In a surprising deviation from established diplomatic norms and bilateral agreements, Bangladesh, under the leadership of the newly elected Yunus government, has embarked on the construction of a dam merely 50 yards from the zero line of the India-Bangladesh border. This move blatantly violates the longstanding accord between the two nations, which clearly prohibits any kind of construction activity within 150 yards of the border. This breach is not merely a technical violation of protocol—it has ignited serious safety and strategic concerns within India and threatens to erode the fragile trust that has underpinned India-Bangladesh relations for decades.
The area along the India-Bangladesh border, especially in the northeastern states like Tripura and Meghalaya, has always been sensitive due to its topographical complexity, porous terrain, and history of cross-border infiltration and smuggling. By undertaking construction so close to the zero line, Bangladesh has undermined India’s border security apparatus and provoked strategic anxiety in New Delhi. The dam, whose exact purpose remains cloaked in opacity, could easily be used to alter water flows or flood plains—thus posing a potential ecological and tactical threat to Indian border villages and infrastructure. Indian intelligence agencies are particularly wary that the project could have dual-use implications, possibly even serving as a tool for hybrid tactics in the future.
The Yunus government’s decision to greenlight such a project appears to be a mix of internal political appeasement and an attempt to assert sovereignty in a region already fraught with cross-border sensitivities. However, this attempt at short-term domestic posturing has come at the cost of long-term diplomatic stability. India, which has historically been a generous and accommodating neighbor—providing Bangladesh with trade benefits, developmental assistance, and transit support—has responded with a firm retaliatory posture. New Delhi has not only lodged a strong diplomatic protest but has also begun tightening its border patrol protocols and increased surveillance, effectively slowing down the movement of goods and people across critical land ports like Petrapole-Benapole.
More significantly, India has hinted at reviewing certain trade and transit concessions that Bangladesh has long enjoyed. With Bangladesh already grappling with an economic slowdown marked by declining foreign reserves, rising inflation, and reduced garment exports—its economic mainstay—any disruption in its trade ties with India could prove disastrous. India is one of Bangladesh’s largest trading partners and a key transit route for its exports to Nepal and Bhutan. Retaliatory tariffs, restrictions on cross-border trade, or delays in Indian investments could further weaken Bangladesh’s already strained economy, potentially triggering inflation and unemployment in critical sectors.
The geopolitical implications of this misadventure by the Yunus government are even more alarming. At a time when India is emerging as a key regional stabilizer in South Asia, Bangladesh’s unilateralism could isolate it from regional frameworks like BIMSTEC and SAARC, where Indian support is indispensable. Moreover, such moves will likely push Dhaka further into dependence on China—a dynamic that could significantly compromise Bangladesh’s autonomy and exacerbate tensions with India, especially in the context of maritime and infrastructure projects in the Bay of Bengal. India, wary of China's increasing footprint in South Asia, sees such provocations as potential beachheads for Beijing's strategic designs.
What the Yunus administration fails to realize is that foreign policy cannot be driven by populist bravado or narrow political gains. The diplomatic architecture built painstakingly over the years by previous governments in Dhaka and New Delhi is now at risk of being dismantled by reckless adventurism. If Bangladesh does not reverse course and engage in meaningful dialogue with India, it may soon find itself diplomatically isolated, economically vulnerable, and strategically compromised. The dam may stand as a symbol, not of development, but of a government that chose defiance over diplomacy and paid a heavy price for it.
Uday india bureau
Leave Your Comment