Interview: ‘Hasina thought only India mattered,’ says Yunus press secretary
A senior aide to Nobel laureate economist Muhammad Yunus has publicly accused Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of treating India as Bangladesh's sole strategic partner, a claim that has ignited fresh debate about Dhaka's foreign policy.
Bangladesh and India share a 4,000‑kilometre border, a long history of trade, and frequent diplomatic talks. Since 2009, Hasina’s government has deepened cooperation on water sharing, security, and infrastructure, while also courting other regional powers such as China and Japan. Critics argue that the close alignment with New Delhi has sometimes come at the expense of broader national interests, especially in areas like labor migration, trade diversification, and maritime disputes.
Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank and a global icon for micro‑finance, has long been an outspoken voice on development policy. His office has traditionally kept a low profile on foreign affairs, but the recent interview marks a rare foray into political commentary, reflecting growing unease among some civil‑society figures.
In a recorded conversation with a local news outlet, the press secretary, identified only as A. Rahman, said, "Hasina seems to believe that only India matters for Bangladesh’s future. She repeatedly places Indian interests ahead of our own, whether it is in the Rohingya crisis, the Teesta water talks, or the recent trade negotiations."
Rahman cited three specific instances: the 2022 agreement on the Teesta river that, according to him, gave India disproportionate control over water flow; the handling of Rohingya refugees where Bangladesh relied heavily on Indian diplomatic backing; and the decision to grant India a larger share of the Bay of Bengal’s Exclusive Economic Zone during recent maritime talks. "These are not isolated decisions," Rahman added, "they form a pattern that sidelines Bangladesh’s own development agenda."
When asked whether the criticism was personal or policy‑based, Rahman emphasized that his concern was institutional. "We are not attacking a leader, we are pointing out a strategic imbalance that could limit Bangladesh’s options in the long run," he said.
The statements strike at the heart of Bangladesh’s balancing act between its biggest neighbour and other global powers. Analysts note that an over‑reliance on India could make Dhaka vulnerable to shifts in New Delhi’s domestic politics or foreign‑policy priorities. For a country that exports more than $30 billion annually, diversification of markets and investment sources is a key economic goal.
Moreover, the comment touches on domestic political narratives. Hasina’s Bangladesh Awami League has often highlighted its partnership with India as a pillar of regional stability, especially in counter‑terrorism and climate‑change initiatives. A public rebuke from a respected figure linked to Yunus could embolden opposition parties and civil‑society groups that have long called for a more independent foreign policy.
Indian officials have not responded directly to the interview, but diplomatic sources indicate that New Delhi views the criticism as an internal matter for Bangladesh. "Bangladesh’s sovereignty is respected, and we continue to engage on a partnership‑based model," a senior Indian diplomat reportedly said.
China, which has been expanding its footprint in South Asia through infrastructure projects and loans, welcomed the discussion as a sign that Bangladesh is seeking a more balanced approach. "A diversified foreign policy benefits all parties and contributes to regional peace," a Beijing spokesperson commented.
Neighboring Nepal and Sri Lanka, both watching the South Asian power dynamics closely, expressed cautious optimism that a broader dialogue could open space for multilateral cooperation beyond the traditional India‑Bangladesh axis.
If the criticism gains traction, Dhaka may reassess several pending agreements. Experts suggest three possible scenarios:
1. Strategic Re‑calibration – The government could seek to negotiate more equitable terms in water‑sharing deals, maritime boundaries, and trade accords, aiming for a win‑win rather than a one‑sided outcome. 2. Policy Diversification – Bangladesh might accelerate outreach to other partners, such as the European Union, Japan, and the United States, to reduce economic dependence on India. 3. Domestic Political Shift – Opposition parties could use the narrative to challenge Hasina’s leadership, potentially influencing upcoming electoral cycles and prompting a more vocal parliamentary debate on foreign policy.
Each scenario carries risks. A sudden shift could strain the long‑standing trust between Dhaka and New Delhi, while a gradual approach may satisfy neither side fully. The key will be how the government balances national interests with the practical benefits of a close partnership.
The press secretary’s remarks add a new layer to the ongoing conversation about Bangladesh’s place in South Asia. While the country has benefited from strong ties with India, the call for a more balanced foreign policy reflects broader concerns about economic resilience, sovereignty, and regional stability. How the Hasina administration responds will shape not only Bangladesh’s diplomatic trajectory but also the strategic calculations of its neighbours. In a region where alliances are fluid and development needs are pressing, the debate underscores the importance of nuanced, multi‑directional engagement.
The interview continues to be discussed across think‑tanks, academic circles, and social media platforms, suggesting that the issue will remain a focal point of South Asian geopolitics in the months ahead.