South Asia has never been free from the anxieties of geography. Rivers, mountains, borders and narrow corridors of land have shaped the strategic thinking of states for generations. Few places illustrate this reality more vividly than the Siliguri Corridor, the narrow strip of territory that links mainland India with its northeastern states. Known popularly as the “Chicken Neck”, the corridor has long occupied a central place in Indian security calculations because of its vulnerability in any future regional conflict. Recent discussions surrounding Bangladesh’s Rangpur Division and the strategic significance of northern Bangladesh have once again drawn attention to the insecurities that continue to influence policymaking in New Delhi.
While many of the more dramatic claims circulating in political discourse remain contested and should be treated with caution, the debate itself raises important questions about regional power, sovereignty and the contradictions that often emerge in the foreign policy narratives of major states. India has consistently projected itself as a champion of international law, territorial integrity and respect for sovereignty. Indian diplomats frequently invoke these principles in global forums, whether discussing conflicts in Europe, territorial disputes in Asia or questions relating to cross-border intervention. The language of sovereignty has become a cornerstone of India’s diplomatic identity, particularly as it seeks recognition as a responsible global power and a leading voice of the Global South.
Yet critics argue that there is often a noticeable gap between this rhetoric and the behaviour of certain political, military and strategic voices within India. The controversy surrounding discussions of Rangpur has highlighted this contradiction. If any analyst or policymaker seriously entertains the idea that territory belonging to a sovereign neighbour could be acquired through financial inducements, strategic pressure or military coercion, then such thinking inevitably clashes with the very principles India publicly advocates. This is where accusations of hypocrisy emerge. No country would willingly accept suggestions that parts of its territory could be purchased, transferred or absorbed because they happen to possess strategic value for another state.
India itself has repeatedly rejected external interference in matters it considers internal or sovereign. It has consistently opposed any questioning of its territorial integrity and expects the international community to respect its borders. It is therefore understandable that many observers in Bangladesh view discussions about Rangpur through the same lens. The issue is not merely about territory. It is about the mindset that underpins strategic thinking. Throughout history, powerful states have often justified expansionist ambitions by citing security concerns. Empires have claimed they needed buffer zones. Great powers have argued they required strategic depth. Military planners have sought control over neighbouring territories to reduce perceived vulnerabilities.
Such arguments have appeared in different forms across continents and centuries. The danger is that security concerns can gradually become a justification for policies that undermine the sovereignty of smaller states. When geography becomes viewed exclusively through a military lens, neighbouring countries risk being reduced to strategic assets rather than independent nations with their own interests and aspirations. Bangladesh’s growing importance has undoubtedly altered regional calculations. Over the past two decades, the country has emerged as a significant economic and diplomatic actor. Its geographic location gives it influence over trade routes, connectivity projects and regional logistics. The country’s expanding relationships with multiple international partners have further strengthened its strategic relevance.
For some Indian strategists, this changing reality creates both opportunities and anxieties. On one hand, a stable and cooperative Bangladesh can provide immense economic and security benefits to India. On the other hand, the prospect of Bangladesh pursuing an increasingly independent foreign policy, including closer ties with countries such as China, Türkiye or Pakistan, generates concerns within sections of India’s strategic establishment. However, there is a fundamental contradiction in expecting a sovereign state to limit its international partnerships solely to satisfy the preferences of a larger neighbour. India itself fiercely guards its strategic autonomy. Successive Indian governments have celebrated their ability to maintain relations with competing global powers while pursuing national interests.
If strategic autonomy is considered legitimate for India, it cannot logically be denied to Bangladesh. This is another aspect of the perceived hypocrisy. The principle that India applies to itself should also apply to its neighbours. A rules-based regional order cannot function if one set of standards is reserved for major powers and another for smaller states. The debate surrounding military deployments near sensitive border regions further reinforces these concerns. Every state has the right to maintain and modernise its armed forces. India, like any sovereign nation, is entitled to strengthen its military capabilities. Nevertheless, when military exercises, infrastructure development and aggressive political rhetoric occur simultaneously, they inevitably influence perceptions across borders.
Trust between neighbouring countries is fragile. It is built over decades but can be damaged quickly by inflammatory statements or strategic signalling that appears threatening. In South Asia, where historical grievances remain fresh and borders continue to carry emotional significance, political leaders have a particular responsibility to exercise restraint. Bangladesh’s response to these developments reflects a broader transformation in its national outlook. The country is no longer viewed internationally as a peripheral state dependent on larger powers. It increasingly presents itself as a confident actor capable of shaping regional conversations. This confidence stems not only from economic growth but also from a growing recognition of Bangladesh’s geographic importance.
The significance of Bangladesh lies not merely in its territory but in its ability to serve as a bridge between South Asia and Southeast Asia. Its ports, transportation networks and strategic location provide opportunities for regional cooperation that could benefit all countries involved, including India. The most productive path forward therefore lies not in suspicion or coercion but in partnership based on mutual respect. History offers countless examples of the failures of expansionist thinking. Attempts to dominate neighbours through pressure or intimidation rarely produce lasting stability. Durable security emerges when states recognise each other’s sovereignty and legitimate interests. Regional peace cannot be sustained through fear; it must be built through trust. The discussion surrounding Rangpur ultimately serves as a reminder of a larger truth.
Sovereignty cannot be selective. Territorial integrity cannot be defended in one context and questioned in another. Strategic autonomy cannot be celebrated for one country while being criticised in its neighbour. Principles only retain their value when they are applied consistently. For India, a nation that aspires to global leadership, consistency matters. The credibility of any great power depends not only on its military strength or economic influence but also on its willingness to uphold the standards it asks others to respect. If New Delhi wishes to be seen as a defender of a rules-based international order, it must ensure that the language of sovereignty and territorial integrity applies equally to all states, regardless of size.
Bangladesh, for its part, has every right to protect its sovereignty, pursue independent relationships and make decisions based on its own national interests. Respecting those rights is not merely a legal obligation. It is the foundation upon which a stable, prosperous and cooperative South Asian future must be built.
