The termination by India of transshipment facilities for Bangladesh marks more than a policy decision ~ it signals a recalibration of regional diplomacy, trade priorities, and strategic red lines in South Asia. By pulling the plug on a trade mechanism that had enabled Bangladesh to route its export cargo through India, New Delhi is not only responding to a diplomatic slight but also reasserting its agency in a region of increasing geo – political complexity.
Bangladesh’s interim Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’s recent comments in China, describing his country as the “only guardian of the ocean” for the landlocked North-eastern states of India, have been widely viewed as provocative. The timing and venue of the remarks ~ during a four-day visit to Beijing ~ underscore a growing shift in Dhaka’s foreign policy posture, one that appears increasingly comfortable in the Chinese orbit. India’s move to suspend the 2020 circular allowing transshipment, therefore, must be read as more than a reactionary response to rhetoric. It is a strategic message.
Advertisement
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs cited logistical congestion and trade delays as formal reasons, but the subtext is clear: access to Indian logistical infrastructure is a privilege, not an entitlement, especially when geopolitical intentions are in question. This development also illustrates the tight-rope India must walk between economic pragmatism and strategic assertiveness. While Bangladesh has been a significant trade partner and a recipient of zero-duty access to Indian markets for over two decades, overtures to China ~ particularly in regions bordering sensitive Indian territory like the Chicken’s Neck ~ demand scrutiny. The proposed revitalisation of a Chinese-supported airbase near Siliguri is understandably perceived as a red flag in Delhi.
Some may argue that India’s move contradicts World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, especially under Article V, which promotes freedom of transit for landlocked nations. But sovereignty and national interest are not absolutes in international law ~ they are balanced through diplomacy, context, and signaling. India has not blocked trade to Bhutan or Nepal via its territory. What it has done is to draw a firm line where its goodwill could be misused to strengthen a rival sphere of influence. Regional partnerships thrive on mutual respect and predictability. When one partner courts strategic rivals while leveraging shared infrastructure, the balance of trust inevitably tilts ~ and recalibrations, however disruptive, become necessary. The region stands at a crossroads. The Seven Sister states in India’s Northeast require robust connectivity, not coercive diplomacy.
If Bangladesh wishes to be a vital partner in this transformation, it must exercise caution in its geopolitical alignments and rhetoric. This episode may strain ties temporarily, but it also offers a chance for both nations to reset expectations and reaffirm mutual respect. In South Asia’s intricate web of history, geography, and power, every gesture carries weight. India’s decision is not just about containers and customs ~ it is about control, context, and carving out strategic clarity in a rapidly shifting landscape.
