Tarique Rahman’s return to Bangladesh after 17 years in exile is more than a personal political comeback; it marks a defining moment for Bangladesh’s internal future and for India’s strategic thinking. He has returned to a country angry, unsettled and fiercely divided — where anti-India rhetoric has become street capital and where radical elements see instability not as a crisis, but as an opportunity. India’s decade-plus comfort of dealing with a predictable Dhaka has evaporated. Sheikh Hasina’s regime, for all its controversies, provided New Delhi continuity, security cooperation and a broadly aligned worldview. Tarique represents something fundamentally different: a politician who insists on putting “Bangladesh first,” who has little emotional investment in the narrative of a “special India–Bangladesh bond,” and who will likely negotiate every engagement with hard domestic calculations in mind. He arrives at a time when the interim government, political flux, and a charged public mood have created a vacuum in authority — one that competing forces, including Jamaat-e-Islami and its ecosystem, are desperate to fill. For India, the central question is not whether Tarique likes New Delhi or not; it is whether he will allow Bangladesh to remain sensible, stable and strategically rational.
Ironically, Tarique’s arrival has unsettled the very radical networks that hoped to thrive in the current disorder. Jamaat-e-Islami and its affiliates have been most comfortable in chaos — spreading conspiracy theories, fuelling street intimidation, and pushing Bangladesh towards confrontational identity politics. Tarique’s messaging upon return has directly challenged that trajectory. He has spoken of elections, institutional politics, law and order, and a Bangladesh safe for all citizens, including minorities. He invoked history in ways Jamaat resents — acknowledging 1971 and democratic struggles as anchors of legitimacy. Radical groups prefer a Bangladesh unmoored from its liberation legacy, because forgetting 1971 makes it easier to rewrite national identity and justify hostility toward India as some kind of ideological purity. That is why the threats against Tarique have been so sharp: he complicates Jamaat’s ability to monopolise the “authentic nationalist” narrative. He is also signalling that while he will not be India-dependent, he will not allow Bangladesh to slide into reckless radicalism either. That alone creates anxiety for those who expected to shape the next phase of Bangladesh through intimidation and fear.
For India, dealing with Tarique Rahman requires a blend of patience, realism and humility. The era of sentimental diplomacy is over; the comfortable shorthand of trust built during the Hasina years no longer applies. New Delhi will now have to negotiate with a leader who will bargain hard, listen closely to domestic opinion, and not hesitate to assert Bangladesh’s sovereignty in sharp, sometimes uncomfortable ways. But that does not automatically make him hostile. If anything, Tarique understands the geography of vulnerability. He knows Bangladesh’s economy leans heavily on Indian trade routes, connectivity infrastructure, energy linkages and regional integration. He knows that pushing Dhaka toward a permanent confrontation with India would be economically costly and strategically shortsighted. At the same time, India must avoid the mistake of trying to box him into being “pro-India” or “anti-India.” Relationships in the region cannot be managed on the basis of political favourites. India needs to deliberately move away from regime-centric diplomacy to people-centric, institution-driven engagement. That means outreach beyond power corridors — towards civil society, youth leaders, business communities and democratic actors — so that the India–Bangladesh relationship is stronger than the politics of the moment.
The policy work ahead is serious. Water diplomacy will demand urgency, especially with the Farakka and Teesta concerns already emotionally charged in Bangladesh. Border management must now prioritise credibility and calm, not just security language. Protecting minorities and ensuring that anti-India hysteria is not allowed to translate into communal victimisation will shape public sentiment more than any statement from Delhi ever can. Economic interdependence needs rebuilding, not assumption. Above all, India must remain disciplined. It cannot afford nervous overreaction or patronising missteps. Tarique’s return is neither a gift nor a threat; it is a test — for Bangladesh’s democracy, for its ability to resist radical capture, and for India’s maturity as a regional power. If Tarique truly stays committed to elections, stability and a Bangladesh that resists extremist opportunism, India has enough space to build a pragmatic, respectful partnership. If politics in Dhaka drifts towards permanent agitation and anti-India nationalism for convenience, New Delhi will have to respond firmly but without abandoning dialogue. South Asia has suffered enough from emotion-driven policies. Tarique Rahman’s homecoming is a reminder that India must read Bangladesh not through nostalgia or fear, but through clarity — and that the next chapter in this crucial relationship will depend less on sentiment and more on patience, strategy and steadiness.