While Zahed was eventually granted permission to enter India, he chose to abandon the visit and returned to Bangladesh. The development prompted Dhaka to summon a senior Indian diplomat on Monday. According to Bangladeshi media reports, Zahed characterized the airport episode as harassment by Indian authorities, triggering a fresh controversy in bilateral relations.
Despite the escalating row, Zahed insisted that he did not intend to create hostility or a negative atmosphere between the two neighboring countries. Quoting his remarks, Bangladeshi media reported that he hoped the incident would not affect future relations between India and Bangladesh.
Reports indicate that Zahed, who serves as Adviser on Policy and Strategy Affairs, was listed on a watchlist in India and was traveling on an ordinary passport rather than a diplomatic passport.
In what appeared to be an attempt to ease tensions, Zahed later stated that he would have no objection to visiting India again in the future if proper procedures were followed. He reiterated this position while speaking to media outlets after returning to Dhaka.
Zahed has frequently been critical of India. During a televised debate in Bangladesh, he once described India as a “stupid neighbour.” He has also criticized the Bharatiya Janata Party and its senior leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. He accused them of interfering in Bangladesh’s internal politics, encouraging communal tensions, and exerting influence over Dhaka.
Addressing a press conference at the Secretariat in Dhaka on Tuesday, Zahed defended his decision to abandon the India visit. He emphasized that he had traveled as a representative of the Bangladeshi state and not in a personal capacity.
“I did not go there in a personal capacity. I went as a representative of the state. Therefore, I felt that we needed to make an instant protest against what happened to me there. That is why I decided not to enter India,” he said.
Zahed further stated that his decision was intended to communicate that Bangladesh’s government expected to be treated differently from the administration led by former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
“This was not as an individual, but as an adviser to the prime minister of Bangladesh, I felt there needed to be a clear statement of protest from the government,” he said.
He added, “I felt a message needed to be sent both inside and outside the country that this is not Sheikh Hasina’s government. This is a government with a public mandate.”
At the same time, Zahed sought to reassure both countries that his actions were not aimed at provoking a diplomatic confrontation. Stressing that Bangladesh did not seek hostility toward any nation, he said, “We do not want a bad situation with any country under any circumstances. I hope this incident will not affect future relations between the two countries.”
Zahed also reiterated that he would have no objection to visiting India again if proper procedures were followed. He pointed out that other members of the Bangladeshi delegation continued to participate in the Indian Ocean Rim Association meeting despite his departure.
“We are an independent and sovereign state, and a government with massive public support is in power here,” he said.
Following the controversy, Indian authorities reportedly cleared Zahed’s entry after intervention from higher levels. However, instead of proceeding with his scheduled visit, he chose to return to Dhaka via Colombo. The incident, which occurred at New Delhi airport late on Sunday, has since developed into a diplomatic issue between the two countries.
Bangladesh subsequently summoned India’s Deputy High Commissioner in Dhaka. Meanwhile, India’s Ministry of External Affairs has not yet issued an official response to the matter.
The episode has emerged as a significant diplomatic flashpoint, raising questions about protocol, official treatment of visiting representatives, and the future trajectory of relations between India and Bangladesh at a sensitive time in regional diplomacy.
About The Author
Comment List