Khaleda Zia’s political life was defined by sharp contrasts, particularly in how she shaped Bangladesh’s relations with India. While her long-time rival Sheikh Hasina anchored Dhaka firmly toward New Delhi, Zia consistently positioned herself as the face of an alternative, often adversarial, foreign policy. Ironically, the woman who came to symbolise anti-India politics in Bangladesh was herself born in Jalpaiguri in undivided Bengal. This little-known detail stands in stark contrast to the political legacy she later built. Zia passed away at the age of 80, just weeks before national elections in which she was widely expected to play a decisive role.
Born in 1945 as Khaleda Khanam, she spent her early years in what is now India. Her father, Iskandar Majumdar, was a tea merchant from Feni, while her mother, Taiyaba, hailed from present-day Uttar Dinajpur in West Bengal. Following Partition in 1947, the family moved to what would become Bangladesh. Despite these Indian roots, Zia’s political identity evolved around a strong form of Bengali nationalism that often defined itself in opposition to India.
Her life took a decisive turn after her marriage in 1965 to Pakistani army officer Ziaur Rahman. Following Bangladesh’s independence, Ziaur Rahman rose rapidly through the ranks and became president. Khaleda Zia served as first lady until his assassination in 1981, an event that pushed her into active politics. Within a decade, she emerged as a dominant force, eventually becoming Bangladesh’s first woman prime minister in 1991. She would go on to serve three terms, with her longest and most influential stint running from 2001 to 2006.
Zia’s approach to India differed sharply from that of Sheikh Hasina. During her first term in the early 1990s, she pursued a “Look East” policy, strengthening ties with China and Islamic nations while keeping India at arm’s length. Relations were strained over the Ganga water-sharing dispute, with Zia accusing New Delhi of depriving Bangladesh of its rightful share through the Farakka Barrage. Her government raised the issue at international platforms and sought support from Muslim-majority countries to pressure India.
Immigration was another flashpoint. During a 1992 visit to India, then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao raised concerns over illegal migration from Bangladesh. Zia dismissed the claim, famously arguing that Bengalis living in India were being wrongly identified as Bangladeshis. Her limited engagement with India was evident in the fact that she visited the country only twice during her years in power.
Ties deteriorated further during her second full term between 2001 and 2006, when the BNP formed an alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami. This period marked the lowest point in India-Bangladesh relations. Dhaka was accused of allowing insurgent groups targeting India’s northeast to operate from Bangladeshi soil. Zia publicly referred to outfits like ULFA as “freedom fighters,” a statement that caused deep resentment in New Delhi. Her government also resisted connectivity projects, opposed transit rights for Indian goods, and portrayed cooperation with India as a threat to Bangladesh’s sovereignty.
At the same time, Zia strengthened military ties with China, signing major defence agreements that made Beijing Bangladesh’s primary arms supplier. Her refusal to allow Indian transit access to the northeast and her emphasis on Chinese and Pakistani partnerships further widened the diplomatic gap. Allegations also surfaced that real power during her tenure was exercised from the notorious Hawa Bhaban, where her son Tarique Rahman was accused of running a parallel administration and influencing policy decisions, including those affecting India.
With Khaleda Zia’s death and Sheikh Hasina currently out of the country, Bangladesh enters a historic political phase without its two dominant leaders. The return of Tarique Rahman after 17 years in exile has placed him at the centre of the political stage. As the country heads toward elections, questions loom large over how the BNP under his leadership will approach India. While past relations were marked by hostility and mistrust, the changing regional and domestic realities may compel a recalibration. Whether Tarique continues his mother’s confrontational legacy or adopts a more pragmatic approach remains one of the most closely watched political questions in South Asia today.
