Tied by geography, divided by politics

This article highlights the limitations of using historical legacy (the 1971 Liberation War) as a permanent foundation for bilateral relations. Strategic autonomy is a key concept here; smaller nations often seek to counterbalance a dominant neighbor (India) by engaging with other powers (like China, Pakistan, and the US) to maximize their diplomatic maneuverability. From a realist perspective, Bangladesh's actions, often perceived by New Delhi as anti-Indian, are a classic example of a weaker state attempting to secure its national identity and interests against a perceived hegemon. The Awami League's historical alignment with secular Bengali nationalism fostered closer ties with India, while the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) utilized Islamic nationalism to differentiate itself, leading to suspicion of Indian influence. The current situation underscores the danger of India overly identifying its interests with a single political regime (Hasina's government) rather than cultivating broad-based engagement across the political spectrum. Moving forward, India’s Neighbourhood First policy must adapt by prioritizing pragmatic cooperation on shared interests like regional connectivity and resource management, rather than expecting perpetual gratitude.

Geography plays a deterministic role in shaping the power dynamics between India and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is almost entirely landlocked by India (sharing a border of over 4,000 km) and the Bay of Bengal. Crucially, it is a lower riparian state to numerous major rivers originating in or flowing through India, such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra. This geographical reality creates an inherent vulnerability for Bangladesh regarding water security and economic maneuvering. The fear of Indian domination is not just political but deeply rooted in this geographical asymmetry. Therefore, bilateral negotiations, particularly concerning the sharing of river waters, are highly sensitive. India, as the upper riparian and overwhelmingly powerful neighbor, must exercise restraint and perhaps adopt a non-reciprocal approach (similar to the Gujral Doctrine) to build trust. Bangladesh, conversely, must recognize that its geographic realities necessitate a functional relationship with India, as ties with other powers cannot fully substitute for manageable relations with its immediate neighbor.

The complex sociopolitical history of the region significantly influences contemporary diplomacy. The historical memories of pre-Partition Bengal, specifically the socio-economic dominance of the Hindu bhadralok, continue to shape anxieties within Bangladesh regarding Indian influence, particularly mediated through West Bengal. The development of Bangladeshi nationalism has wavered between a secular, linguistic identity (championed by the Awami League and rooted in 1971) and an overtly Islamic identity (promoted by leaders like Ziaur Rahman and the BNP) designed to draw a stark contrast with Hindu-majority India. This ideological contestation over national identity means that relations with India are not merely a foreign policy issue but are deeply intertwined with domestic politics. The narrative of self-liberation is vital for national pride; thus, the immense role India played in 1971, while initially a source of gratitude, has morphed into a source of psychological discomfort for some sections of Bangladeshi society. Understanding these historical and psychological dimensions is crucial for India to formulate a nuanced and sensitive foreign policy.