Last update on: Thu May 22, 2025 11:41 AM
The South Asian region has long been a theatre of enduring geopolitical tensions. Central to this is the perpetual rivalry between two nuclear-armed states: India and Pakistan. Their antagonism is cyclical, manifesting in military skirmishes, diplomatic stand-offs, and proxy conflicts. Amid this volatility, Bangladesh, though smaller in size, holds a strategically pivotal position that offers both opportunities and responsibilities in shaping regional peace.
The legacy of Bangladesh’s late President Ziaur Rahman remains significant when discussing the regional peace architecture. It was under his leadership that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was conceived—a bold attempt to facilitate dialogue and cooperation among South Asian nations. At a time when India and Pakistan remained at odds, Zia’s vision provided smaller countries with a platform to assert their identities and strategic interests independently.
Over time, this initiative lost its momentum, largely due to growing Indian influence in regional diplomacy. This shift diluted the very balance that once allowed Bangladesh to act as a neutral and independent voice. Recent democratic movements, especially the mass uprising of July, have sparked renewed interest in reviving SAARC and Bangladesh’s mediating role—this time led by interim leadership under Professor Muhammad Yunus.
However, Bangladesh’s role in regional peace must go beyond ceremonial diplomacy. The country has the potential to become a nucleus of new geopolitical equations, as war today is not confined to just borders; rather, it extends to economic systems, democratic institutions, and national identities. In this context, small states like Bangladesh face four key challenges: preserving political neutrality, ensuring national security, maintaining diplomatic balance, and sustaining economic resilience. These challenges must be tackled holistically, grounded in theory and practical statecraft.
From an international relations perspective, the theories of realism, liberalism, and constructivism offer distinct frameworks for understanding how Bangladesh can chart its foreign policy. Realism emphasises power dynamics and survival, seeing the international system as anarchic and inherently prone to conflict, where states prioritise their security and interests. Liberalism, in contrast, advocates cooperation, institutions, and interdependence, suggesting that peace can be achieved through dialogue and mutual understanding, where shared interests guide international relations. Meanwhile, constructivism prioritises national identity, values, and historical memory, emphasising how collective ideas and self-perception influence foreign policy decisions.
In Bangladesh’s case, shaped by its Liberation War, democratic aspirations, and the recent student uprising of July 2024, the constructivist approach resonates most strongly. By embracing its identity as a peace-seeking, democratic nation, Bangladesh has the potential to offer both a moral and strategic counterbalance to the power struggles in its region.
If Bangladesh can act as a catalyst in reviving SAARC, mediating between India and Pakistan, and promoting peaceful coexistence, it would set a precedent for the role of smaller states in conflict resolution. The present leadership—emerging from a popular uprising—has the historic opportunity to steer the region away from conflict and towards reconciliation. The aim must be to ensure that peace, not war, defines the subcontinental narrative.
Redefining strategic posture
Realism teaches that in times of regional conflict, smaller nation-states typically choose one of three paths: neutrality, balancing, or bandwagoning. Neutrality, as demonstrated by Switzerland and Sweden during World War II, allows smaller countries to preserve their internal stability by avoiding alignment with warring parties. Balancing, adopted by countries such as South Korea and Taiwan, involves seeking security through strategic alliances with more powerful nations. On the other hand, bandwagoning entails aligning with the stronger power for protection, though this strategy risks eroding diplomatic autonomy and independence.
Bangladesh, to maintain its sovereignty and strategic flexibility, must judiciously blend neutrality and balanced alliances without succumbing to dependency. From a liberal standpoint, Bangladesh can use regional institutions and multilateral platforms to mediate, reduce tension, and maintain diplomatic channels with both India and Pakistan. ASEAN-style diplomacy, as practised by Malaysia and Singapore, offers an effective model. Such a middle-ground strategy enables smaller states to act as peace brokers while expanding their global legitimacy.
Constructivism emphasises moral positioning and national identity. Bhutan, for instance, has maintained neutrality in Sino-Indian conflicts based on its cultural philosophy and non-aligned foreign policy. Similarly, Bangladesh’s stance—rooted in the Liberation War, popular uprisings, and its resistance to autocracy—provides a solid foundation for a principled foreign policy that supports peace and justice over partisanship.
Besides, history provides numerous examples of small states effectively navigating conflicts around them. After Yugoslavia’s disintegration, countries like Croatia and Slovenia emerged as sovereign states with significant international support. In Lebanon, neutrality during prolonged regional tensions was paired with reliance on UN peacekeeping missions. Latin American nations have also responded to neighbouring conflicts with economic diplomacy rather than militarisation.
Given the volatile nature of South Asian geopolitics, Bangladesh must adopt a multi-layered approach that begins with maintaining diplomatic neutrality by advocating international cooperation in addressing potential refugee crises, economic shocks, and regional insecurity. Alongside this, a recalibration of security is essential. Bangladesh needs to reassess its existing defence agreements and strategic partnerships to strengthen national defence capabilities without compromising its sovereignty or falling under external hegemony. Economic diversification is also crucial; by building resilient trade routes and sustaining balanced bilateral relations with both India and Pakistan, Bangladesh can better insulate itself from regional instability. Lastly, a firm moral commitment is indispensable. Upholding human rights, advancing peace advocacy, and adhering to international law will not only reinforce the country’s international credibility but also contribute to durable and principled diplomacy.
As the second-largest economy in South Asia, Bangladesh’s influence and global acceptance are growing—and with that comes responsibility. As India and Pakistan continue their zero-sum rivalry, Bangladesh must maintain a careful, prudent stance that reflects wisdom rather than warlike sentiment. Historical experiences show that Bangladesh’s most potent political transformations have emerged from democratic mass movements. The July Uprising reinforced the strength of people’s unity and resistance to external domination. But such victories must now be translated into stability, not further confrontation.
A worrying trend in recent years has been the rise of digitally manipulated hostility. Social media posts, misinformation campaigns, caricatures, and doctored content—often traced back to obscure or foreign-funded sources—seek to provoke anti-India sentiment or misrepresent Bangladesh on international platforms. Ironically, many of these campaigns serve interests within India itself, aiming to legitimise aggression through manufactured consent. In such an environment, Bangladesh must resist the temptation to react emotionally. Strategic patience, defence without aggression, and cool-headed diplomacy are the most effective tools against provocation.
As regional tensions rise, Bangladesh needs to institutionalise a proactive approach to crisis management. Establishing a strategic crisis management cell to anticipate and respond to potential geopolitical shocks can be vital. This cell would monitor emerging threats, such as border conflicts, refugee crises, or economic disruptions, and ensure a swift and coordinated national response. By streamlining decision-making processes and improving inter-agency cooperation, this entity can strengthen Bangladesh’s ability to manage crises effectively. In addition to safeguarding national security, such a cell can bolster international trust by demonstrating Bangladesh’s commitment to stability and preparedness in a volatile region. Through strategic planning and crisis foresight, Bangladesh can better navigate complex regional dynamics and assert itself as a reliable partner in international affairs.
Being a small state does not mean being a passive observer. Bangladesh has the potential to become a regional leader in peace-building by drawing on its history, values, and strategic location. With the right policies, moral compass, and institutional frameworks, it can transform its geopolitical vulnerability into a position of influence. As India and Pakistan continue their chess game of conflict, Bangladesh can and must choose the path of construction, dialogue, and peace. That will not only preserve its own sovereignty but serve as a guiding light for a troubled region.
Alauddin Mohammad is joint member secretary at the National Citizen Party (NCP), and executive director at the Institute of Policy, Governance and Development (IPGAD).
Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.