Bangladesh has been trying for some time to arrange a meeting or face-to-face encounter between professor Muhammad Yunus and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi. However, there had been no response from India. Last September, during the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Bangladesh attempted to arrange such a meeting. In March, before Yunus's trip to China, Bangladesh again tried to arrange a meeting with Modi, but India did not respond.
Subsequently, Bangladesh requested India to hold such a meeting on the sideline of the BIMSTEC summit in Bangkok. Initially, India’s external affairs ministry rejected the proposal, but ultimately, the meeting took place. The matter is certainly not that India was compelled to sit for the meeting, but the reality is that prime minister Modi did meet with professor Yunus.
Following the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government on 5 August, India’s position has led one to believe that Bangladesh’s people have committed a great sin by ending the long-standing authoritarian rule. However, the situation should have been the opposite. India directly influenced the perpetuation of this authoritarian regime in Bangladesh.
For the past eight months, India has not been treating Bangladesh as a friendly country. India views the fall of Sheikh Hasina not as a foreign policy and strategic issue or a mistake but perhaps as a defeat. Unfortunately, India has not realised that it was wrong to place its trust in one party and one leader while disregarding the democratic aspirations of the people of Bangladesh. This type of foreign policy or strategy is unprecedented in the case of any major country. It seems India has not yet understood that their policy of maintaining the authoritarian rule in Bangladesh was a mistake.
After the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, India has taken a hard stance. They have stopped issuing visas to Bangladeshi citizens. People going to India for medical treatment are also finding it increasingly difficult to get visas. Direct bus and train services between the two countries have been suspended. Simultaneously, anti-Bangladesh propaganda has started in India, with most of the country's media participating in it.
While this state-sponsored position of India is certainly fueling the populist, nationalist, or Hindutva politics there, it remains to be seen how much diplomatic benefit India will gain as a regional power through this. Only time will tell.
Of the issues Yunus raised with India, aside from the request for Hasina’s return, the rest were long-standing unresolved issues. Particularly, despite repeated assurances, India has not ended border killings, and the Teesta water-sharing agreement has remained unresolved for years. Bangladesh naturally wants to renew the Ganges water-sharing agreement as its term ends next year.
Despite such post-uprising treatment from India, one might ask why Bangladesh was so proactive in arranging the Yunus-Modi meeting. Just as opposition to Bangladesh has grown in India, opposition to India has grown in Bangladesh as well. In this situation, Bangladesh’s efforts and initiatives to improve relations with India at the state level should be considered a mature diplomatic move.
Now the question is, what was the outcome of the Yunus-Modi meeting? Given that Bangladesh-India relations were at their lowest point, the fact that these two individuals met is the biggest achievement. From Bangladesh’s perspective, the meeting was the result of Bangladesh’s interest and efforts, and it served as an official demonstration of the country’s goodwill.
Despite the anti-India sentiment among the people of Bangladesh, there has been no opposition to the government’s initiative. However, some in India’s diplomatic circles have said that it was wrong for Modi to meet with Yunus. The Telegraph online quoted several former and experienced diplomats anonymously, with one saying that the meeting with the chief adviser was a bad decision.
We have learned some details of the Yunus-Modi meeting from both Bangladeshi and Indian media sources. There was a noticeable contrast in how the media in both countries reported on it. All in all, it is clear that during the meeting, Yunus raised certain issues on behalf of Bangladesh, while Modi presented some concerns on behalf of India. There were no new issues discussed, but the specific topics they raised were of interest.
Muhammad Yunus brought up the issue of requesting the return of Sheikh Hasina, called for an end to border killings, and raised the topic of renewing the Ganges water-sharing agreement and implementing the Teesta agreement.
On the other hand, prime minister Modi expressed concerns about the security of Bangladesh's minorities, particularly the Hindu community. He also spoke about the expectation to see a democratic, stable, peaceful, progressive, and inclusive Bangladesh in the future.
Of the issues Yunus raised with India, aside from the request for Hasina’s return, the rest were long-standing unresolved issues. Particularly, despite repeated assurances, India has not ended border killings, and the Teesta water-sharing agreement has remained unresolved for years. Bangladesh naturally wants to renew the Ganges water-sharing agreement as its term ends next year.
Regarding problems like border killings or the Teesta agreement, the people of Bangladesh do not expect quick resolutions from India. These are long-standing problems, and with these problems the fallen authoritarian government had maintained the 'highest level' of relations with India. The remaining issue is the return of Hasina, but it seems unlikely that India will fulfill this request. Even so, it is possible to bring the relationship to a normal level, if not a high one. Bangladesh has shown its goodwill, and now it depends on India.
Modi expressed concern about the security of Bangladesh's minority communities, especially Hindus. This is understandable, as he is a proponent of Hindutva politics, and India’s majority population is Hindu. The reality is that since 5 August, there have been some attacks on the Hindu community and their property in Bangladesh. The objection of the Bangladeshi government is that the extent being claimed did not occur.
It’s important to remind our Indian friends that during Sheikh Hasina’s previous government, there were unfortunate instances of communal violence as well, but India did not speak out as loudly about them then. However, this does not mean that India cannot express concern now. India’s concerns are valid and should be taken into account. Yunus has invited Indian journalists to visit Bangladesh to observe the situation firsthand.
However, Modi’s concern for minorities raises some questions in the minds of the people of Bangladesh. What is the situation of minorities in India? Are they safe there? Just as India is concerned about the security of Hindus in Bangladesh, Bangladeshis also have concerns about Muslims and other minorities in India.
The people of Bangladesh are aware of the changes in India’s Waqf Act, which has angered Indian Muslims. They believe that this law was passed to bring Waqf properties under government control. According to Aam Aadmi Party parliament member Sanjay Singh, this law will initiate the process of taking control of mosque and shrine properties.
In a previous article, I gave reference to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report on religious freedom in India. Their latest 2025 report mentions religious freedom curb in Bangladesh, but it states that the situation in India is much worse. India has been placed on the “Countries of Particular Concern” list due to religious persecution.
The report recommends strong measures, such as sanctions, visa restrictions, and aid cuts, against countries involved in persecuting minorities, including India’s intelligence agency, the RAW, for its alleged involvement in such activities.
Modi’s desire to see a democratic and inclusive Bangladesh is commendable. However, if he had strongly pushed for this and not openly supported one-sided elections in Bangladesh since 2014, perhaps the people of this country would not have had to endure a decade of undemocratic and authoritarian rule.
India’s foreign secretary Vikram Misri has explained Modi’s expectations for an inclusive Bangladesh. In a special press briefing after the Yunus-Modi meeting, he said that regular and inclusive elections are crucial for any democracy. He added that the prime minister had informed Yunus about this. Our question is, didn’t India realise the need for inclusive elections when three one-sided elections were held during Hasina’s tenure?
Despite India’s contradictory stance on Bangladesh, Bangladesh has shown a willingness to normalise relations with India. It seems that India could not ignore Bangladesh’s initiative, which is likely why the Yunus-Modi meeting took place. We can view this as the beginning of the normalisation of relations. As I mentioned earlier, the rest now depends on India.
*AKM Zakaria is the Deputy Editor at Prothom Alo. Email: akmzakaria@gmail.com
*This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online edition, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam