Despite heightened diplomatic tensions between Bangladesh and India, the upcoming general election in Bangladesh may offer an opportunity to rebuild strained bilateral relations, according to South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman.
In an article published in Foreign Policy, the Atlantic Council senior fellow argues that India is beginning to signal a strategic shift toward a potential BNP-led government, seeking to move beyond years of accumulated bitterness. He notes that New Delhi has recently sent more positive signals toward the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), reflecting a reassessment of its long-standing political preferences in Dhaka.
Kugelman highlights Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s condolence message following the death of BNP Chairperson and former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, as well as Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s presence at her funeral in Dhaka, as clear indications of this evolving diplomatic posture. According to the analyst, BNP’s decision to break its long-standing alliance with Jamaat-e-Islami has made the party relatively more acceptable to Indian policymakers.
Relations between the two neighbors deteriorated sharply after Sheikh Hasina was removed from power on August 5, with tensions extending beyond politics into cultural and sporting arenas. In recent weeks, Bangladesh’s interim government has banned the broadcast of the Indian Premier League (IPL) and announced that the national cricket team will not travel to India for the upcoming World Cup, underscoring the depth of the standoff.
Kugelman notes that mistrust runs deep on both sides. Many Bangladeshis believe India has long interfered in Bangladesh’s internal political affairs, while Indian officials remain concerned that the absence of Sheikh Hasina could create space for hardline and extremist forces to gain influence. Dhaka’s position has further hardened over India’s decision to grant shelter to Sheikh Hasina and refuse her extradition, particularly after Bangladeshi courts sentenced her to death in absentia.
Domestic political dynamics in both countries pose additional obstacles to improving relations. In Bangladesh, influential Islamist groups strongly oppose close ties with India, potentially limiting the diplomatic flexibility of any incoming government. In India, concerns over minority rights and reports of attacks on human rights activists in Bangladesh have reinforced a more cautious and skeptical approach toward Dhaka.
Nevertheless, Kugelman identifies tentative signs of optimism. BNP’s acting chairman Tareque Rahman has called for national unity and indirectly signaled commitments to protecting minority communities, steps that may help reassure New Delhi. BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir has also stated that relations with India must be based on “equality and mutual respect,” rather than imbalance or political dependency.
Kugelman concludes that the February 12 election could represent a critical moment to thaw relations between the two South Asian neighbors. However, meaningful progress, he cautions, will depend on whether leaders in both Dhaka and New Delhi are willing to take political risks and pursue compromise. India has already indicated it is prepared to work with any elected government in Bangladesh, making the future of bilateral ties contingent on pragmatic diplomacy and the ability of both sides to balance domestic political pressures with regional stability.
