India and Bangladesh share a deep-rooted historical, civilizational, and geographical connection. As neighbours in South Asia, their relationship has been characterized by cooperation and mutual respect but has also faced occasional challenges due to differing perceptions, internal politics, historical reasons, and relative power dynamics. Recently, Muhammad Yunus, head of Bangladesh's interim government, emphasized the deep historical ties between the two countries, stating that there is no alternative to maintaining strong bilateral relations, while attributing recent tensions to propaganda. Since the ouster of Sheikh Hasina and the rise of Yunus's administration, anti-India activities and inflammatory rhetoric have surged. Especially, the concerns have arisen over Bangladesh's expanding security, defense, and intelligence cooperation with China and Pakistan-nations adversarial to India-raising significant security challenges for New Delhi.

Bangladesh's Sovereignty and India's Security Concerns

Being a sovereign nation-state, every country has the right to engage in multiple partnerships simultaneously to secure its national interests. In fact, there is a distinction between personal relationships and foreign relations, as unlike personal relationships, which typically involve exclusivity with one individual, foreign relations are pragmatic and allow for the coexistence of multiple partnerships simultaneously to secure a country's national interests. In India, Bangladesh's pursuit of multiple partnerships with different countries is viewed through similar lenses. Similar to India's multi-alignment strategy of engaging simultaneously with the United States, Russia, and China, or with any other power, Bangladesh has every right to diversify its partnerships. However, the principle of sovereignty comes with responsibilities, and countries must take the security interests of their neighbouring countries into account while pursuing these partnerships.

Being at the receiving end of both state and non-state actors in this region, New Delhi has genuine security concerns. Cross-border terrorism, fuelled by groups like as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), frequently receives assistance from neighbouring countries, creating a persistent security threat. Insurgent outfits in India's Northeast, such as the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), have historically used Bangladesh and Myanmar as sanctuaries, capitalizing on porous borders. The influx of Rohingya refugees adds social and security problems, while smuggling of arms, drugs, and counterfeit currency further destabilizes the region. Radical Islamist groups like Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) pose spillover risks, threatening India's bordering states. Recent visits by Pakistan's ISI officials to Bangladesh have intensified India's unease.

Furthermore, the actions by Bangladesh's interim government, such as publishing maps of India's eastern and northeastern regions, including West Bengal, Tripura, and Assam, that claim its territory and threatening to cut India's Siliguri corridor, also known as "chicken's neck," did not go unnoticed in New Delhi. These statements depict total recklessness on the part of the Bangladeshi authorities. Claiming that it will cut India's strategic pathway, "Siliguri corridor," which connects India with its northeast, is highly provocative and fundamentally challenges India's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Additionally, supporting the "India Out" campaign and opposing border fencing raises grave security challenges for India.

There are some experts and prominent political figures in Bangladesh who assert that the Indian media is engaging in propaganda against their country, thereby jeopardizing a crucial bilateral relationship. While it is true that certain segments of the Indian media may sometimes amplify specific issues, it is worth asking how these experts explain the undeniable realities on the ground, such as anti-India activities and provocative rhetoric. Not all actions can be dismissed as mere propaganda, as actions often speak louder than words. Furthermore, the release of anti-India elements from jails and the persecution of minorities, particularly Hindus, cannot simply be categorized as narrative building or propaganda by the Indian media. These are tangible and well-documented concerns that necessitate serious acknowledgment rather than being conveniently reframed as examples of media bias and sensationalism.

Moreover, historically, the Awami League, under Sheikh Hasina, aligned with India's security interests, curbing Northeast insurgency support and limiting China and Pakistan's strategic foothold. In contrast, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has been less accommodating, contributing to instability during its tenure. Thus, India's preference for the Awami League stems from pragmatism rather than favouritism, as it prioritizes New Delhi's security concerns.

Strategic Backyard

The Bay of Bengal holds immense strategic importance for India. It serves as a critical corridor for trade, energy supplies, and defence operations. Any increase in Chinese influence in this region, whether through port acquisitions or military presence, directly threatens India's national security. China under the pretext of conducting oceanographic surveys has been spying and collecting data in this region. India's eastern coastline hosts critical security infrastructure, including nuclear sites, defence installations, and research facilities, etc. Beijing's expanding engagement with Bangladesh, through infrastructure projects and arms sales, fits its "String of Pearls" strategy to encircle and squeeze India. While Bangladesh reaps economic benefits, India fears a potential Chinese naval presence in the Bay, heightening security concerns.

Neighbourhood First Policy

India's "Neighbourhood First" policy guides its engagement with its neighbours, emphasizing non-reciprocal development through infrastructure, connectivity, energy, and community projects. Unlike China's debt-trap diplomacy, India's transparent initiatives-like economic aid to Sri Lanka during its crisis or human resource development in Afghanistan-aim to foster goodwill. Bangladesh has benefited significantly from India's assistance in energy, trade, and infrastructure. For Dhaka, viewing India as a development partner rather than an adversary aligns better with its long-term interests.

Need for Pragmatic Approach

From a pragmatic perspective, Bangladesh must acknowledge the power asymmetry between itself and India. Bangladesh, while a growing economy with significant regional importance, operates within this power asymmetry. Recognizing this reality does not undermine Bangladesh's sovereignty but enables it to align strategically with India's developmental and security objectives. Furthermore, aligning too closely with China and Pakistan on defense and security cooperation will only exacerbate the threat perception and deepen the "security dilemma" for Bangladesh, even if it gets JF-17 fighter jets from Pakistan or some advanced 5th-generation fighter aircraft from China. The more defence hardware it procures, the more insecure it will feel; that fear of insecurity will drive it to get even more defence hardware, which will further intensify its sense of insecurity; hence, it will get trapped in a "self-perpetuating cycle of insecurity," which it cannot break. Its power asymmetry with India is huge, as India is a regional power in South Asia, which compounds this dynamic.

Furthermore, New Delhi, for its part, has no desire to involve itself in Bangladesh's internal matters; its primary expectation is that its national security remains uncompromised. Bangladesh's proactive steps-curbing anti-India activities, addressing cross-border threats, and enhancing border management and counter-terrorism collaboration-can reassure India, strengthen ties, and foster regional peace and economic growth. Clear intent, matched by tangible actions on the ground, is essential to navigate the complexities of this relationship effectively.

Imran Khurshid is a visiting research fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies, New Delhi. He specializes in India-US relations, the Indo-Pacific studies, and South Asian security issues.