Anwar Shahadat

For a short time, South Asia’s specific tensions between India and Bangladesh appeared to soften. The death of former Bangladeshi prime minister Khaleda Zia created an unexpected diplomatic opening, bringing Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Pakistan’s parliamentary speaker to Dhaka at the same time- an unprecedented convergence on Bangladeshi soil. Yet the symbolism of that moment proved fragile. Within days, Bangladesh–India relations once again slid into confrontation, this time over cricket, as the removal of Bangladeshi pacer Mustafizur Rahman from the Indian Premier League (IPL) triggered outrage in Dhaka and renewed accusations of political interference from New Delhi. The rapid shift from condolence to conflict underscored a deeper truth: gestures alone cannot stabilise a relationship burdened by mistrust, domestic politics, and unresolved power asymmetries.

The diplomatic context matters. Relations between Bangladesh and India have remained unsettled since the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, with both sides navigating a recalibrated political landscape. In Bangladesh, public resentment toward India has grown, fuelled by perceptions of excessive Indian influence during the previous regime. In India, anxieties persist about Dhaka’s future orientation and the return of narratives framed around “pro-India” and “pro-Pakistan” alignments. Against this backdrop, the joint presence of Indian and Pakistani representatives at Khaleda Zia’s funeral was striking- not because it resolved disputes, but because it briefly suspended them.

That moment challenged long-standing binaries in Bangladeshi politics. Khaleda Zia was often portrayed as closer to Pakistan and distant from India, a framing that hardened partisan divisions for decades. Ironically, her death became the occasion for both India and Pakistan to engage Bangladesh simultaneously, without visible rivalry. For Dhaka, it was a reminder that the country need not be reduced to a geopolitical battleground. For New Delhi and Islamabad, it was a rare instance of shared diplomatic space unmarked by hostility.

India’s decision to send Jaishankar signalled an attempt to maintain engagement without overt political signalling. Pakistan’s presence, meanwhile, suggested a cautious effort to normalise ties with Bangladesh without provoking regional backlash. Taken together, the visits hinted- however briefly- at a more restrained regional diplomacy, one rooted in respect rather than leverage.

That restraint did not last. The controversy surrounding Mustafizur Rahman’s exclusion from the IPL reignited familiar tensions. The absence of a clear explanation from India’s cricket authorities, combined with reports of political and ideological pressure, reinforced perceptions in Bangladesh that India’s domestic politics routinely spill across the border. Dhaka’s response- suspending IPL broadcasts and reconsidering participation in tournaments hosted in India- reflected not just sporting anger, but accumulated diplomatic frustration.

Both sides bear responsibility for this relapse. India continues to underestimate how deeply symbolic issues, including cricket, resonate in Bangladesh’s political consciousness. Treating such matters as internal or technical decisions only fuels suspicion. Bangladesh, for its part, often allows public anger and nationalist rhetoric to substitute for sustained diplomatic engagement, turning symbolic disputes into zero-sum confrontations.

The episode reveals the limits of ceremonial diplomacy. Shared mourning can create pauses, but it cannot substitute for trust, transparency, and mutual respect. Without structural changes in how Bangladesh and India manage disagreements- especially in culturally charged arenas like sport- moments of convergence will remain brief, and reversions to tension inevitable.

South Asia does not lack opportunities for closure. What it lacks is the political discipline to preserve them once the moment passes. The challenge for Dhaka and New Delhi is not to manufacture symbolism, but to prevent it from being undone by the very instincts that have long kept the relationship unstable.