Can states have a choice in selecting their neighbors? Everyone interested in international relations knows the answer. States cannot change their neighbors. Geographical existence sets the limitations. What makes this phenomenon so abiding for state-to-state relation? It is the inevitability of geography that undergirds the territorial certainty of a state.

The breakup of greater India gave birth to two independent states, India and Pakistan. In greater India, different religious ethnicities lived together. The Hindus and the Muslims belonged to one state. When the Muslims wanted a separate homeland for themselves, the British as colonial masters, thought it better to divide Greater India into two. The Muslims believed that an independent state for themselves will guarantee a homeland free of “Hindu power”. Power is a symbol of conquest for one while it is an elegy of defeat for other. Thus, the greater India which was forged into a one unit political state by the Mughal Raj was cut into two independent states. India and Pakistan, which were once INDIA, became neighbors in 1947.

But neither India nor Pakistan could be happy with each other. India was, in fact, surrounded by two neighbors, namely the two parts of Pakistan called East Pakistan and West Pakistan after the two directions in which they straddled the geographical setting of the South Asian map. Map is a political projection that has always been an eyewitness to the trajectories of World History. There was a time when the world was composed of few states. When the United Nations was born, there were just about 50 states; now, there are nearly 200 sovereign states. The few number of states with fewer neighbors on the World Map has changed into large number of states with more neighbors.

The metamorphosis of international politics has seen the eclipse of many powerful states even in recent World History. Prussia is a case in point. It was a large and powerful nation under Frederick the Great (1740-1786). At the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), which redrew the map after Napoleon’s defeat, Prussia annexed rich new territories. The Franco-German War of 1870 is often referred to as Franco-Prussian War. This was a War in which a coalition of German states led by Prussia defeated France, ending French hegemony in continental Europe and creating a unified Germany. Prussia had around her such strong neighbors as Austria, France and Russia. After the First World War, Prussia went extinct. It is, no longer, a political state. Its importance lies in the work of scholars in being a historical region comprised of parts of the modern-day nations of Germany, Poland, and Russia. Thus, once a powerful state has vanished from today’s World Map. Germans, who used to be so uneasy and fearful of Prussia, do not have her now as a neighbor. On the contrary, its neighbor has been replaced by a much powerful Russia whom it cannot change given the latter’s geography with its political clout and military power. Only the breakup of Russia as a hypothetical phenomenon can give Germany a different neighbor or vice versa.

Greater India having been truncated, metamorphosed into two distinct political entities in the World Map. The change of political map brings with its geo-political variants. Centuries back, Kautilya, the great Indian political thinker, made a most profound statement, “Your neighbor’s neighbor is your friend”. What Kautilya had in mind about the neighbor was ambiguous. Did Kautilya advise rulers to take a neighbor as an enemy for granted? This seems rather ambivalent if one takes his assertion at face value. The reach of great powers, in modern times, has become so extensive because of technology and military weapons that distance is, no longer, the measurement for determining a criterion for amity or enmity. But Kautilya made one thing clear that neighbors are to be taken seriously. In most cases, relationship between neighbors is dicey, and fraught with difficulties. In usual sense, the strategic behavior of ZERO-SUM Game works better when neighbors are pitted against each other. This concept takes on a precarious strategic sense when the neighbor happens to be a powerful state with an expansionist role. There is always an urgency to ensure that the neighbor must be factored as an intelligent actor capable of influencing the national interest of another neighboring state.

Bangladesh fought a liberation war for nine months against the then Pakistan military. It cost her 3 million in lives and much more in other forms of casualties. India supported East Bengalis (taking them as distinct from the Bengalis of West Bengal, India) to win independence from Pakistan. The birth of Bangladesh augured a new phase in the lives of the East Bengalis. They became independent, free and liberated. India’s contribution in that War of Liberation was monumental, and can never be forgotten.

