India-Bangladesh Tensions: Crisis Group calls for restraint in rhetoric

As Dhaka-New Delhi relations lurch towards a crisis, India should avoid "provocative" statements that could be perceived in Bangladesh as "meddling" in its upcoming polls, the International Crisis Group has said.

Bangladeshi political parties, meanwhile, should refrain from taking "rhetorical shots at New Delhi in order to score nationalist points with voters", the Brussels-based think tank said in its latest report on Bangladesh.

Published on Tuesday, the report examines the increasingly acrimonious ties between the two South Asian neighbours and offers recommendations to defuse rising tensions.

It said India's "initial unwillingness" to engage with the interim government, its decision to provide refuge to deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina, and negative coverage of developments in Bangladesh by Indian media had "raised hackles across the border".

"Both sides have since taken steps that, fuelled in part by domestic politics, have further escalated tensions," the report said.

The findings are based on field research conducted in Bangladesh in March 2025, interviews with Indian experts in mid-2025, and more than six months of remote interviews with current and former diplomatic and security officials, diplomats from other countries, analysts, researchers and journalists.

The report's release comes at a time when Bangladeshi missions across India have faced protests, with both governments summoning each other's envoys. It noted that Dhaka-Delhi ties hit their lowest point in December 2024, when far-right Hindu groups attacked the Bangladeshi assistant high commission in Agartala.

"New Delhi should avoid wading further into the debate over the restrictions on the Awami League, even though India's concerns have some merit," ICG said.

While the temporary ban on the Awami League's activities may have disenfranchised some people, Dhaka's position is "also understandable", the report said. It noted that there remains considerable anger over the party leadership's apparent lack of remorse and warned that lifting the ban before elections would be unhelpful. "New Delhi should give Dhaka space to strike a balance that will serve domestic stability."

ICG said politicians on both sides of the border must act responsibly, noting that Bangladesh's geography means "any political entity with serious political aspirations needs to be able to work with New Delhi". Indian politicians, it added, should "stop bashing Bangladesh for mileage in the regional elections of Assam and West Bengal".

Calling on India to begin engaging with Bangladesh, the report said that "engagement does not have to equate to endorsement". It noted that India has recently shown "flexibility in how -- and more importantly who -- it engages with in both Afghanistan and Myanmar", adding, "It should endeavour to replicate this approach in Bangladesh."

Regardless of who is in power, India's interests are best served by a capable and stable government in Dhaka, the report said. "Antagonising Dhaka further is also likely to push it towards China and even Pakistan."

It urged India to resume issuing visas, restore transport links and lift trade

restrictions. "On this last point, Bangladesh should reciprocate by lifting its own restrictions," it added.

Beyond diplomacy and trade, the report stressed the need for India to take border violence seriously. "India's BSF has a long record of violence against Bangladeshi civilians and, despite pledges over the years to work with the BGB to reduce border killings, has shown little sign of adjusting its behaviour. Fatalities along the border should be properly and jointly investigated."

It also warned that the failure to reach agreements on sharing the waters of the Teesta and the Ganges signals "an unwillingness to cooperate for mutual benefit".

At the same time, Bangladesh must take India's security concerns seriously, the report said. "Dhaka should stay clear of offering support to Indian insurgent groups using Bangladesh as a rear base -- a clear red line for India. Dhaka should also prevent radical Islamist forces from taking root again, ensuring that counter-terrorism forces have the mandate and resources to look out for violent extremist organisations and respond as necessary."

"The Indian government's ideology is such that it will feel compelled to speak up for Hindus overseas it perceives as being vulnerable or under attack. But while it is legitimate for it to express concerns in some specific cases, it should avoid exaggerating the problem or echoing disinformation about the fate of Bangladesh's Hindu minority," the report said.

It noted that India's concerns about Bangladeshi Hindus are widely perceived in Bangladesh as politically motivated, particularly as Muslims in India are frequently targeted by communal violence and discrimination.

After ups and downs, Dhaka-Delhi relations improved during Hasina's 15-year rule. "But this closeness gradually became a political liability for Hasina," ICG said.

Although Indian policymakers privately recognised that her growing unpopularity was damaging India's image in Bangladesh, New Delhi was unwilling to distance itself from her, given the dividends she delivered -- especially on security.

The report quoted a former Indian security official as saying, "Hasina was a horror and the people of Bangladesh deserve much better ... but it's not easy to tell a leader to step down, particularly one as haughty as Hasina."

Perceptions that India was exploiting Hasina's dependence, combined with its increasingly nationalistic and pro-Hindu domestic politics, were not the cause of her downfall, but they "further undermined her political standing in Bangladesh and helped create the conditions for her eventual removal", ICG said.

A prominent Indian journalist summed up New Delhi's dilemma, saying, "India has been losing the plot on Bangladesh for a decade. Domestic politics has been infecting our relationships with all our neighbours. August 2024 was just the climax of that problem."

"How Dhaka and New Delhi manage the coming years will have consequences beyond bilateral ties. Failure to build a working relationship could manifest in border violence, irregular migration, communal tensions and economic restrictions, whereas a strong, mutually beneficial partnership would enhance security, trade and regional stability," the report said.