medical travel, education, family connections and legitimate business sustain relationships beyond official diplomacy. Procedures should be transparent, accessible and predictable. Broad restrictions can punish ordinary citizens without resolving the disputes that prompted them. Governments should preserve essential channels even when political negotiations become difficult.

The regional perspective must also extend beyond bilateral tensions. Rivalry between India and Pakistan should not indefinitely obstruct practical cooperation elsewhere. Sri Lanka and the Maldives have interests that exceed competition between larger powers. Afghanistan’s humanitarian needs likewise deserve consideration alongside security concerns. Regional stability requires attention to human welfare.

Where comprehensive agreements prove difficult, willing countries can advance specific projects through BIMSTEC or other suitable arrangements. Electricity trade, disaster warnings, public health cooperation and simpler customs procedures offer practical starting points. Progress should be measured through reduced costs, faster responses and wider access, rather than declarations alone.

Bangladesh’s domestic preparation is equally decisive. Strong diplomacy depends on capable officials, reliable information, legal expertise and parliamentary scrutiny. Major agreements should withstand informed public examination. Cooperation with India should not automatically invite accusations of submission, just as criticism should not automatically confer patriotism. Outcomes must determine the judgement.

Dhaka should therefore propose a regular mechanism for assessing evidence of threats originating across the border, with reciprocal obligations and safeguards for peaceful expression. It should simultaneously pursue water, trade, energy and mobility negotiations. Firmness becomes effective when it is accompanied by workable proposals and consistent standards.

Any eventual visit by Tarique Rahman should advance an agreed programme with clear responsibilities and arrangements for reviewing implementation. A summit can improve the atmosphere, but delivery builds trust. Neither government should mistake ceremonial warmth for resolution of the difficult issues that shape public opinion.

The stakes extend beyond a single diplomatic visit or political dispute. A stable neighbourhood can attract investment, support resilient supply chains and strengthen collective responses to emergencies. A mistrustful one diverts attention and resources towards avoidable friction. The choice will shape economic opportunities for a generation across the entire region.

For India, respecting Bangladesh’s choices would strengthen its regional standing. For Bangladesh, constructive engagement backed by institutional competence would make sovereignty more effective in practice. Both countries should understand that public confidence is a strategic resource. It grows through fairness, reliability and visible benefits, and diminishes when promises repeatedly fail.

South Asia will always contain unequal concentrations of wealth and power. It need not institutionalise unequal dignity. India’s leadership will be judged by how its neighbours experience it. Bangladesh’s diplomacy will be judged by what it secures for its people. India will remain the bigger neighbour. Bangladesh must never be expected to accept a lesser status.

The writer is a political analyst based in Geneva, a private banking financial crime compliance specialist, columnist and poet. He writes on South Asian geopolitics, international relations, global financial transparency and strategic affairs. He can be reached at shahidul.alam@bluewin.ch.