Modi-Yunus Meeting: Photo Ops Aside, Official Readouts Depict True State of Ties

Contrary to what Yunus's press secy claimed, Sheikh Hasina's extradition makes no mention in the MEA's statement.

The meeting marked the first interaction between PM Modi and Yunus following the ouster of Bangladesh's longest-serving premier and the latter's archrival Sheikh Hasina in August last year, and her subsequent departure to India.

(Photo Courtesy: X/@ChiefAdviserGoB)

A warm handshake, exchange of pleasantries and gifts, and a 40-minute 'cordial' discussion with ear-to-ear smiles on both faces.

As a 'photo-op' moment, the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bangladesh Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus along the lines of the BIMSTEC Summit in Bangkok on Friday, 4 April looked pitch-perfect.

But when one takes a look under a microscope, the short interaction was characterised by simmering tensions – some subtle, some not so.

"The meeting gave us a good indication of where the relationship is. It's not so strained that you can't have the two top leaders meet, but it's also sufficiently strained that you can't expect there to be any type of agreement or deal," Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst and columnist for Foreign Policy magazine, told The Quint.

The meeting marked the first interaction between PM Modi and Yunus following the ouster of Bangladesh's longest-serving premier and the latter's archrival Sheikh Hasina in August last year, and her subsequent departure to India.

Months of Animosity & Then a Meeting: Why Now? 

Yunus was chosen as the Chief Adviser of the Bangladeshi government on 8 August last year, three days after Hasina's ouster. As has been the norm for decades, leaders of India and Bangladesh hold bilateral meetings close on the heels of a new election in either of the countries, given the geographical and diplomatic closeness between the neighbours.

However, while there had been certain diplomatic exchanges between New Delhi and Dhaka following the formation of an interim government in Bangladesh, there was no indication or supposed willingness from either side to engage at the highest level.

On the contrary, the months following Hasina's ouster were characterised by a mudslinging contest between India and Bangladesh – with the former calling for a cessation of attacks against minorities and the latter demanding Hasina's immediate extradition.

So then the question arises: Why meet now?

Kugelman says that while it was a surprise that the meeting took place, given the level of tensions between the two sides, refusing to engage would have been even more counterproductive.

"My sense is that both countries calculated that had the two not met, even though they were at the same conference and in the same room, that would have sent a wrong message: That the relationship is in such a bad state that the two leaders aren't even in a position to meet," he said while speaking to The Quint.

Further, given the geographical closeness between India and Bangladesh, there are several interconnected and mutual matters that are priorities for both sides. Given that the two countries share a 4,000-km border, securing their frontiers is something that cannot be achieved without cooperation from each other.

Also, despite a momentary dip in trade after Hasina's ouster, India remains Bangladesh's second-largest global trading partner after China, and Dhaka is New Delhi's largest trading partner in South Asia. Hence, both sides require a workable relationship going forward, and this meeting served as a confidence-building measure in that direction.

Official Readouts: Read Between the Lines 

While confidence-building may have been the intention of the meeting, all is certainly not well between India and Bangladesh.

As the talking points of the meeting became known, via statements and readouts from both India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Bangladesh Chief Adviser's Press Wing, the tensions became obvious owing to certain discrepancies.

First, coming to the MEA statement. Moving past the leitmotif used by the MEA to describe India's relationship with almost every other country in South Asia, strewn with words like "constructive", "pragmatic", and "people-centric", there were few talking points from Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's statement which stood out and actually highlighted the thorns in ties.

1. Yunus' remarks on India's northeast

Foremost among them was Misri saying that PM Modi advised Chief Adviser Yunus to avoid "rhetoric that vitiates the environment". This seemed to have been aimed at Yunus' remarks a few days ago regarding India's northeastern states.

During a visit to Beijing at the end of March, Yunus urged the Chinese government to extend its economy by leveraging Bangladesh's advantage of being the "only guardian of the ocean" for India's "landlocked" northeastern states.

"Seven states of India, eastern part of India, called seven sisters… they are landlocked country, landlocked region of India. They have no way to reach out to the ocean. We are the only guardian of the ocean for all this region. So, this opens up a huge possibility. This could be an extension of the Chinese economy. Build things, produce things, market things, bring things to China, bring it out to the whole rest of the world."

Muhammad Yunus' statement in Beijing

As expected, the statement did not go down well with India, with External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar taking an apparent jibe at Yunus by highlighting India's significant role for the Bay of Bengal by referring to the country's 6,500-km coastline linking five BIMSTEC countries.

