After exchanging the customary greetings, I enquired as to whether there was a significant increase in the number of Indian visa applicants considering the long queues and if any steps were being taken to tackle this "problem." The diplomat responded that the solution was to stop issuing visas. I chose not to react to this retort and instead directed the conversation towards Saarc by asking if there was any move to waive visa requirements for travel within the region similar to Asean or EU.

The diplomat replied that as long as Bangladesh harbored Indian terrorists, they could not opt for a visa free policy. I felt this was a strange response considering that my question was not on bilateral affairs and expressed skepticism at the notion of Indian terrorists lining up at immigration counters for entry visas. How this had anything to do with a visa free policy for the region was beyond my comprehension. I also pointed out that during the first Saarc summit in Dhaka, India's Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was said to have proposed visa free travel but Pakistan's President Ziaul Huq didn't agree.

The conversation then shifted to demarcation of our countries borders. The diplomat informed me that the main point of contention was a mere 6.5 kilometer stretch and they had placed a proposal for settling it two years ago. What he failed to mention and a fact I later learned, was that Sheikh Mujib and Indira Gandhi signed a comprehensive land border agreement in 1974 that Bangladesh ratified immediately but India is yet to do. Thus, a significant number of enclaves and the 6.5 kilometer stretch remain unresolved. Instead of forwarding alternate proposals, why doesn't India ratify the Mujib-Indira agreement? He also mentioned placing barbed wires to control the border similar to the Line of Control in Kashmir. I pointed to the USA's lack of success with its barbed wire border with Mexico and expressed misgivings about such a strategy working given India's resource constraints

On the issue of trade, the diplomat said that Bangladesh had little to offer India in terms of exports and that we were dragging our feet on a proposed free trade agreement. He pointed to the success of India's FTAs with Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. In response, I mentioned that when we do have an export product (e.g. batteries), India slapped anti-dumping on them. India was ultimately forced to withdraw because she did not anticipate Bangladesh having the resilience to counter this at the WTO. He said India's withdrawal was a political decision and I argued that the anti-dumping case was clearly illegal and India withdrew to avoid embarrassment.

I then expressed the view that if Tata was able to go through with their proposed investment, that alone would do more for our two countries relations than all the futile efforts by diplomats and politicians. I also hoped that our government would not botch the negotiations because Tata is a company based on strong values and commitment to developing the regions where it invests. There is little ground for Bangladesh to view them with suspicion and all efforts need to be made to ensure that their strategy is not waylaid because of incompetence, corruption or prejudice on our side. The diplomat said that part of Tata's original proposal had been rejected and one will have to see how this plays out. We concluded our debate by hoping that the proposed Tata investment succeeds.

By the diplomat's own admission, Bangladesh is India's 5th largest market. Yet, the way Indian behaves with us at times makes me wonder whether their politicians and business community even know this fact. We too are thoroughly inept at leveraging this to our advantage. Reading some of our diplomats' writings, the attitude reflected in this piece seems to be a hallmark of India's dealings with us. In fact, I mentioned to the diplomat that India's attitude is a primary factor for all her neighbours disliking her, at which he stated that foreign policy cannot be dictated based on other countries likes and dislikes. Ultimately, what India needs to realize is that as long as she is surrounded by less developed neighbours, they will continue to be a drain on her resources. That is the way human society works. Only a strategy that moves away from the usual bullying tactics and encourages these countries to prosper will benefit India in the long run.

Safi Khan works in development.