Rating democracies is a tricky business. I am only using the simple metric of who in the Indian subcontinent has had the most peaceful, stable, normal political transitions and continuity.
Trump has ushered in the age of humiliation. His method is to push around America’s friends rudely and publicly. He knows none of them can afford to fight back.
The Pakistani political leadership is weak and devoid of any intellect. Its diplomacy is entirely India-China-US focused and suffers from a presumptive view of Afghanistan as a vassal.
This is the game every nation is now learning to play. Some are finding new allies or seeing value among nations where they’d seen marginal interest. The starkest example is India & Europe.
By next weekend, Bangladesh will have an elected government. This is India’s moment to reboot broken ties by moderating the ‘ghuspethiya’ rhetoric in poll-bound West Bengal and Assam.
The key to fighting a war successfully, or even launching it, is a clear objective. That’s an entirely political call. It isn’t emotional or purely military.
No nation other than China can negotiate one-on-one with Trump on an equal footing. That’s why the middle powers who so far formed the core of multilateral bodies now feel orphaned.
Pakistan not only has zero chance of catching up with India in most areas, but will inevitably see the gap rising. Its leaders will offer its people the same snake oil in different bottles.
Recent data does not support any dramatic shift away from the dollar. As per IMF, the share of international transactions conducted in dollars has declined from 56.90% to 56.77%.
Increase in employment subsidy, Rs 500 crore for estate revamp, new townships in pipeline—but land cost, power breakdowns and inspector raj top among key worries for industry leaders.
CDS Anil Chauhan says future space capability will not be built by government agencies alone. ‘It will be co-developed with industry, start-ups, and technology innovators’.
American objectives are unmet. They neither have muscle nor motivation to resume the war. As for Iran, the regime didn’t just survive, it’s now led by more radical individuals.
The ghuspethiya issue should not be construed as anti-Bangladesh rhetoric. TMC has been using Bangladeshi migrants to rig elections.
Exactly, what has TMC govt done in the past 15 years. They started with anti-business rhetoric, driving Tata out. Then implemented OPS, draining state funds, which caused reduction in spending on police hiring. And then they do jugaad of civic volunteers to cut costs. These civic volunteers do crimes themselves, as we saw in RG Kar case.
And the police hardly had capacity to stop Murshidabad anti-Waqf riots.
Sheikh Hasina may not have been your ideal democrat. But Khaleda Zia’s party was no different. Protests happened against inflation, which was caused by Western money printing post-pandemic. And West aided these protests as a means of engineering a Ukraine like situation for India, hoping that we would actually invade, like Russia did. India, smartly, didn’t take the bait.
So, reducing everything to lack of democracy and anti-Bangladesh rhetoric is not right.
Shekhar Gupta’s piece suffers from a fundamental flaw: demanding India shoulder responsibility for a relationship that Bangladesh has systematically undermined.
Mr Gupta’s blog here is unfair and imbalanced. Why is there no onus on Bangladesh, and only on India.
The record needs to be corrected..
1. India Never Disengaged—Bangladesh Did
Gupta ignores that India has maintained unbroken diplomatic engagement post-Hasina. EAM Jaishankar kept channels open despite provocations. No recalled ambassadors. No sanctions. No severed ties. India showed strategic patience while Bangladesh descended into chaos. The real question: where’s Bangladesh’s reciprocity?
2. False Precedent: The 2015 Land Boundary Agreement
Gupta invokes Modi’s 2015 Land Boundary Agreement as precedent for bold Indian leadership. This is a false analogy. That agreement resolved a mutual problem with willing partners under Hasina’s stable government. Today’s situation? A chaotic Bangladesh that hasn’t demonstrated capacity to be a responsible partner. Bold leadership requires receptive counterparts, not unilateral concessions to dysfunction.
3. “Ghuspethiya Rhetoric”? No—Legitimate Sovereignty Concerns
Gupta dismisses illegal immigration as electoral posturing India should silence for diplomatic convenience. Dangerous nonsense.
Electoral roll revisions in Assam and West Bengal proved the scale of illegal immigration—many have since returned to Bangladesh. Should India suppress factual border security issues during elections—when democratic accountability operates—to accommodate a neighbor’s sensitivities? That’s asking Indian democracy to self-censor for foreign policy convenience. Every sovereign nation enforces borders. Why must India alone compromise territorial integrity to avoid diplomatic friction?