Jaishankar also said that India's northeast in particular is emerging as a connectivity hub for BIMSTEC, with a myriad network of roads, railways, waterways, grids and pipelines.

"Such statements (Yunus') are sensitive given the region's strategic importance and India's concerns over China's growing influence," Bangladesh expert and economist Soumya Bhowmick said while speaking to The Quint.

"They also underscore India's intent to maintain regional stability and prevent narratives that could exacerbate geopolitical frictions."

Yunus' statement further highlights India's concerns regarding the possible takeover of the multi-million-dollar Teesta developmental project along India's northeast region. The project is scheduled to be built near the Siliguri Corridor – also called the "chicken's neck", which is the only land link between India's northeastern states and the rest of the country.

India's major ground for objection against the project being handed over to China would be that it would give the latter a "foothold" in a strategically important region. The stationing of Chinese officials close to India's northeastern states will also gain prominence due to the Xi Jinping government's incessant claims of Arunachal Pradesh being the southern tip of Tibet, and hence part of China's territory.

On the other hand, Kugelman suggests that while the proximate cause of PM Modi's insistence on Yunus avoiding objectionable rhetoric may be aimed at the latter's recent remark on the northeast, there is more to it than meets the eye.

"I feel the statement was also broadly about some of the narratives and rhetoric we've seen in Bangladesh since last August – particularly comments from hardliners against India, including some student leaders and Islamist actors. One of the consequences of the radical changes in Bangladesh's political environment is more space for Islamist actors that don't hesitate in conveying their harsh criticism of India, which New Delhi views as a big concern, and rightfully so."

Michael Kugelman

2. Discrepancies between Indian & Bangladeshi readouts

Perhaps the most glaring indication of fraught ties was the mismatch between official readings of the meeting put out by the Indian and Bangladeshi governments.

Yunus' press secretary Shafiqul Alam took to Facebook to say that during the meeting, the chief adviser raised the matter of Hasina's extradition to Bangladesh and that the response from PM Modi "was not negative".

He further claimed that PM Modi conveyed to Yunus that he had seen Hasina being "disrespectful" towards the latter, but despite that the Indian government "continued to respect and honour" the chief adviser.

The post by Alam has since become unavailable for viewing on Facebook.

However, the MEA statement on the meeting makes no mention of Hasina whatsoever, let alone the extradition issue.

People familiar with the matter also called the Bangladeshi version of events as "mischievous and politically motivated", while speaking to news agency PTI.

"There is no basis for the observation made by the press secretary on the extradition request. Such attempts call into question both the seriousness and the good faith of the interim government," one of them told PTI.

The Yunus government had in December last year officially sent India a request to extradite Hasina to Dhaka for her to face a trial in the dozens of corruption and murder charges slapped against her. While the MEA had confirmed receiving a note verbale from the Bangladesh High Commission, they have refused to divulge further details in the matter.

"Bangladesh has made a formal request regarding Sheikh Hasina. Saying anything more on this will not be correct right now," Foreign Secretary Misri had said while addressing the press on Friday, 4 April, reiterating the MEA's position.

The Bangladeshi Chief Adviser's press wing also stated that Yunus had raised the issue of Hasina making "inflammatory" statements in a bid to "destabilise" Bangladesh, adding that it was an "abuse of the hospitality" that New Delhi had extended to her.

He also urged PM Modi take appropriate steps to ensure that such "incendiary" messages are not issued by Hasina while "she remains in your country".

Once again, no reference to these comments by India's MEA.

Meanwhile, the MEA stated that PM Modi had highlighted concerns related to the safety and security of minorities in Bangladesh, including Hindus, and expressed his expectation that Bangladesh would ensure their safety and thoroughly investigate cases of atrocities committed against them.

However, according to the chief adviser's press wing, Yunus conveyed that the reports on attacks against Hindus in Bangladesh were inflated and that the "the bulk of them were fake news".

Thus, given the number of discrepancies between the official statements put out by the two countries and purported disagreements between the two leaders during the meeting, it is a matter of speculation regarding how successful the meeting actually was – and whether it led to any progress in bringing about a possible thaw in fraught relations.

Soumya Bhowmick says that while the meeting was a necessary step given the level of tensions, there is far more to be done to remove the deep-rooted mistrust between the two sides.

"The meeting did not yield immediate positive outcomes. India's MEA maintained a cautious tone, emphasising concerns over minority rights and border security. This approach indicates that while communication channels are open, substantive improvements in bilateral ties will require more concerted efforts to address mutual concerns and rebuild trust," he told The Quint.