Bangladesh-India relations have long been described as "time-tested," "historic," and "multi-dimensional." Yet, history alone does not guarantee mutual respect, nor does proximity ensure parity. Recent developments surrounding Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar's visit to Bangladesh, followed closely by the controversial decision of the Indian cricket authorities to deny participation to Bangladesh's star cricketer Mustafizur Rahman, have reopened uncomfortable questions about sovereignty, dignity, and diplomatic balance.
These events, viewed separately, might be dismissed as routine diplomatic and sporting matters. Viewed together, however, they reveal a troubling pattern that many Bangladeshis perceive as disregard-if not outright condescension-towards an independent and sovereign nation. The report was written based on a FB post of economic protagonist of UN Economic Advisory Committee and Editor of Daily Industry Dr. Enayet Karim.
A Visit Laden with Questions: Dr. S. Jaishankar's recent visit to Bangladesh was officially framed as a condolence mission, conveying Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's message following the death of former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia. Symbolically, such gestures matter in diplomacy. However, symbolism must be matched by protocol, transparency, and respect for state procedures.
According to Dr. Enayet Karim, the global economic protagonist and editor of Daily Industry, the visit itself raised serious concerns. He questioned how a foreign minister of another country could enter Bangladesh "without completing the standard visa process or without a clear state-level invitation made public." Even more controversially, Dr. Karim noted that instead of landing at Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport-the recognized gateway for visiting dignitaries-Mr. Jaishankar reportedly arrived via the old Dhaka airport in Tejgaon.
"Who permitted this, and under what authority?" Dr. Karim asked, voicing a question that many citizens quietly ponder but rarely hear addressed publicly.
Bangladesh is not a province, protectorate, or dependency of any country. It is a sovereign republic born through immense sacrifice. Any deviation from established diplomatic protocol-whether real or perceived-risks undermining that sovereignty and eroding public confidence in foreign policy management.
Diplomacy Is Not a Private Affair: Diplomacy, by nature, often requires discretion. But discretion should not translate into opacity, especially when national dignity is at stake. Mr. Jaishankar's reported meeting with BNP Acting Chairman Tarique Rahman further complicated the optics of the visit. Political engagement by foreign officials must be carefully calibrated, particularly in a country where electoral politics remain sensitive and contested.
The lack of clear, official communication surrounding the visit allowed speculation to flourish. In diplomacy, silence can be as damaging as misstatement. When citizens are left to rely on rumor rather than record, trust weakens-not only in bilateral relations but also in domestic institutions tasked with safeguarding national interests.
The Mustafizur Rahman Controversy: More Than Cricket: If the diplomatic concerns stirred unease, the Indian cricket authorities' subsequent decision regarding Mustafizur Rahman ignited public outrage.
Mustafizur is not merely a cricketer; he is a national icon. In a cricket-loving nation like Bangladesh, players are woven into the fabric of collective pride and identity. When Indian authorities denied him the opportunity to play-reportedly amid pressure from Hindu extremist groups-it was perceived by many Bangladeshis not as a sporting decision, but as a political and cultural insult.
Dr. Enayet Karim described the incident as "a deliberate humiliation," arguing that it exposed a paradox in India's approach. "On one hand, India speaks of friendship and shared history. On the other, it allows intolerance and extremism to dictate actions that demean Bangladeshi talent," he said.
For ordinary citizens, the message felt personal. Cricket transcends diplomacy; it touches emotion. Any action that appears to single out a Bangladeshi star for exclusion-especially on religious or ideological grounds-inevitably fuels resentment.
A Pattern of Asymmetry: What troubles analysts is not any single incident, but the cumulative effect of many unresolved grievances. Water-sharing disputes, border killings, trade imbalances, non-tariff barriers, transit benefits skewed heavily in India's favor, and now perceived diplomatic and cultural slights-all contribute to a sense of asymmetry.
Bangladesh has often demonstrated restraint, choosing quiet diplomacy over public confrontation. While this approach has prevented escalation, it has also created the impression of acquiescence. As Dr. Karim noted, "In many cases, issues that deeply affect our national interest are neither publicly discussed nor firmly negotiated. They become rhetorical footnotes rather than policy priorities."
Such restraint may have been understandable when Bangladesh's economy was fragile. Today, it is not.
Bangladesh's Changing Economic Identity: Bangladesh is no longer a marginal economy. It is an emerging economic actor, with consistent GDP growth, expanding exports, a growing domestic market, and increasing geopolitical relevance. As the country moves closer to LDC graduation, its expectations from diplomacy must also evolve.
Economic growth cannot be sustained without diplomatic efficiency. Trade negotiations, labor mobility, investment flows, and regional connectivity all depend on skilled, confident, and reciprocal diplomacy. When diplomatic engagement appears one-sided or deferential, economic opportunities are lost. Respect in international relations is not demanded; it is negotiated through competence, clarity, and consistency.
Sovereignty Is Not Symbolic-It Is Practical: Sovereignty does not exist only in constitutions and speeches. It exists in airports, visas, protocols, negotiations, and mutual behavior. When any foreign power-no matter how closes-appears to bypass norms, it weakens the practical expression of sovereignty.
This does not mean Bangladesh should pursue confrontation or hostility. India is a crucial neighbor, trade partner, and regional power. But friendship does not preclude firmness. On the contrary, mature relationships are built on the ability to say "no" when necessary and to demand respect without hostility.
The Way Forward: Diplomacy With Dignity: The solution does not lie in populist outrage or anti-India rhetoric. It lies in strengthening Bangladesh's diplomatic capacity.
First, diplomatic protocols must be strictly enforced, without exception. No foreign dignitary should be allowed procedural flexibility that undermines institutional norms.
Second, transparency must improve. The public has a right to know the purpose, scope, and outcomes of high-level foreign visits.
Third, cultural and sporting diplomacy should be protected from extremism. Cricket, like culture, should unite-not divide-South Asia.
Finally, Bangladesh must invest in professional diplomatic training, strategic communication, and economic diplomacy to compete effectively in a free and globalized economy.As Dr. Enayet Karim aptly concluded, "This is not about hostility. This is about self-respect. Without diplomatic skill and confidence, even economic success becomes vulnerable." Bangladesh has earned its place through struggle, resilience, and growth. It must now ensure that its diplomacy reflects that reality-firm, balanced, and dignified.