4. Non-Interference Reflects Maryada, Not Weakness
India’s restraint in not meddling in Bangladesh’s collapse demonstrates maryada—dignified, principled conduct respecting sovereignty. We can’t solve Bangladesh’s Hindu minority crisis through intervention; Bangladesh must establish rule of law. Interventionism would help neither Hindus nor bilateral relations.
We worked productively with Hasina. Modi extended genuine outreach to Yunus. But Bangladesh’s spiraling violence against Hindus, economic freefall, rising jihadism, and governance breakdown are their problems to fix.
5. Asymmetric Expectations Expose Gupta’s Bias
He demands India “reset” while Bangladesh gets a pass on:
a) Protecting its Hindu minority from systematic violence
b) Controlling borders against illegal migration and smuggling
c) Clarifying geopolitical stance — Yunus’s troubling comments on India’s territorial integrity and China-US balancing act
d) Stabilizing its economy instead of exporting instability
The upcoming elections Gupta cites prove my point: Bangladesh knows it must reset governance. Why should India preemptively compromise when Bangladesh hasn’t addressed core failures?
6. Strategic Pragmatism Actually Favors Indian Firmness
Gupta might argue India should act first to prevent prolonged instability or Bangladesh’s deeper China tilt. This logic fails on two counts:
First, moral hazard: Rewarding dysfunction with premature concessions signals Bangladesh can fail on minority protection, borders, and terrorism while still extracting Indian accommodation. This invites more bad behavior.
Second, China alignment: Appeasement doesn’t prevent Bangladesh’s China tilt—it signals weakness that invites exploitation. Yunus’s geopolitical calculations aren’t reactions to Indian “rhetoric”; they’re deliberate choices. Rewarding that tilt with concessions would only deepen it.
Even from cold self-interest, strategic patience now establishes that India engages responsible partners. Short-term discomfort may yield long-term stability. Premature reset achieves the opposite.
7. Patience Has Limits
India has tolerated far more than Bangladesh has reciprocated. Patience without reciprocity becomes appeasement. In geopolitics, patience has limits—Bangladesh has tested ours.
The Bottom Line
If by “reset” Gupta means India should continue diplomatic engagement while articulating clear expectations—we’re already doing that. If he means India should preemptively soften positions before Bangladesh addresses failures—that’s appeasement, not diplomacy.
Bangladesh must act first: restore minority safety, control jihadist elements, secure borders, and function as a responsible neighbor. Only then can genuine partnership resume.
Reset requires two hands on the button. India’s hand has been ready. Bangladesh needs to show up.
One, as the column notes, detach domestic politics from regional foreign policy and diplomacy. That has already frozen normal dialogue with Pakistan for a decade, with no discernible gain. Second, acknowledge the past misstep in investing too much in one leader who diminished Bangladeshi democracy over fifteen years. Else, prepare for the undoing of the huge strategic gains of 1971.
The ghuspethiya issue should not be construed as anti-Bangladesh rhetoric. TMC has been using Bangladeshi migrants to rig elections.
Exactly, what has TMC govt done in the past 15 years. They started with anti-business rhetoric, driving Tata out. Then implemented OPS, draining state funds, which caused reduction in spending on police hiring. And then they do jugaad of civic volunteers to cut costs. These civic volunteers do crimes themselves, as we saw in RG Kar case.
And the police hardly had capacity to stop Murshidabad anti-Waqf riots.
Sheikh Hasina may not have been your ideal democrat. But Khaleda Zia’s party was no different. Protests happened against inflation, which was caused by Western money printing post-pandemic. And West aided these protests as a means of engineering a Ukraine like situation for India, hoping that we would actually invade, like Russia did. India, smartly, didn’t take the bait.
So, reducing everything to lack of democracy and anti-Bangladesh rhetoric is not right.
Shekhar Gupta’s piece suffers from a fundamental flaw: demanding India shoulder responsibility for a relationship that Bangladesh has systematically undermined.
Mr Gupta’s blog here is unfair and imbalanced. Why is there no onus on Bangladesh, and only on India.
The record needs to be corrected..
