At one point, Obaidul Quader, the General Secretary of the Bangladesh Awami League, compared the relationship between Bangladesh and India to that of a husband and wife. This comment sparked widespread criticism as it was a misguided and inappropriate analogy. The relationship between two nations should be mature and diplomatic, grounded in mutual respect and cooperation. Quader’s statement, however, was irrelevant to the actual nature of the relationship and demonstrated a lack of sophistication. His words implied a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and importance of diplomatic relations. When Awami League supporters deflect such criticism by launching personal attacks, they are merely attempting to divert attention from the core issue. The question remains whether such illogical examples indicate a lack of maturity in political leadership, and what message this sends to the general public. A responsible leader's words must reflect the gravity of their position—something that was sorely lacking in this case.

Contrary to Quader's analogy, many believe that the relationship between India and Bangladesh is more akin to that of a master and servant than a husband and wife. One need not resort to oversimplified examples to understand the true nature of this relationship—the brutal reality of border killings paints a clear picture. Between 2009 and 2020, 522 Bangladeshi citizens were killed by the Border Security Force (BSF) of India, a stark reminder of the disproportionate and exploitative nature of this relationship. In 2023 alone, BSF shootings claimed the lives of 31 Bangladeshi citizens, with not a single Indian fatality in these incidents, highlighting the severe imbalance between the two nations. This raises the question: What kind of relationship allows one country's security forces to kill innocent civilians of another with impunity?

If we are to consider the relationship between the two countries as familial, can anyone honestly say that in a household, one side is allowed to carry out unilateral killings? In ordinary domestic life, there may be disagreements and disputes, but no side is permitted to commit outright murder. From my personal experience of 28 years of married life, I can say that while there may be arguments and even defeats, one party never exercises absolute control over the other. However, in the case of Bangladesh-India relations, we see precisely that, with India abusing its dominant position and putting the lives of Bangladeshi citizens at risk.

The 2011 killing of Felani Khatun, a teenage girl at the Kurigram border, posed a critical question for all of us: has our government been able to secure justice for this killing? Felani’s body, hanging from the barbed wire fence, became an iconic image in international media, yet no member of the BSF has been punished for that heart-wrenching crime. The BSF officer who shot her was initially found guilty but later acquitted by an Indian court. Even though the case proceeded to the Indian Supreme Court, a final verdict has yet to be delivered 13 years later. This failure to deliver justice for an innocent teenager reflects a significant flaw in India’s democratic process.

The recent killing of Swarna Das once again proves that the BSF does not hesitate to kill ordinary Bangladeshis on the slightest pretext. In 2024, Swarna Das was shot dead by the BSF at the Lalar Chak border in Kulaura, with the BSF labeling her as an “illegal intruder.” The term “illegal” seems to grant the BSF a license to kill. Killing Bangladeshis over alleged border intrusions is in no way justified; it is a clear violation of human rights. This is a situation where one country feels free to murder citizens of its neighbor with little resistance from the latter’s government.

Thus, the question arises: if there really were a domestic relationship between India and Bangladesh, would such one-sided killings continue? The cornerstone of any respectful relationship is mutual respect, yet we see no signs of respect from India's side. Bangladesh must end this so-called domestic relationship and demand a "divorce" from India. We can no longer allow India to dominate this relationship while our citizens lose their lives and we fail to respond. If we are to reclaim our dignity, this humiliating relationship must end, and we must strengthen our position as a sovereign nation deserving of respect.

Ultimately, if the BSF kills a Bangladeshi citizen, we must respond appropriately—whether through preventive measures or diplomatic pressure. The current government must prove that it is bolder than its predecessors and committed to safeguarding the security and honor of the nation. We expect more than mere political slogans or speeches; we want real action that can stand firm against India’s overbearing stance. This means not just military or defensive actions but also adopting a strong diplomatic position with India. On the international stage, particularly in forums like the United Nations and other human rights organizations, Bangladesh should raise the issue of border killings forcefully.

Bangladesh’s relationship with India should not be cloaked solely in diplomatic friendship; when necessary, we must take a firm stance. Diplomatic compromise is one thing, but when the lives of a nation's citizens are at risk and denied justice, that relationship demands serious reconsideration. We want to see this government establish its self-respect and stand resolute against India’s arrogance. To preserve Bangladesh's independence and sovereignty, we need courageous leadership, and this government must rise to that challenge.