Dinesh Trivedi’s Dhaka posting reflects India’s high-stakes diplomatic bet

The appointment of the 76-year-old veteran and experienced politician Dinesh Trivedi as India’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh is a clear indication of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s confidence that he will be able to help India to meet the current challenges in India-Bangladesh bilateral ties. It is equally a signal that he does not consider any professional Indian diplomat as capable as Trivedi in the current circumstances to assist Delhi to positively steer this crucial relationship.

Trivedi grew up in West Bengal. He was also a member of the Trinamool Congress for a long time before he joined the BJP in 2021. He should therefore be well versed in at least some of the aspects of the intricacies and complexities in India-Bangladesh relations. However, it is one thing to be a politician and quite another to be a diplomatic envoy. Some politicians have, in the past, shown the capacity to adapt to the demands of professional diplomacy, while others have chafed at its constraints and limitations. The difference between the two is that while politicians in office are decision-makers, diplomats do not make policy but help in its crafting and then implement it.

More from Opinion

Time would tell whether Trivedi fulfils the trust that PM Modi has placed in him for accurately acting as Delhi’s eyes and ears and correctly and honestly reporting all that is happening in Bangladesh that impacts on Indian interests. Equally, if he succeeds in using his skills, honed over a lifetime of participation in the public life of this country, in conveying India’s views and concerns to Bangladesh’s decision-makers so that they see the validity of Indian positions and its desire to overcome the tensions that arose in the aftermath of Sheikh Hasina’s ouster from office in August 2024. It will be the fervent hope of all right-thinking people that Trivedi succeeds in helping the relationship move towards a higher and more positive level. To achieve diplomatic success, Trivedi would have to give up, while he holds this assignment, some of the natural courtesy of a politician.

Thus, there was no need for him to respond to the US ambassador to India’s Sergio Gor’s open message to him that he would like to work with him on Bangladesh issues. Gor had sent that signal in his capacity as the US envoy to South and Central Asia. That the US has made Gor both its ambassador to India and a Special Envoy for the region is in itself extraordinary. It is clear that the Indian government is taking no cognisance of his role as Special Envoy. Indian ambassadors and high commissioners should do likewise.

An experienced political figure who becomes the head of a crucial mission has certain undoubted advantages over a professional envoy, however competent the latter may be. The political envoy gets, at least in the initial stages, greater access than a professional envoy in the receiving state. His appointment is considered a special gesture on the part of the sending state to seriously improve ties. In the case of Trivedi, for instance, it will be assumed by all sections of the Bangladesh government as well as those in its public life that this is an attempt on PM Modi’s part to repair the strains in bilateral ties. This expectation, though, will in itself put a strain on Trivedi, for his performance will be scrutinised more than a professional envoy’s would have been.

The Bangladesh political and strategic classes will assume that he has direct access to the top levels of India’s political leadership because he is part of their ‘club’. Hence, he will be exposed to greater entreaties than a professional envoy and will consequently be expected by many in Bangladesh to convince his ‘club’ members to understand their concerns and show greater sympathy to them. It will certainly be more difficult for him as compared to a professional envoy to take the plea that he will pass a message given to him to Delhi and revert with their decision.

Thus, the Bangladeshi leadership will expect Trivedi to be an active player in Delhi’s decision-making even on sensitive issues. He will therefore be judged by a different yardstick by Dhaka than a professional diplomatic envoy would have been. This has been witnessed in many cases in the case of political appointees. The fact is, whether it is a political or professional head of mission, critical decisions impacting a bilateral relationship are taken in Delhi.

Certainly, the views of a political envoy, especially one as experienced as Trivedi, will be listened to with great respect, but his opinion will be one among a host of views that will be in play before a decision is made. If Trivedi’s view succeeds, his stock in Dhaka will go up. If it does not, then his reputation will suffer, and over time, if such cases accumulate, then his access too will become more limited than it was at the beginning.

Foreign governments are of course not — or should not be — privy to the internal deliberations of another. However, in the course of a comparatively short period, they become aware of how effective an envoy accredited to it in getting his/her views converted into his/her government’s policy towards it. This is on account of their discussions with the envoy on outstanding and other issues.

With his vast experience of interstate relations, there is little doubt that PM Modi would have closely considered these aspects before deciding on appointing Trivedi to Dhaka as India’s High Commissioner. He would have considered that Trivedi would succeed where a professional envoy would not. Is this a reflection on PM Modi’s evaluation of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS)? Or are his views confined specifically to the Bangladesh case? It is necessary for those who lead the IFS as well as External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar who himself led the IFS as Foreign Secretary before he was inducted by Modi into the country’s political life, to ponder over. If the Prime Minister has assessed that the IFS needs a correction course in a fast-changing world, then it is essential that it undertakes it. This is notwithstanding the IFS’s outstanding record in serving the nation and being universally recognised for its professional competence.

The unnecessary trauma that the Mohammed Yunus-led interim government of Bangladesh had inflicted on India-Bangladesh relations after Sheikh Hasina fled from the country is now over. It is obvious that the elected BNP government led by Tarique Rehman is taking a more pragmatic and positive approach to India-Bangladesh ties. Yunus had allowed Pakistan and China to make unwarranted inroads, which could only be construed as anti-Indian. Trivedi will have to help in countering these and to persuade the Bangladesh government and people that the full normalisation of India-Bangladesh ties is in mutual interest. His acid test would lie in changing Bangladeshi attitudes on connectivity and security issues.

(The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)