The decision of Bangladesh's interim government to review 101 agreements and Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) signed with India during the tenure of the previous Awami League government has opened an important national conversation. The issue has attracted not only domestic attention but also a strong reaction from New Delhi, which has stated that it will take all necessary steps to protect its national interests.

The development raises a fundamental question: Does Bangladesh have the right to review agreements signed by a previous government?

The answer is unequivocally yes.

Every sovereign nation possesses the legal, political and moral authority to reassess policies, treaties and agreements entered into by previous administrations. Such reviews are neither unusual nor hostile. They are a normal feature of democratic governance and responsible statecraft. Across the developed world, governments regularly revisit international commitments to determine whether they continue to serve national interests.

The United States has repeatedly reviewed trade and strategic agreements after changes in administration. The United Kingdom reassessed major international arrangements following Brexit. Australia has scrutinised infrastructure and foreign investment agreements. Canada frequently evaluates trade commitments to ensure they remain compatible with evolving economic realities.

In none of these cases was a review automatically interpreted as an act of aggression. Instead, reviews were recognised as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty.

Bangladesh should therefore approach the current process with confidence, professionalism and clarity. The country does not need permission from any foreign power to assess whether agreements signed in its name continue to benefit its citizens.

However, having the right to review agreements and conducting an effective review are two different matters.

The purpose of the review should not be political revenge, nor should it be driven by public emotions. The objective must be to determine whether these agreements advance Bangladesh's economic interests, strengthen national security, promote regional connectivity and protect long-term strategic priorities.

At the heart of the debate lies a broader reality. Bangladesh and India share a relationship defined by geography, history, economics and security considerations. Neither can simply ignore the other. Yet friendship between neighbouring countries cannot be based on unequal expectations. Durable relations emerge when both partners feel respected and when both perceive tangible benefits from cooperation.

This is precisely why the review process matters.

For years, concerns have been raised in Bangladesh regarding trade imbalances, water-sharing disputes, transit arrangements and certain infrastructure-related agreements. Supporters of existing arrangements argue that Bangladesh has gained significant benefits through increased connectivity, trade opportunities and regional integration. Critics contend that some agreements may have disproportionately favoured Indian interests.

The only way to resolve these competing narratives is through evidence.

This is where experts play a decisive role.

The review should not be dominated solely by politicians or bureaucrats. Instead, it should be conducted by a high-level independent commission comprising economists, diplomats, international law experts, security analysts, maritime specialists and infrastructure professionals.

Economists, in particular, should play a central role.

Politics may shape perceptions, but economics determines outcomes.

Every agreement should be evaluated through measurable indicators. How much revenue has Bangladesh generated? What impact has the agreement had on employment? Have Bangladeshi exporters gained greater access to Indian markets? What infrastructure benefits have emerged? Have local industries become more competitive or more vulnerable?

Economists can identify both visible and hidden costs. They can calculate opportunity costs, estimate long-term growth impacts, assess trade distortions and compare existing arrangements with international best practices.

Without rigorous economic analysis, any review risks becoming little more than a political exercise.

International law experts are equally important. They can assess legal obligations, renegotiation clauses and treaty commitments, ensuring that Bangladesh acts from a position of legal strength. Diplomats can advise on negotiation strategies and the likely consequences of proposed changes. Security specialists can evaluate strategic implications that may not be immediately apparent in economic calculations.

The lessons from other countries are clear. Successful treaty reviews rely on professionalism, transparency and institutional credibility.

Another important lesson concerns how Bangladesh should respond to concerns or pressure from abroad.

Some observers have interpreted India's statement about protecting its national interests as a warning. Whether one views it as a warning or simply a standard diplomatic response, Bangladesh should neither overreact nor retreat.

Strong states do not conduct foreign policy based on anxiety.

At the same time, wise states do not pursue confrontation for its own sake.

Bangladesh's response should be calm, firm and grounded in international norms. Dhaka should make it clear that reviewing agreements is a sovereign right enjoyed by all nations, including India itself. Simultaneously, Bangladesh should reassure New Delhi that the objective is not hostility but improvement.

A review should not be viewed as an attempt to weaken bilateral relations. Ideally, it should become an opportunity to strengthen them.

Indeed, the greatest mistake would be to frame the issue as a contest between Bangladesh and India. Such an approach would benefit neither country.

The modern world offers a different lesson: the most successful international relationships are based not on dependence but on interdependence.

Countries such as Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia have demonstrated that it is possible to maintain strong relationships with larger neighbours while simultaneously protecting national interests. They accomplish this by diversifying economic partnerships, strengthening domestic institutions and negotiating from positions of confidence rather than dependency.

Bangladesh can follow a similar path.

Maintaining positive relations with India should remain an important national objective. India is Bangladesh's largest neighbour and a significant economic partner. Cooperation in trade, energy, connectivity, counterterrorism, climate resilience and regional stability remains essential.

Yet good relations with India should not require Bangladesh to abandon legitimate questions about existing agreements.

Likewise, protecting national interests should not require hostility toward India.

The most constructive path forward is one based on transparency and mutual respect.

The government should publish summary findings regarding each major agreement. Citizens deserve to know what benefits have been achieved, where shortcomings exist and what reforms are being proposed. Transparency would enhance public trust while reducing speculation.

Where agreements are found to be beneficial, they should be maintained and strengthened. Where weaknesses exist, negotiations should be initiated. Where circumstances have changed significantly, provisions should be updated to reflect new realities.

Diplomacy, after all, is not about preserving documents unchanged for eternity. It is about adapting relationships to changing circumstances while safeguarding national interests.

Ultimately, sovereignty is not demonstrated by rejecting every agreement, nor is friendship demonstrated by accepting every agreement without question.

True sovereignty is the ability to assess national interests independently and act accordingly.

True friendship is the willingness to respect that independence.

Bangladesh therefore stands at an important moment. The review of the 101 agreements should not become a source of unnecessary tension. Instead, it should serve as an opportunity to establish a more balanced, transparent and durable framework for Bangladesh-India relations.

If conducted professionally, guided by experts and supported by evidence, this review can achieve something far more valuable than political point-scoring. It can help build a relationship based on equality, reciprocity and mutual respect, a relationship capable of serving the interests of both nations for decades to come.

That should be the ultimate objective: not confrontation, not dependency, but a mature partnership between two sovereign neighbours that recognise each other's interests and respect each other's rights.