Muhammad Yunus’ recent comments advocating for China’s expanded economic role in India’s Northeast have ignited a heated political debate, underscoring longstanding strategic anxieties about foreign influence in the region. Yunus, the Nobel laureate and microfinance pioneer from Bangladesh, suggested that China could help boost development in India’s Northeast, given its expertise in infrastructure projects and economic growth initiatives. However, his assertion that Bangladesh is the “only guardian of the ocean” for India’s “landlocked” Northeast was met with strong opposition from Indian political leaders, who see such remarks as both misleading and dangerous.
Political Reactions and Strategic Concerns
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma was among the first to issue a scathing response, calling Yunus’ statement “offensive and strongly condemnable.” Sarma warned that such narratives were being pushed by external actors to exploit India’s geographical vulnerabilities, particularly regarding the strategic Siliguri Corridor—also known as the “Chicken’s Neck”—which is a mere 22-kilometer-wide stretch connecting mainland India to its Northeastern states. Given its narrowness, the corridor is often considered India’s most fragile link to the Northeast and is frequently discussed in security circles as a potential target for adversarial forces.
Sarma further emphasized that India must reduce its reliance on foreign trade routes through Bangladesh and instead develop robust internal connectivity to secure the region’s economic and strategic interests. This includes improving road and rail networks, enhancing air connectivity, and strengthening border security to prevent external meddling. His remarks reflect a broader sentiment within India’s security and political establishment that the Northeast should not be made dependent on Bangladesh for access to global trade routes, especially given Dhaka’s increasing economic and military ties with Beijing.
Adding to the controversy, Tipra Motha Party chief Pradyot Manikya made a striking remark, suggesting that India should reconsider its historical decisions regarding access to the sea. He argued that instead of investing billions in alternative infrastructure projects, India should actively work toward regaining influence over Chittagong—a major port city that was part of British India before Partition in 1947. Manikya called India’s decision to let Chittagong go as one of its “biggest mistakes,” stating that it had left the entire Northeast region economically handicapped. He further highlighted that several indigenous communities, such as the Tripuri, Garo, Khasi, and Chakma people, continue to reside in Bangladesh under challenging conditions, with many facing cultural and political marginalization. His remarks struck a chord with sections of the Northeast who believe that India has, over time, neglected its strategic interests in the region.
Meanwhile, Congress leader Pawan Khera took a different angle, warning that Yunus’ comments were a clear indicator of China’s growing strategic threat in the region. He criticized the Modi government, stating that its failure to adequately engage with Bangladesh diplomatically had allowed China to expand its influence unchecked. Khera pointed out that despite India’s critical role in Bangladesh’s 1971 Liberation War, Dhaka’s foreign policy had shifted significantly, leaning toward Beijing in recent years. “Our foreign policy is in such a pathetic state that the country, in whose creation India had a major role, is today engaged in rallying against us,” he remarked, highlighting what he described as a major diplomatic failure.
China’s Expanding Footprint in Bangladesh and South Asia
The controversy surrounding Yunus’ remarks comes at a time when China is deepening its economic and military presence in South Asia. Under President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has heavily invested in Bangladesh, funding large-scale infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, and power plants. One of the most strategically significant projects is the Chinese-backed deep-sea port in Payra, which some analysts believe could evolve into a dual-use facility, serving both commercial and military purposes. This possibility has raised red flags in New Delhi, which fears that China is slowly surrounding India through its investments in neighboring countries—a strategy often referred to as the “String of Pearls.”
China’s defense exports to Bangladesh have also surged in recent years. The Bangladesh Navy has purchased submarines and warships from China, and Beijing remains Dhaka’s largest supplier of military hardware. India sees these developments with concern, especially as Bangladesh is located near India’s vulnerable eastern flank. The increasing defense collaboration between Dhaka and Beijing fuels apprehensions that China is seeking to establish long-term strategic leverage in the Bay of Bengal region, which is crucial for India’s maritime security.
Border Security and the Internal Dynamics of the Northeast
Apart from external threats, India is also grappling with internal security challenges in the Northeast. States like Manipur have witnessed ethnic clashes in recent months, exacerbating tensions between indigenous groups and the central government. Critics argue that India’s inability to stabilize the situation in Manipur and other border states has created an opening for foreign players to influence the region. Intelligence reports have suggested that China has been quietly supporting certain insurgent groups in the Northeast, further complicating India’s security calculations.
Another pressing concern is China’s continued construction of border settlements in Arunachal Pradesh, a state it claims as part of “South Tibet.” Recent satellite imagery has shown Chinese villages being built close to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), raising fears that Beijing is engaging in a slow-moving strategy of territorial encroachment. Against this backdrop, Yunus’ call for greater Chinese involvement in India’s Northeast has triggered sharp responses from Indian officials who see it as a calculated attempt to manipulate regional dynamics in China’s favor.
India’s Response: Strengthening Regional Connectivity and Diplomatic Outreach
Given these geopolitical realities, Indian policymakers are expected to accelerate efforts to bolster connectivity and security in the Northeast. The government’s Act East Policy, which aims to deepen India’s economic and strategic ties with Southeast Asia, could be expanded to include more aggressive investment in border infrastructure. Projects like the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project are expected to gain renewed focus, reducing India’s dependence on Bangladesh for trade access.
Additionally, India may seek to counterbalance China’s influence in Bangladesh through economic incentives and diplomatic engagement. In recent months, New Delhi has quietly increased investments in Bangladesh’s energy and transport sectors, aiming to maintain strategic parity with Beijing. There are also discussions about boosting military cooperation between India and Bangladesh to ensure that Dhaka does not tilt too far toward China.
Conclusion: A Fragile Balancing Act
The uproar over Yunus’ remarks highlights the fragile balance of power in South Asia. While India and Bangladesh have historically enjoyed close ties, Dhaka’s deepening engagement with Beijing signals a shift that New Delhi cannot afford to ignore. The controversy has served as a wake-up call for Indian policymakers, emphasizing the urgent need to reinforce India’s strategic position in the Northeast while recalibrating its approach to Bangladesh.
As India navigates this evolving geopolitical landscape, the focus will be on strengthening internal connectivity, enhancing security along the LAC, and diplomatically countering China’s growing influence in its neighborhood. The coming months will be critical in determining whether India can successfully neutralize emerging threats while maintaining stability in one of its most strategically sensitive regions.
