India-Pakistan conflict: What should be the strategic position of Bangladesh

Relations between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed neighbours, India and Pakistan, resemble an endless war shrouded in a fog of uncertainty. Following the recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, tensions have reignited between the two nations, with India placing blame on Pakistan.

Amid this volatile geopolitical landscape, Bangladesh, though relatively small in size, has carved out a significant role in the subcontinent’s politics due to its strategic location and geopolitical importance.

Bangladesh began to act with a clear understanding of its strategic value primarily during the tenure of the late President Ziaur Rahman. It was under his leadership that efforts were initiated to find a space for peace within the conflict by proposing the establishment of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), bringing together smaller nations. SAARC was formed with the aim of ensuring that, even amid the India-Pakistan rivalry, smaller countries could safeguard their interests and maintain their distinct identities.

In the years that followed, that initiative stalled for various reasons—especially as India’s influence in Bangladesh increased and the country began to lean politically in one direction. As a result, Bangladesh’s once-emerging role as an independent and sovereign nation capable of speaking from a position of balance, significantly diminished.

However, in the wake of the recent mass uprising, there appears to be a renewed effort to revitalise SAARC under the leadership of Professor Muhammad Yunus, the head of the interim government. This effort seems to signal a revival of Bangladesh’s lost voice on the regional stage.

Bangladesh’s role in promoting peace in this region is not confined to diplomatic niceties, it has the potential to become a central player in shaping a new strategic equation. After all, war is not fought only at the borders; it also plays out in economies, societies, democracies, and identities. And when the shadow of such conflict grows darker, small nations like Bangladesh repeatedly face four key challenges: maintaining political neutrality, ensuring security, preserving diplomatic balance, and keeping the economy stable.

From the perspective of international relations, the major schools of thought also offer support for the role of small states. Realism emphasises power as the central force; liberalism advocates for progress through dialogue and cooperation; while constructivism reminds us that a state’s behaviour and diplomatic choices are shaped by its identity, values, and shared understandings.

It is through the lens of constructivism that Bangladesh’s role becomes particularly significant. The country’s national identity has been forged through its liberation war, democratic struggles, and mass movements. If Bangladesh takes a firm stance in favour of peace rooted in this identity, it will not only reflect diplomatic goodwill but also gain legitimacy within the region’s geopolitical realities.

In this context, if Bangladesh can play a mediating role in revitalising SAARC, fostering regional dialogue, and de-escalating bilateral tensions in the interest of peaceful coexistence, it would set a bold precedent for other small states in the subcontinent. The current generation of leadership—those who have written the victory story of the recent mass uprising—now has the opportunity to shape a history defined not by the heat of conflict, but by the light of peace radiating across borders.

Bangladesh must not merely focus on surviving safely, but rather rise as a strong voice for regional peace rooted in dignity and self-respect. In a region marked by perpetual conflict, standing steadfastly for peace will be this nation’s most important strategic position.

The role of small states in light of international relations theory
According to realism, when conflict breaks out among major powers, small states typically adopt one of three strategies: neutrality, balancing, or alignment.

Liberalism, on the other hand, views international relations not merely as a struggle for power, but as a space where peace can be achieved through dialogue, mutual interdependence, and the mediation of international institutions. Small states can gain global legitimacy by presenting themselves as mediators, peace brokers, or neutral observers.

Constructivism emphasises identity, values, and belief systems. From this perspective, small states respond to warring neighbours based on their historical experiences, cultural values, and commitment to international norms.

According to constructivist thought, if one of the warring neighbours acts aggressively, small states may offer moral support to the other side—even if they remain militarily neutral. Such a stance can enhance a state's international image and build long-term credibility.

History shows that small states have adopted various strategies during times of conflict involving their neighbours. In the 1990s, when Yugoslavia disintegrated, countries like Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia not only secured their independence but also sought the support of the international community in their pursuit of peace.

In the prolonged Israel-Syria conflict, Lebanon maintained a stance of neutrality while relying heavily on UN peacekeeping missions.

In South America, during periods of tension between Argentina and Brazil, smaller states often redefined their regional roles and focused on economic diplomacy as a strategic alternative.

For small states living in the shadow of warring neighbours, adopting a multi-dimensional strategy is essential. First, they should maintain diplomatic neutrality while actively seeking international assistance to address crises caused by war—such as refugee influxes, security threats, and economic disruptions.

Second, by reassessing existing security alliances or defense cooperation agreements, a small state can strengthen its geopolitical position. However, it is crucial to maintain a balanced approach and avoid falling into the traps of bias or dominance by any party.

Third, by preserving balanced economic and cultural relations with both warring nations, a state can continue its domestic development. Given shifts in demand and supply chains during wartime, identifying alternative export and import routes become vital.

At the same time, the state must adopt a principled stance—one that prioritises human rights, peace, and international law. This will not only enhance its global credibility but also help build a fair and respected historical legacy for the future.

Today, Bangladesh stands as South Asia’s second-largest economy. This is not just a matter of numbers—it is a major recognition of the country’s growing international credibility. In this geopolitical reality, Bangladesh’s responsibilities and strategic importance are both expanding. Tensions between India and Pakistan are no longer confined to their borders; their effects ripple across the entire subcontinent. In this heated neighborhood, Bangladesh must adopt a measured, cautious, and wise stance.

One of the most significant political setbacks to India’s regional dominance has emerged from Bangladesh itself—through a mass uprising. The people’s unity against fascism, their resistance, and unwavering support for democracy serve as guiding lights and sources of inspiration as we face future challenges.

There is also ongoing discussion that India has, for a long time, been deliberately fostering anti-India sentiment, provocation, and hostility in Bangladesh to create a wartime mindset. Some Indian television programmes have even used Bangladeshi participants to amplify artificial narratives of hatred against India—an approach that contradicts a healthy and constructive nationalism.

The generation that led the mass uprising is a victorious generation; they carry the legacy of triumph. In contrast, those who seek war embody a defeated mentality—lost and disoriented. Our war is not against any nation. Our war is against poverty, illiteracy, inequality, and for ensuring human security.

At this moment, Bangladesh's primary responsibility is to rebuild the state, ensure economic and social development, and maintain overall stability. What we need is civic defence and, where necessary, strategic firmness. Hegemony cannot be challenged through military tension alone—it must be countered with diplomatic intelligence and pragmatic policies.

For states like Bangladesh, the formation of a Strategic Crisis Management Cell has become a timely necessity, both for safeguarding national interests and meeting regional demands. In today’s complex global geopolitical landscape, if crises such as natural disasters, border conflicts, war-related impacts, or refugee influxes are not managed swiftly and effectively, they can severely undermine national security, social stability, and the country’s international image.

The core functions of such a cell would include forecasting potential crises, preparing practical solutions, and swiftly coordinating relevant agencies for action. Its structure could incorporate security analysts, diplomats, health and environmental experts, human rights monitors, and international legal advisors. For example, during the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe, Germany’s Chancellor’s Office established a dedicated Refugee Coordination Cell, which ensured rapid inter-ministerial coordination for border control, city-level asylum management, and international cooperation.

Similarly, Bangladesh should form a specialized strategic cell tailored to its geopolitical environment to prepare for potential wars or regional conflicts. Such a cell would not only ensure domestic coordination but also play a vital role in mobilising international assistance by building active networks with the United Nations, regional alliances, and humanitarian organisations.

In doing so, Bangladesh can position itself as a vanguard of peace in the region and an effective representative of small states on the global stage.

*Alauddin Mohammad is joint member secretary of NCP.

*The views in this article is of the writer's own