The death of Begum Khaleda Zia, the first woman to serve as prime minister of Bangladesh, will challenge the diplomatic acumen of India in dealing with a situation which will involve forging new equations with the emerging leadership in the neighbouring country. As the long-time leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Zia had shaped Bangladesh’s domestic life for over three decades and played a defining role in Dhaka’s relations with India – a relationship marked by periods of strain, cautious co-operation and mutual diplomatic regard, even amid deep political differences.
Her longstanding rivalry with Sheikh Hasina profoundly influenced Bangladesh’s internal politics and, by extension, its foreign relations. India traditionally maintained a closer relationship with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League, whose party roots traced back to the Bangladeshi independence movement of 1971. In contrast, the BNP’s nationalist ideology and its alliance with more conservative forces in Bangladesh made India more cautious about deep strategic engagement during Khaleda’s tenures. Over time, this divergence shaped the character of India-Bangladesh relations, with cooperative thrusts often occurring under Awami League governments and cooler phases under BNP leadership.
As the broader arc of Khaleda Zia’s career was dominated by her intense rivalry with Sheikh Hasina, this factor shaped the perceptions in New Delhi, where the Awami League was often viewed as a more familiar partner due to its historic ties with India. During her early years in power, Zia and the BNP cultivated a foreign policy that was notably cautious towards India. This stance was shaped in part by her party’s ideological orientation and historical concerns about India’s influence in Bangladesh’s internal affairs. The BNP’s foreign policy under Khaleda often emphasised balancing relations with multiple powers – including the Muslim world, the West and China – and was sceptical of undue Indian influence.
During this period, ties with India were tense, particularly over trade imbalances, water sharing and border management issues. While Bangladesh and India had established formal diplomatic relations after 1971, lingering mistrust often undercut deeper co-operation when Khaleda’s BNP was in power.
A cautious approach
But, despite ideological reservations, Khaleda Zia did undertake high-level engagement with India. Official visits to New Delhi and meetings with Indian leaders were part of the diplomatic routine, even as her government maintained a cautious approach to bilateral issues. Reports from past research show that her visits often included discussions on critical matters like water sharing, trade and border agreements – matters that remain central to India-Bangladesh relations.
During her early years in power, Zia and the BNP cultivated a foreign policy that was notably cautious towards India
These interactions highlighted the pragmatic side of her leadership. Even when the BNP’s rhetoric was wary, practical diplomacy continued. For example, during visits and negotiations, Indian officials engaged with her government on issues of mutual concern, seeking to bridge gaps while advancing co-operation.
In her later years, as Khaleda Zia’s health deteriorated and she stepped back from active politics, overtures between India and the BNP leadership took on new significance. In 2025, amidst broader shifts in Dhaka’s political landscape, there were signs that India was exploring ways to broaden ties beyond traditional allies. Her death comes at a time when violent unrest is rocking Bangladesh, with the death of Sharif Osman Hadi, a prominent youth leader of the July 2024 uprising against Hasina’s government, being the latest trigger.
Now, 15 months after Hasina was toppled, Bangladesh continues to reel under mob rule. Hasina’s authoritarianism undoubtedly contributed to the eruption of public anger in July 2024. Her fall offered Bangladesh a chance to begin anew, grounded in reconciliation, pluralism and democracy. That opportunity has since been squandered.
The period following the uprising saw widespread violence against minorities and Awami League workers. The Awami League and its student wing, the Chhatra League, were banned, while the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami was lifted. Muhammad Yunus, the banker chosen to lead the country as the interim head, failed to keep Islamist forces, who have a dark past, in check, even as reactionary groups pressed for a total rupture with the immediate past. The result has been near-anarchy. Anti-India sentiments, amplified by Islamist forces, have further inflamed tensions.
New Delhi believes that Bangladesh’s rulers must heed these warning signs. The focus must shift from vendetta politics to rebuilding state capacity and restoring law and order. But Yunus appears to lack either the legitimacy or the resolve to steer the country through this crisis. For Bangladesh, the only viable path forward lies in inclusive elections with the participation of all the major political parties.