News Desk
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Muhammad Yunus, the interim leader of Bangladesh, on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC summit on April 4, 2025, it was their first face-to-face encounter since Yunus took charge amid a chaotic power shift in Dhaka. The meeting, set against a backdrop of frayed bilateral relations, reaffirmed a key tenet of South Asian diplomacy: direct leader-to-leader engagement often delivers results.
This approach has been a hallmark of India’s foreign policy, with the essence of former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral’s five-point doctrine—emphasizing trust, non-reciprocity, and peaceful resolutions—serving as a cornerstone in its dealings with neighbors. On May 12, 1997, Gujral’s meeting with Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif in the Maldives exemplified this philosophy, drawing global headlines.
The New York Times and other outlets spotlighted the talks, lauding Gujral’s vision of goodwill without preconditions. Today, as Modi and Yunus tackle thorny issues like border security and minority rights, that legacy of dialogue-driven diplomacy endures, signaling India’s continued bet on personal outreach to bridge regional divides.
Held on the sidelines of the BIMSTEC summit, the 40-minute meeting, though brief, carried weight. It marked not only a critical attempt to stabilize a delicate bilateral relationship but also drew careful attention from regional media—particularly in Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Coverage in both countries revealed varying degrees of optimism, strategic restraint, and unresolved tensions. In Bangladesh, the press treated the meeting as a hopeful turning point. In Pakistan, it was noted but not deeply analyzed. And in both, the story was as much about what was said as what was not.
The meeting came against the backdrop of seismic political change in Bangladesh. The August 2024 student-led uprising ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has since taken refuge in India. Mohammad Yunus—Nobel laureate, economist, and now Chief Advisor of Bangladesh’s interim government—has since been walking a diplomatic tightrope.
Given the volatility of the moment, the Modi-Yunus encounter was more than a courtesy call. It was a test of how far relations could be reset after months of mistrust. And, in Bangladesh at least, it was framed as a step in the right direction.
From a policy standpoint, the discussions checked off the usual boxes: the renewal of the Ganges water treaty, the contentious Teesta water-sharing agreement, and border security. Indian concerns over the safety of Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh were also raised—an issue that has grown more sensitive since Hasina’s departure, with New Delhi citing over 2,300 incidents of minority-targeted violence.
Yunus, meanwhile, pushed for Hasina’s extradition, a matter steeped in domestic significance and symbolic importance. He raised this issue primarily to resonate with the local audience rather than to pursue a diplomatic resolution or ensure a just outcome.
In Dhaka, the headlines were mostly positive. The Daily Star called the meeting “constructive, productive, and fruitful.” Prothom Alo struck a similarly upbeat tone, emphasizing the symbolism of Yunus’s first meeting with Modi since taking office.
Yet beneath the surface, the press revealed a degree of unease. Yunus’s earlier remarks in China—where he described Northeast India as “landlocked” and Bangladesh as the “guardian of the ocean”—continued to reverberate. While never officially condemned in Dhaka, the comment stoked anxiety in New Delhi and served as a reminder that beneath the photo ops and handshake diplomacy, old suspicions linger.
And while editorials were notably sparse, the tone of news coverage suggested a media establishment cautiously hopeful—but aware that words alone won’t mend fences.
Across the border, Pakistani media did take note of the Modi-Yunus meeting—but without the intensity seen in Dhaka. Dawn, Pakistan’s most prominent English-language daily, ran two factual pieces on the meeting. One highlighted India’s concerns about minority rights; the other noted Bangladesh’s request for Hasina’s return.
Geo TV struck a neutral tone, focusing on Modi’s call to “avoid rhetoric that mars ties,” a reference to Yunus’s past statements. Aaj News, publishing in both Urdu and Bangla, emphasized Yunus’s repeated efforts to initiate the meeting.
But notable, too, was what wasn’t said. There were no editorials or sweeping regional analyses. The Nation, a conservative-leaning daily, didn’t cover the meeting at all, nor did Express News or ARY News.
For a country like Pakistan, often quick to interpret India’s strategic intent and every diplomatic move, this absence suggested something else—perhaps editorial fatigue or a preoccupation with Pakistan’s own domestic dramas, which are plentiful. From domestic woes to water sharing, the economy, and security, the entire nation is bogged down by issues close to its heart.
The April 4 meeting did not resolve any of the fundamental disputes between India and Bangladesh. No new agreements were signed, and no definitive timelines were established. Yet in diplomacy, tone matters. It’s Modi’s diplomacy and outreach that have shifted many thorny issues. He met political leaders who, before their elections, had taken anti-India stances but later, after meeting him, adopted more positive positions. These face-to-face meetings serve as icebreakers that yield results—and by that measure, the meeting may have succeeded.
In Bangladesh, it was largely seen as a chance to normalize ties and avoid isolation. In India, it may have been a way to cautiously re-engage with a post-Hasina Bangladesh. In Pakistan, the coverage was almost diagnostic—interested but largely unemotional.
For Bangladesh, the stakes are existential. Yunus needs India’s cooperation, not just for border management and trade, but also to keep international perceptions from hardening against his unelected interim government. The meeting helped, but only marginally.
For India, the challenge is more complex. Hasina was a known quantity, while Yunus represents both change and unpredictability. Yunus has little control over politics or the mass political machinery, making his position precarious as well. New Delhi’s insistence on protecting minority rights in Bangladesh doubles as both a diplomatic concern and a domestic political talking point.
And for Pakistan, the Modi-Yunus meeting is a distant tremor, not an earthquake. Its media noted the event but chose not to dwell. This silence could speak volumes. It may reflect a growing detachment from Dhaka’s internal dynamics—or simply, a pause before reevaluation.
The Modi-Yunus meeting in Bangkok was not a breakthrough, but it wasn’t a breakdown either. It was a carefully staged moment, captured warmly by cameras and cautiously by headlines. In Bangladesh, it opened the door to hope; in Pakistan, it registered on the periphery. It was India’s way of signaling what’s at stake for both parties and that prosperity and security are the ultimate outcomes for both.
Diplomatic resets rarely start with fireworks. More often, they begin with what this meeting delivered: civility, guarded optimism, and a lingering sense that the hardest conversations are still to come.