1. India Never Disengaged—Bangladesh Did
Gupta ignores that India has maintained unbroken diplomatic engagement post-Hasina. EAM Jaishankar kept channels open despite provocations. No recalled ambassadors. No sanctions. No severed ties. India showed strategic patience while Bangladesh descended into chaos. The real question: where’s Bangladesh’s reciprocity?
2. False Precedent: The 2015 Land Boundary Agreement
Gupta invokes Modi’s 2015 Land Boundary Agreement as precedent for bold Indian leadership. This is a false analogy. That agreement resolved a mutual problem with willing partners under Hasina’s stable government. Today’s situation? A chaotic Bangladesh that hasn’t demonstrated capacity to be a responsible partner. Bold leadership requires receptive counterparts, not unilateral concessions to dysfunction.
3. “Ghuspethiya Rhetoric”? No—Legitimate Sovereignty Concerns
Gupta dismisses illegal immigration as electoral posturing India should silence for diplomatic convenience. Dangerous nonsense.
Electoral roll revisions in Assam and West Bengal proved the scale of illegal immigration—many have since returned to Bangladesh. Should India suppress factual border security issues during elections—when democratic accountability operates—to accommodate a neighbor’s sensitivities? That’s asking Indian democracy to self-censor for foreign policy convenience. Every sovereign nation enforces borders. Why must India alone compromise territorial integrity to avoid diplomatic friction?
4. Non-Interference Reflects Maryada, Not Weakness
India’s restraint in not meddling in Bangladesh’s collapse demonstrates maryada—dignified, principled conduct respecting sovereignty. We can’t solve Bangladesh’s Hindu minority crisis through intervention; Bangladesh must establish rule of law. Interventionism would help neither Hindus nor bilateral relations.
We worked productively with Hasina. Modi extended genuine outreach to Yunus. But Bangladesh’s spiraling violence against Hindus, economic freefall, rising jihadism, and governance breakdown are their problems to fix.
5. Asymmetric Expectations Expose Gupta’s Bias
He demands India “reset” while Bangladesh gets a pass on:
a) Protecting its Hindu minority from systematic violence
b) Controlling borders against illegal migration and smuggling
c) Clarifying geopolitical stance — Yunus’s troubling comments on India’s territorial integrity and China-US balancing act
d) Stabilizing its economy instead of exporting instability
The upcoming elections Gupta cites prove my point: Bangladesh knows it must reset governance. Why should India preemptively compromise when Bangladesh hasn’t addressed core failures?
6. Strategic Pragmatism Actually Favors Indian Firmness
Gupta might argue India should act first to prevent prolonged instability or Bangladesh’s deeper China tilt. This logic fails on two counts:
First, moral hazard: Rewarding dysfunction with premature concessions signals Bangladesh can fail on minority protection, borders, and terrorism while still extracting Indian accommodation. This invites more bad behavior.
Second, China alignment: Appeasement doesn’t prevent Bangladesh’s China tilt—it signals weakness that invites exploitation. Yunus’s geopolitical calculations aren’t reactions to Indian “rhetoric”; they’re deliberate choices. Rewarding that tilt with concessions would only deepen it.
Even from cold self-interest, strategic patience now establishes that India engages responsible partners. Short-term discomfort may yield long-term stability. Premature reset achieves the opposite.
7. Patience Has Limits
India has tolerated far more than Bangladesh has reciprocated. Patience without reciprocity becomes appeasement. In geopolitics, patience has limits—Bangladesh has tested ours.
The Bottom Line
If by “reset” Gupta means India should continue diplomatic engagement while articulating clear expectations—we’re already doing that. If he means India should preemptively soften positions before Bangladesh addresses failures—that’s appeasement, not diplomacy.
Bangladesh must act first: restore minority safety, control jihadist elements, secure borders, and function as a responsible neighbor. Only then can genuine partnership resume.
Reset requires two hands on the button. India’s hand has been ready. Bangladesh needs to show up.
One, as the column notes, detach domestic politics from regional foreign policy and diplomacy. That has already frozen normal dialogue with Pakistan for a decade, with no discernible gain. Second, acknowledge the past misstep in investing too much in one leader who diminished Bangladeshi democracy over fifteen years. Else, prepare for the undoing of the huge strategic gains of 1971.