11:15 am, Friday, 10 October 2025
BREAKING NEWS
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS
Home / Bangladesh, International, Opinion, Top News

Sheikh Hasina’s Shuttle Visit and “Ivanka”, “Putul” Diplomacy

Swadesh Roy

Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, joined the oath-taking ceremony of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s consecutive third term as Premier. In this ceremony, Hasina did not make any comments to the media. However, some pictures surfaced in the press and on social media. In those pictures, two issues are highlighted. One is that Hasina met with the Prime Minister of India and her daughter, Putul. Some Delhi intellectuals commented that it resembled Trump’s diplomacy, as Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, was present at a meeting with the Indian Prime Minister. However, Sheikh Hasina played the card more smartly than Trump because photographs of her with the three successors of Nehru’s family—Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi—appeared in the media. The All-India Congress is a very old friend of Sheikh Hasina’s party, and she is also like a family member of the Gandhi family. After the death of Sheikh Mujib, the Indian government and then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi provided secret shelter to her family. Some people thought this happened due to Indira Gandhi. But the last ten years of BJP rule proved that it was Indian foreign policy; in Bangladesh, their first choice is the Awami League. Ivanka and Putul’s diplomacy indicates that the relationship between America, India, and Bangladesh was established before that of both countries, but Trump and Hasina were more prior.

However, attending the oath-taking ceremony was not a bilateral visit, so nobody expected any outcomes from this visit. Despite that, in the last ten years, those who followed Modi’s diplomacy thought that any surprise could come through the end of Modi’s term, and one did. Modi declared that he would visit Bangladesh next month.

On the other hand, before Modi’s visit, Sheikh Hasina will go on a bilateral visit to India. This visit was fixed before the new government was set in India. Bangladesh and India have many unsettled issues, like the water sharing of the 54 rivers, the Bangladesh-Nepal corridor, and the Bhutan-Bangladesh corridor through Indian land. Besides, there are two new phenomena: China’s money sometimes overtakes India’s position in Bangladesh, and the unexpected situation in Myanmar, which is a close neighbor of both countries.

So, besides the India-Bangladesh issue, some international issues may arise in the two top leaders’ meetings. Not only the Chinese issue and Myanmar but also the Indo-Pacific issue might come up. American foreign policy never changes drastically, but there are many uncertainties and unexpected past events. So, India’s big economy and regional military superpower cannot run without any precautions. They have lost a lot due to unanticipated quick decisions about Afghanistan by the USA.

Despite that, this is a towering time for Modi. He is not only the second consecutive Prime Minister of India three times but is now one of the world’s players, like Nehru, the first consecutive Prime Minister three times. However, the world power game is different between Nehru and Modi. Nehru was one of the leaders of an alliance against any military pact, while Modi is now one of the leading players of the Indo-Pacific military pact QUAD. For the last five years, QUAD has been one of the top issues in the world, despite its progress not being satisfactory to many strategic experts.

However, it is impossible to back out from the QUAD, and some new policies may include it according to Chinese economic policy and others, even the shape of the EU due to the Ukraine war. Moreover, the next U.S. election is in November, and its outcome will influence the attitude of the winning leader of America.

That will also be a short relief for Bangladesh because Bangladesh has an attitude to keep away herself from this pact, though it is a very tough job. With all the inconvenience, some extra time or unexpected time in diplomacy is always a blessing. It may get Bangladesh into the Indo-Pacific issue, which is also a headache for Bangladesh because of its close ties with China.

On the other hand, besides this international issue, some bilateral issues will come with this short, high-profile visit. Most of them are extensions of some previous MOUs, like health-related ones. Even so, Bangladesh will keep its eyes on a large amount of loans to India and the food security commitments of the Indian government.

A successful outcome will depend on many consequences because the Indian government has just opened its new accounting book, so if they put the first pen and ink on it for Bangladesh, it will be not only unexpected but also significant for Bangladesh in this economic crisis time because Indian loan is softer than China’s loan. Besides, Bangladesh needs loans to build infrastructures towards North East India to join India and Bangladesh’s new economic exploration area.