India’s part in Bangladesh’s liberation has been a typical one. Being a neighbor of Pakistan, India’s involvement in a war that necessitated Pakistan’s dismemberment was a courageous and fraught political decision. It was a Cold War period, and the United States was having an unfriendly relationship with the former Soviet Union. The U.S. made up a strategy to weaken the power of the U.S.S.R. This could be done if the U.S. became friends with China who was also ill-disposed to the U.S.S.R. The U.S. needed a mediator, and Pakistan was the most apt choice as she had built a powerful diplomatic relationship with China.

The U.S. did not support the idea of breaking up Pakistan. For the U.S., Pakistan was strategic balance to India’s ambition of becoming a most powerful state in Asia in general as well as a leading power in South Asia. In those days, India’s relation with the U.S. was lukewarm because of India’s closeness with the U.S.S.R. So, to give confidence to Pakistan, her ally, the U.S. decided to send the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier to the Bay of Bengal. The carrier was part of the US Navy’s Seventh Carrier Group. Its main mission was to combat the Indian Navy, and force India to negotiate a political settlement of Pakistan’s crisis. But at that time, the Soviet Union was India’s closest ally. The USSR quickly dispatched its naval cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines to block the progress of the US Seventh Fleet. The Soviet Union was able to put pressure on the U.S. from making an amphibious landing or hitting the targets deep inside the war zone. Despite Pakistan’s success in setting up a bi-lateral relationship between China and the U.S., she completely failed in stopping the liberation war till Bangladesh achieved independence through victory on 16 December 1971. India and East Bengalis together won the War of Bangladesh. India helped with troops, supplies, weapons and munitions with an open and covert missions from the Indian army, navy and air force, and finally, the Bengali liberation fighters released Bangladesh from the subjection of Pakistan. The birth of Bangladesh placed a new-born country on the World Map. The country is now surrounded by two neighbors, India and Myanmar as opposed to five neighbors, India, Iran, Afghanistan, China and Myanmar when it was a part of the one Pakistan. Bangladesh War is a strange story of a neighbor helping its one time adversary to gain independence from its own once- upon- a- time national entity formed of a religious identity some twenty five years back. Thus, the birth of Bangladesh rendered the historicity of religion as a tool for nation-state system, fraught with too many dangers. Distance and cultural difference stood in the way of religion used as a rhetoric for amity. The people who had once wanted to be part of one Muslim state fought for one more time for a separate homeland with a secular culture.

In gaining independence, Bangladesh also changed her perception of neighbors. India who was an arch enemy of Pakistan had now morphed into a friend as a neighbor of Bangladesh. On the other hand, Myanmar as a neighbor to Pakistan was non-existent surfaced as state to reckon with.

India and Myanmar, the two neighbors of Bangladesh were the second and sixth countries to recognize Bangladesh on 6 Dec 1971 and 13 January 1972 respectively. It endorsed that both the neighbors were willing to establish good relations with Bangladesh. Bangladesh’s geo-strategic location makes her significant to India as she surrounds Bangladesh on three sides —— East, West and North, while Myanmar in the South suggests a challenge for influence in the Bay of Bengal opening up to Indian Ocean for trade routes.

Bangladesh’s Foreign Policy statement, “Friendship to all and malice toward none”, is geared toward maintaining harmony and peace with neighbors. It is benign and well-adapted in an environment of less sensitivity. But the power position of India, and the status of the Indian Ocean make it difficult for Bangladesh to be always reliant upon a benign policy imperative. On the other hand, China wants an access to Indian Ocean, thereby making India suspicious of China’s relations with Bangladesh. Myanmar has survived all these years despite authoritarian rule with concurrent implications of the Western sanctions because China has proved to be her constant and consistent friend. Though Bangladesh wants a peaceful relation with Myanmar, the latter’s internecine domestic politics of repression and abuses of human rights of ethnic minorities have made things difficult for Bangladesh. In 2017, when Myanmar military junta pushed around one million Rohingyas into Bangladesh, she unloaded huge burden on Bangladesh’s economic resources and multi-dimensional national security issues.

