Bangladesh has survived partition, the liberation war, famine, floods, military coups, and democratic collapse. It has always returned. But returning is not the same as resolving. Fifty-six years after independence, the founding paradox remains: a nation whose birth is still debated cannot fully inhabit its future. The gun salutes will be loud and unambiguous. The questions they echo, however, about what Bangladesh is, who founded it, and whose vision should guide it, remain, as they have always been

For India, this raises complex challenges. Historically, India has positioned itself as a strong advocate of anti-colonialism and sovereignty. However, in the current context, its responses have often appeared measured and cautious, despite the direct implications for its interests—ranging from energy security and regional stability to strategic initiatives such as connectivity through Iran.

For India, the failure is particularly significant as its presidency was an opportunity to translate “strategic autonomy”, the current buzzword in foreign policy circles, into multilateral leadership. True, its response is shaped by structural constraints. The country imports more than 85% of its crude oil, much of it from West Asia and Russia. Some nine million of its citizens live in the Gulf. The United States is its largest trading partner. Iran anchors the Chabahar port project and India’s access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Each relationship is too consequential to risk.