In this context, the thinking of Bangladesh comes out from that dead issue, which means the issue of the extremisms in North East India. Instead, Bangladesh must move forward with a new economic vision. For example, once, the Assam bottom jute was suitable. Because of partition, the Jute has lost its glory; conversely, due to overpopulation, Bangladesh must focus on producing rice in all the land to avoid starving. Suppose communication between North East India and Bangladesh is going well. In that case, Assam can go for jute cultivation again, and Bangladesh can renovate its lot of jute mills with new technology. Everybody knows that Jute is the best eco-friendly fiber in the world, so this naturally friendly world is the vast market for Jute to produce materials, office partitions, and tools; even the garments from inside cars produce materials, office partitions, and tools. So, this new avenue is knocking these two regions.

The food security issue is vital to Bangladesh and will be more critical. But for the autonomies of the regulatory board of India, it is very tough for India to come to a treaty on it, and previous experience is not satisfactory regarding supply to Bangladesh, which has all the core heart desires of the Indian leaders. So, for food security in Bangladesh, how can India help think in a new way? As a Journalist, I have some observations and thinking, trying to share the people next to another writing.

The high-voltage issue with Teesta River water sharing will probably not occur during this visit. Besides, the reality is that, what I saw last month in the situation of the Teesta River in India part, the two countries must think in a new dimension in this climate change era. Blaming Mamata Banerjee will not be wise, and the two countries must now put their foot on the realistic ground.

The writer is a Bangladeshi National award-winning Journalist and Editor of The Present World and Sarakhon.

More News:
The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant
Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.
SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION
Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross
IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES
GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE
11:26:59 pm, Wednesday, 19 June 2024

Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement

The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant

Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes.

SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION

Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross

IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES

GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE

OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY

PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS

TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

News Title :
Reviving the Rural Economy: $100 Million ADB–Bangladesh Agreement The Journey Begins for Cox’s Bazar’s First Plastic Recycling Plant Why the world’s biggest food company is stepping back Nestlé has withdrawn from a high-profile international alliance to cut methane from dairy supply chains, a move that instantly sharpened debate over how fast and by what methods the sector should decarbonize; the company says it will keep pursuing on-farm emissions cuts through its own programs while reassessing the group’s approach and governance, but the exit deprives the coalition of its most recognizable member and risks slowing peer benchmarking, shared pilot data, and pooled purchasing that can bring down costs for farmers. Methane from cattle is a potent, short-lived climate pollutant, and many governments have leaned on voluntary industry compacts to accelerate adoption of feed additives, manure management, and breeding strategies; critics of Nestlé’s decision warn that a fragmentation of efforts could reduce transparency and make it harder for buyers, lenders, and regulators to compare progress across brands, whereas supporters counter that company-led projects tied to local agronomy and subsidies often deliver faster, measurable gains than broad global charters. The policy backdrop is shifting as well: several markets are moving from pure carrots to a mix of incentives and performance-based conditions on grants and export supports, and that pivot raises stakes for how milk processors document emissions baselines and third-party verification, because the credibility of Scope 3 targets rests on comparable methodologies rather than marketing claims alone. Practically, much of the abatement economics hinge on who pays for early-stage inputs like methane-reducing feed supplements and slurry lids; with farm margins tight, a coordinated model—blending buyer premiums, public cost-shares, and green-finance instruments—is usually needed to avoid penalizing smaller producers, and Nestlé’s departure complicates the coalition’s ability to aggregate demand and negotiate lower unit costs at scale. What changes on the farm, for financiers, and across supply chains For producers, the near-term signal is mixed: one major buyer is still funding on-farm pilots but no longer inside the alliance’s shared roadmap, which could slow knowledge transfer between regions that differ on climate, feed, and herd structure, even as individual Nestlé programs continue to trial seaweed-based additives, nitrification inhibitors, covered lagoons with biogas capture, and pasture rotations to improve enteric and manure outcomes; in parallel, veterinarians and breeders stress that fertility and animal health gains can cut emissions intensity without shrinking output, though activists argue absolute reductions are needed if national targets are to be met. Financiers and insurers will keep pressing for comparable disclosures because the cost of capital increasingly reflects climate-risk metrics: banks baking “sustainability-linked” terms into dairy loans need clear, auditable KPIs, and exporters eyeing tariff-free access to markets with carbon-border rules will face tougher paperwork if standards splinter, which is why industry groups are urging a minimum common MRV (measurement-reporting-verification) framework even when brand strategies differ. For consumers—and for downstream brands in chocolate, infant formula, and ice cream—the implications will show up more in labels and price architecture than in the taste of products: if buyers pay farmers for verified methane abatement while feed and equipment remain pricey, some costs may pass through, but over time biogas revenue, fertilizer substitution, and efficiency gains can offset outlays and stabilize retail pricing. The political risk is that today’s corporate exit becomes tomorrow’s cultural flashpoint, especially in countries where farmer protests have already shaped election cycles; to avoid backlash, climate policy designers are experimenting with “pay for performance” that rewards measured reductions rather than prescribing a single technology path. The bottom line is not that dairy decarbonization stalls, but that governance gets messier: Nestlé’s solo track keeps momentum on pilots yet raises coordination costs for everyone else, and the outcome to watch is whether competing alliances converge on interoperable data, verification, and crediting rules so that farmers can sell a ton of avoided methane once—and get recognized for it across buyers, banks, and border regimes. SOFTBANK BUYS ABB’S ROBOTICS UNIT FOR $5.4B, BETTING ON A NEW WAVE OF FACTORY AUTOMATION Nurul Majid Humayun’s Death and the Placement of Prisons under the International Red Cross IEA TRIMS U.S. RENEWABLES OUTLOOK AS FEDERAL POLICIES SHIFT; GLOBAL SOLAR STILL SURGES GAZA TALKS ENTER DAY THREE IN EGYPT AS MEDIATORS TEST PATH TO FULL CEASE-FIRE OCTOBER PRIME DAY 2025: THE TECH DEALS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR MONEY PRIME DAY, AGAIN: WIRED’S BIG LIST SHOWS HOW TO SHOP SMART AND SKIP THE DUDS TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET TEASES ‘MARTY SUPREME’ AFTER NYFF PREMIERE, KEEPING PLOT UNDER WRAPS

Sheikh Hasina’s Shuttle Visit and “Ivanka”, “Putul” Diplomacy

11:26:59 pm, Wednesday, 19 June 2024

Sheikh Hasina, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, joined the oath-taking ceremony of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s consecutive third term as Premier. In this ceremony, Hasina did not make any comments to the media. However, some pictures surfaced in the press and on social media. In those pictures, two issues are highlighted. One is that Hasina met with the Prime Minister of India and her daughter, Putul. Some Delhi intellectuals commented that it resembled Trump’s diplomacy, as Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, was present at a meeting with the Indian Prime Minister. However, Sheikh Hasina played the card more smartly than Trump because photographs of her with the three successors of Nehru’s family—Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Priyanka Gandhi—appeared in the media. The All-India Congress is a very old friend of Sheikh Hasina’s party, and she is also like a family member of the Gandhi family. After the death of Sheikh Mujib, the Indian government and then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi provided secret shelter to her family. Some people thought this happened due to Indira Gandhi. But the last ten years of BJP rule proved that it was Indian foreign policy; in Bangladesh, their first choice is the Awami League. Ivanka and Putul’s diplomacy indicates that the relationship between America, India, and Bangladesh was established before that of both countries, but Trump and Hasina were more prior.

However, attending the oath-taking ceremony was not a bilateral visit, so nobody expected any outcomes from this visit. Despite that, in the last ten years, those who followed Modi’s diplomacy thought that any surprise could come through the end of Modi’s term, and one did. Modi declared that he would visit Bangladesh next month.