There is a need for Bangladesh and Myanmar to get serious about dealing with the Myanmar’s insurgency issues. Bangladesh has turned into a safe haven for the Myanmar rebels. This has a long term strategic implications for the region. No matter how strongly Bangladesh pursues the case with Myanmar, there is a need for international engagement. It is understood that China would like to use Myanmar to its advantage for the Belt-and Road Initiative (BRI). This makes Myanmar military junta immune to external pressure.

Bangladesh and Myanmar have faced each other in 5 small scale conflicts, and every time it has been a moral and military victory for Bangladesh. There is also a structural difference between Myanmar and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a democracy while Myanmar is a military dictator. So, Bangladesh needs to be careful in engaging with Myanmar. But it must be stressed that keeping Myanmar at a distance will only aggravate the situation inside Bangladesh. It does not matter to Myanmar’s military apparatus TATMADAW to unleash its atrocities upon its own citizens, and at the same time, instigate local populace to push into the border areas of Bangladesh, namely Cox’s Bazar and Chittagong Hill Tracts. If it continues unabated, it is not unlikely that the recalcitrant rebels taking shelter inside will proliferate into deeper districts of Bangladesh, and can easily merge with local population. What is most depressing in this regard is the non-participatory role of the Indian government in coming forward to take the Rohingya crisis as a regional security threat. On the other hand, ASEAN as a regional forum has been most lackadaisical to the proposals of Bangladesh. It seems paraphrasing Kautilya’s dictum that distant neighbors are friends sounds true as most support to Bangladesh in Rohingya issue has come from the west. Myanmar as a neighbor is very unpredictable for Bangladesh.

On 6 Oct 2018, Myanmar showed St. Martin’s Island as part of her territory. This was also uploaded in two global websites. The Myanmar Ambassador in Dhaka was summoned on 6 Oct 2018. Bangladesh Foreign Ministry handed over a strongly worded protest note to him. The Myanmar envoy admitted of the updated map as a mistake. In Sep 2020, the TATMADAW amassed troops in three different locations of Bangladesh border. At that time, Bangladesh was worried about Rohingyas, and suspected that these moves could be to attack Rohingyas inside Bangladesh. Immediately, Bangladesh deployed Border Guards Battalions (BGB) on Myanmar-Bangladesh border. BGB asked their counterparts to arrange a flag meeting but they received no response. In 2022, Myanmar Air Force violated Bangladesh’s airspace multiple times. Myanmar recently made an incursion into Bangladesh’s exclusive economic zone, but the Bangladesh Navy took almost seven days to send a patrol boat where the Myanmar Navy was firing shells at Bangladesh’s Saint Martin’s Island.

Myanmar is Bangladesh’s neighbor. The question is whether she is a friendly neighbor or an unfriendly neighbor. Myanmar military has repeatedly violated Bangladesh’s land, airspace and sea with complete impunity and lack of enforcement from Bangladesh Army, Bangladesh Air Force and Bangladesh Navy. Does it mean that Myanmar wants to engage in conflict with Bangladesh because that gives TATMADAW legitimacy to be in power.

Therefore, Bangladesh needs a long term strategy to deal with Myanmar. It must be based on CREDIBLE DETERRENCE. Here, army, navy and air force must develop joint task force with adequate defensive-offense capabilities. Since Myanmar is a military state, it will be wise to pursue military diplomacy along with traditional foreign policy requirements.

Bangladesh’s most powerful neighbor is India. India is not only a regional power but it is also competing to be a global power in the near future. So, India matters a lot for Bangladesh. Since Bangladesh’s independence, her relationship with India has been uneven. Which political party is in power, that determines Indo-Bangla relation whether it will be conducive or not. This exercise has denied Bangladesh to have a sustainable stable relationship with her neighbor.

India’s location in itself is a serious concern for her national security. To her east, Bangladesh is a wedge disconnecting her center from the seven sister states. For long, India has troubled hard in maintaining peace in its northeastern provinces. She never felt comfortable with the reports of United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) rebels being trained inside Bangladesh territory. So, the relationship with India during Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) rule was poised on mistrust, disrespect and inciting internal insurgency by the other. The situation improved when Awami League came to power, and harboring insurgents on both sides of the border was mutually disbanded. For long, it was believed that insurgency in Chittagong Hill Tracts was masterminded from the Indian side. With the signing of the CHT Peace Accord during Awami League in Dec 1997 ended decades-long fighting between Shanti Bahini and Bangladesh army. This is a strange phenomenon where domestic political parties decide on national interest at cross purpose with the neighbors in respect of foreign relations. Does it mean that India has a preference in seeing a particular political party in power of Bangladesh to her strategic interest?

