• Exchange of security information.
• Implementation of 1974 land boundary agreement.
• Greater access of Bangladeshi goods to India.

Both sides seem to have conducted themselves in a business-like manner, and have concentrated on practicalities rather than rhetorical statements. The chief adviser indicated to India's foreign secretary that such talks should be held on a regular basis.

On the sidelines, common water resources management was also discussed, and the subject was left to water experts at the upcoming meeting of the Joint Committee of Experts. This is important for Bangladesh, because if India "sneezes" Bangladesh catches "cold" later.

The chief adviser rightly pointed out to India's foreign secretary that economic development and prosperity of the region were in the interest of the two countries, and that the next-door neighbours should work together for the mutual benefit of the peoples of the two countries.

Bilateral relations between neighbours are always complex. They depend on many factors, including the ideologies of the governments in power. Right-wing governments tend to be engrossed in their own national interests, and flexibility in policy decisions is rare.

Why do Bangladesh-India relations go through a cycle of cooperation and non-cooperation?
The very fact that the two foreign secretaries met after two years demonstrates that bilateral relations remain uneasy, although they are correct in their dealings; otherwise officials of neighbouring nations should meet regularly and routinely, as they do in Europe or in Asean nations.

The state of Indo-Bangladesh relations is to be appreciated in the following context:

First, the asymmetrical physical of sizes of India (3,166,829 square kilometers) and Bangladesh (147,570 square kiolmetres) create a relationship that can be best understood by the analogy of sleeping with an elephant. However well-tempered and decent the beast is, every twitch and grunt of the elephant makes the sleeping neighbour uneasy. This implies that bigger neighbours have to be very sensitive to the concerns of smaller neighbours.

Second, Bangladesh does not have the capacity or ability to impose a solution to a bilateral issue with India. India has to take the initiative because it is capable of doing so. The 1996 Ganges Water Treaty is an instance.

India has been ignoring solution of outstanding prickly issues, such as sea boundary, ownership of Talpatty Island, understanding on the proposed Tipaimukh dam on Barak river in the east, and exchange of enclaves as agreed under the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement. Trade deficit for Bangladesh, in the billions of dollars, does not help bilateral relations and has become a political issue.

Third, India is a regional power and has different global and regional interests from those of Bangladesh. China's relations with India remain uneasy, although considerably improved in economic areas. Bangladesh does not wish to be embroiled in Indo-China relations, and has to maintain a delicate balance between them, given its geographical location.

Fourth, India's policies should not be perceived as being intimidating to Bangladesh. This will spoil mutual trust for each other. For example, India has quietly embarked on construction of a fence that will eventually reach across 3,300 kilometres, hundreds of rivers and long stretches of forests and fields to seal itself off from Bangladesh, although India continues to assert "friendly and cooperative" ties with Bangladesh. Already 2,500 kilometres have been built quietly over the past seven years.

Many Bangladeshis are hurt, humiliated, and upset by India's action of fencing around Bangladesh. Does fencing make good neighbours? Who is creating political problems in bilateral relations? India's action on the ground is louder than reiteration of rhetorical statements of maintaining "friendly ties" with Bangladesh.

Fifth, India's strategic interests often affect small neighbouring countries. Often a small neighbour's close relations with big or regional powers tend to annoy India, as they affect India's overall strategic interests.

For example, Bangladesh could not conclude the Sofa agreement with the US in 1998 because of reported objection of the Vajpayee government. No large country should restrict or restrain the flexibility of a neighbour's foreign policy on the ground of it being against its strategic interests.

Factors for bilateral relationship
The recognition that each country has its own view on a given issue is imperative, and not to understand this perspective is to misjudge the very nature of solid bilateral relationship. Close friend does not mean that both countries must always have the same view on a given issue.

India must appreciate the sensitivity of the people of small countries like Bangladesh. It means that a small neighbour tends to guard its independence vigorously, and any perception of dominance by a bigger neighbour, rightly or wrongly, does not help improve bilateral relations.

Economic relations are not independent of political relations. In most cases, good political relations fostered by identical values, common problems, and similar experiences, tend to promote economic relations. Evidence in all regions of the world confirms that economic relationship or interdependence is the closest between neighbouring countries.

India has not been able to assist Bangladesh in its infrastructure developments as Japan and China have. There is no visible project or infrastructure in the country that people may see as a symbol of bilateral relations. India has done it in other countries, but not in Bangladesh. It is not understood why India sat idle for 36 years?

Almost all researchers working in the area of Indo-Bangladesh relations have mentioned the desirability of a closer integration of Bangladesh economy's with India's northeastern Indian states. Such an economic integration will arguably have several beneficial impacts on Bangladesh and India.

The two-day Dhaka meeting
Against this background, the outcome of the two-day meeting at the foreign secretary level is welcome. The proof of the pudding is, however, in the eating and, likewise, the statement of cooperation with each other must be implemented on the ground as soon as possible. India's foreign secretary's reported statement that: "We would like to solve these issues as quickly as possible" is commendable. The delay in implementation leads to frustration, and suspicion of motives.

India may seize the opportunity that Bangladesh is being run by a non-party care-taker government (CTG) until election is held in 2008. The CTG is widely supported by the people. This appears to be an appropriate time for India to resolve many of the prickly issues.

This available opportunity must not be missed, according to many political observers. Such opportunities existed during the Mujib-Indira days in the early 70s, but political analysts believe that Indian bureaucrats failed to take advantage of their warm personal relationship to resolve many bilateral issues.

Once the issues are resolved to mutual satisfaction, the Bangladesh people will tend to support any initiative the government takes with India in respect of closer relations, including inter-connectivity of transportation on land and river. Chittagong port may eventually be developed as the regional port for Nepal, Bhutan and northeastern Indian states.

Both need each other in the globalised world. Good relations are built on principles of mutual trust, good neighbourliness and consideration. It is hoped that the talks just concluded will be the beginning of a new chapter of an abiding, cooperative and trustful bilateral relationship.

One fact that India may take into account is that Bangladesh can derail its regional ambitions if it ignores Bangladesh's concerns. There rests, according to political observers, the importance of Bangladesh to India.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.