On the other hand, before Modi’s visit, Sheikh Hasina will go on a bilateral visit to India. This visit was fixed before the new government was set in India. Bangladesh and India have many unsettled issues, like the water sharing of the 54 rivers, the Bangladesh-Nepal corridor, and the Bhutan-Bangladesh corridor through Indian land. Besides, there are two new phenomena: China’s money sometimes overtakes India’s position in Bangladesh, and the unexpected situation in Myanmar, which is a close neighbor of both countries.

So, besides the India-Bangladesh issue, some international issues may arise in the two top leaders’ meetings. Not only the Chinese issue and Myanmar but also the Indo-Pacific issue might come up. American foreign policy never changes drastically, but there are many uncertainties and unexpected past events. So, India’s big economy and regional military superpower cannot run without any precautions. They have lost a lot due to unanticipated quick decisions about Afghanistan by the USA.

Despite that, this is a towering time for Modi. He is not only the second consecutive Prime Minister of India three times but is now one of the world’s players, like Nehru, the first consecutive Prime Minister three times. However, the world power game is different between Nehru and Modi. Nehru was one of the leaders of an alliance against any military pact, while Modi is now one of the leading players of the Indo-Pacific military pact QUAD. For the last five years, QUAD has been one of the top issues in the world, despite its progress not being satisfactory to many strategic experts.

However, it is impossible to back out from the QUAD, and some new policies may include it according to Chinese economic policy and others, even the shape of the EU due to the Ukraine war. Moreover, the next U.S. election is in November, and its outcome will influence the attitude of the winning leader of America.

That will also be a short relief for Bangladesh because Bangladesh has an attitude to keep away herself from this pact, though it is a very tough job. With all the inconvenience, some extra time or unexpected time in diplomacy is always a blessing. It may get Bangladesh into the Indo-Pacific issue, which is also a headache for Bangladesh because of its close ties with China.

On the other hand, besides this international issue, some bilateral issues will come with this short, high-profile visit. Most of them are extensions of some previous MOUs, like health-related ones. Even so, Bangladesh will keep its eyes on a large amount of loans to India and the food security commitments of the Indian government.

A successful outcome will depend on many consequences because the Indian government has just opened its new accounting book, so if they put the first pen and ink on it for Bangladesh, it will be not only unexpected but also significant for Bangladesh in this economic crisis time because Indian loan is softer than China’s loan. Besides, Bangladesh needs loans to build infrastructures towards North East India to join India and Bangladesh’s new economic exploration area.

In this context, the thinking of Bangladesh comes out from that dead issue, which means the issue of the extremisms in North East India. Instead, Bangladesh must move forward with a new economic vision. For example, once, the Assam bottom jute was suitable. Because of partition, the Jute has lost its glory; conversely, due to overpopulation, Bangladesh must focus on producing rice in all the land to avoid starving. Suppose communication between North East India and Bangladesh is going well. In that case, Assam can go for jute cultivation again, and Bangladesh can renovate its lot of jute mills with new technology. Everybody knows that Jute is the best eco-friendly fiber in the world, so this naturally friendly world is the vast market for Jute to produce materials, office partitions, and tools; even the garments from inside cars produce materials, office partitions, and tools. So, this new avenue is knocking these two regions.

The food security issue is vital to Bangladesh and will be more critical. But for the autonomies of the regulatory board of India, it is very tough for India to come to a treaty on it, and previous experience is not satisfactory regarding supply to Bangladesh, which has all the core heart desires of the Indian leaders. So, for food security in Bangladesh, how can India help think in a new way? As a Journalist, I have some observations and thinking, trying to share the people next to another writing.

The high-voltage issue with Teesta River water sharing will probably not occur during this visit. Besides, the reality is that, what I saw last month in the situation of the Teesta River in India part, the two countries must think in a new dimension in this climate change era. Blaming Mamata Banerjee will not be wise, and the two countries must now put their foot on the realistic ground.

The writer is a Bangladeshi National award-winning Journalist and Editor of The Present World and Sarakhon.

Editorial : Swadesh Roy

Editorial Office

First Floor, Capita Lake Front. Block J, House# 66, Banani Rd 18 Extension, Dhaka 1213