If it is so, India’s foreign policy needs a complete rethinking with regard to Bangladesh and vice versa. Because foreign policy impinging upon national interests to be made reliant on specific parties coming to power cannot be sustainable, and is surely to beget perennial frustration among common people. There is no reason that Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will not be able to work with any party other than the Awami League. This also explains her hyper-sensitive attitude to remain inflexible to work with any government rather than with only one, and her failure to understand the emotions and sentiments of the people of Bangladesh. It is a folly to put all the cards into one single basket. If BJP had realized the “QUIT INDIA” sentiment of the Bangladeshis that evolved last year, it should have noted that it was the result of BJP full heartedly supporting Awami League coming power through rigged elections in 2018 and 2024. BJP’s foreign policy compliments to Awami League did not go with India’s avowed espousal of popular democracy and secularism. The Indian Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement that immigrant Bangladeshis were like termites was disturbing and inimical to the friendly sentiments of Bangladesh.

Subsequently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s over-concerned anxiety over the safety of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh when the interim caretaker government took power, is unnerving. His speculations of fear were not based on facts, rather emotive texts made up in the media. In times of crisis, media’s natural instinct is to hype up the ante. If the lives of the minority are premised to be under threat, then it is the responsibility of the states in South Asia to work together, and make human security as the cornerstone of regional security. None of the South Asian states has been able to posit man and his dignity above other priorities.

The other external actor that plays irritant acts in South Asia’s regional space is China. China is an outsider but has a strong influence on South Asian states other than India. This poses a serious challenge to India’s eminence in the region. China not only has been able to develop a healthy trading relations with South Asia, it is also a big supplier of armaments and defense materials to India’s next door neighbors, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. India’s fear that in the event of a war, China will take the easiest route to cut India, thereby separating the center and the eastern states buffered in-between by Bangladesh. Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, and the narrow corridor of CHUMBI VALLEY up north of Bangladesh are the two strategic flashpoints that may be exploited by China in the event of a serious conflict with India. So, Bangladesh is not free from a self-protecting military thrust into its territory, no matter how neutral a stance she maintains about taking sides either with India or China. A strong deterrent posture by Bangladesh can only send a strong message of retaliation to an infiltrating army. All this makes India’s position difficult and fragile. India happens to be the most versatile neighbor to Bangladesh not by choice but by fate.

For Bangladesh, India is extremely important, and so is the case with India. Any political unrest in Bangladesh will have its repercussions in India. It is clearly understood by the flight of large number of Awami League leaders after the July revolution. This makes India’s choice of maintaining a friendly relation with Bangladesh very delicate and sensitive. On the other hand, inciting political commotion in any of the neighboring states of India can be plotted from inside Bangladesh. Mizoram, Tripura, West Bengal are states that stand on the brink of political turpitude of neighborly machinations.

As the world moves forward to an uncertain dilemma of AI-dominated scientific future, it is imperative for India to start contemplating a forward-looking foreign policy strategy. India’s relation with Bangladesh needs to be based on mutual understanding of constituents from strategic to popular tactical level. It was time for India to renew taking initiatives in SAARC as a regional forum if she wants to reclaim her stature as a great benign power to compete China and the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific. India’s foreign minister Jaishankar has written a book Why Bharat Matters. The book claims India’s position as a great power with a rich ancient history. The point is OLD BHARAT is, no longer, modern India. The world knows and understands BHARAT more as INDIA aspiring to set up an example of taking a meaningful role as a great nation. For that India needs to start from her local turf that is South Asia. No country offers a better constructive challenge to India than Bangladesh given both countries empathic history sublimed by the birth of Bangladesh in 1971.