The Unanswered Notes, How Over 1,000 Diplomatic Messages Expose India-Bangladesh Tensions on Illegal Immigration
India has sent over 1,000 diplomatic notes (notes verbale) and 456 “consolidated reminders” to Dhaka since September 2020 regarding the repatriation of suspected illegal Bangladeshi immigrants but has not received “an actionable response,” a diplomatic document has stated. The numbers were mentioned in the note verbale that the External Affairs Ministry sent to Dhaka on April 30, hours after the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh summoned the Indian envoy to protest against remarks made by Assam’s then Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. Mr. Sarma had claimed in a media interview that under his government, Indian border guards were “pushing in” suspected Bangladeshi individuals through unguarded parts of the land border.
This exchange of diplomatic notes and public statements reveals a deepening strain in India-Bangladesh relations. While the two neighbours have historically shared close ties—marked by cooperation during Bangladesh’s liberation war, shared cultural and linguistic heritage, and growing economic integration—the issue of illegal immigration remains a festering wound. This article examines the scale of the problem, the diplomatic impasse, the political context of West Bengal and Assam elections, and the urgent need for a cooperative framework to address one of South Asia’s most sensitive bilateral issues.
Part I: The Numbers – Over 1,000 Notes, 2,862 Pending Cases
The diplomatic note of April 30, reviewed by The Hindu, provides a stark numerical picture. Between September 2020 and April 2026, India sent:
-
1,137 notes verbale seeking nationality verification of suspected illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
-
456 consolidated reminders following up on those notes.
-
2,862 cases of suspected illegal Bangladeshi nationals pending nationality verification with Bangladesh.
“A majority of these communications have not received an actionable response,” the Ministry stated. “Since September 2020 Bangladesh has not extended the necessary cooperation to India for nationality verification of over 2,862 cases of illegal Bangladeshis in India.”
The phrase “actionable response” is significant. It means that Bangladesh has either not replied at all, or has replied in ways that do not allow India to proceed with verification, detention, or repatriation. Without cooperation from Dhaka, Indian authorities cannot confirm whether a detained individual is a Bangladeshi national. Without confirmation, they cannot repatriate. The individual remains in India—often in detention, often indefinitely.
Part II: The Process – How Repatriation Is Supposed to Work
The standard procedure for repatriation of suspected illegal immigrants is cooperative. When Indian authorities detain a person suspected of being a Bangladeshi national without valid documents, they inform Bangladesh’s High Commission in New Delhi or the Assistant High Commissions in Kolkata, Agartala, and Guwahati. They request nationality verification. Bangladesh is expected to respond within a reasonable timeframe, providing documents or evidence to confirm or deny the individual’s nationality.
If Bangladesh confirms that the person is a citizen, India can repatriate them. If Bangladesh denies (or does not respond), India cannot. The individual may be released due to lack of evidence, or may remain in prolonged detention while Indian authorities wait for a response.
The problem, according to India, is not that Bangladesh denies verification. The problem is that Bangladesh does not respond at all—or responds too slowly, or responds without providing the necessary documentation. Over five years, 2,862 cases have piled up. Some have been pending for “over five years,” according to the External Affairs Ministry spokesperson.
Part III: The Himanta Biswa Sarma Controversy – What Was Said, Why It Mattered
The immediate trigger for the recent diplomatic exchange was an interview given by Himanta Biswa Sarma, then Chief Minister of Assam. Sarma, known for his tough stance on illegal immigration, made a provocative claim: that under his government, Indian border guards were “pushing in” suspected Bangladeshi individuals through unguarded parts of the land border.
The phrase “pushing in” implies that Indian authorities were actively moving people from India into Bangladesh. This is a serious allegation. If true, it would mean India is unilaterally expelling suspected individuals without following due process—without verification, without notification, without diplomatic coordination.
Bangladesh reacted strongly. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the Indian envoy in Dhaka to protest against Sarma’s remarks. The timing was also sensitive because the BJP had recently won elections in West Bengal and Assam, and Bangladeshi authorities were wary of what they perceived as a more aggressive Indian posture on border management.
Part IV: India’s Clarification – The Core Issue Is Repatriation
In response to Bangladesh’s protest, the External Affairs Ministry did not directly defend or deny Sarma’s specific claim. Instead, it pivoted to the broader issue: the lack of Bangladeshi cooperation on repatriation.
Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson of the External Affairs Ministry, referred to the matter as the “core issue” in bilateral ties. “These comments must be seen in the context of the core issue of repatriation of illegal Bangladeshis from India. This requires cooperation from Bangladesh. Over 2,862 cases of nationality verification are pending with Bangladesh, some for over five years,” he said.
The implication was clear: if Bangladesh had responded to India’s 1,137 diplomatic notes, there would be fewer illegal immigrants in India, and there would be no need for any “pushing in.” The lack of cooperation, from India’s perspective, is the root cause of the problem.
Bangladesh Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman and Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed responded by saying that Dhaka would take “adequate measures” if attempts at “push in” from the Indian side were to take place. This language suggests that Bangladesh views unilateral Indian action—whether real or threatened—as unacceptable and potentially provocative.
Part V: The Political Context – Assam and West Bengal Elections
The diplomatic exchange did not occur in a vacuum. It followed closely on the heels of significant electoral victories for the BJP in two states that share borders with Bangladesh: West Bengal and Assam.
In West Bengal, the BJP won a landslide, with Suvendu Adhikari defeating Mamata Banerjee. In Assam, the BJP retained power. Both states have large populations of Bengali-speaking Muslims, some of whom are suspected of being illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The issue of illegal immigration is electorally potent. The BJP has consistently campaigned on a platform of detecting, detaining, and deporting illegal immigrants, particularly in Assam, where the National Register of Citizens (NRC) process has been a flashpoint.
Bangladeshi authorities are aware of this political context. They view the BJP’s electoral victories as potentially leading to a more confrontational Indian posture on border management. The Sarma interview, regardless of its factual accuracy, reinforced these fears.
Part VI: The Humanitarian and Security Dimensions
Beyond the diplomatic and political dimensions, the issue has significant humanitarian and security implications.
Humanitarian: Suspected illegal immigrants who are detained in India may spend years in detention centres while their nationality verification is pending. Conditions in these centres have been criticised by human rights organisations. Families are separated. Children born in detention grow up without legal status. The lack of a timely response from Bangladesh perpetuates this suffering.
Security: Illegal immigration is not merely an administrative issue. It can be a security issue. Undocumented individuals are harder to track. They are more vulnerable to exploitation by criminal networks. They can be used by hostile intelligence agencies. While the vast majority of illegal immigrants are economic migrants seeking a better life, the absence of a functioning verification and repatriation system creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited.
Part VII: The Way Forward – Cooperation, Not Confrontation
The current impasse serves no one’s interests. India wants illegal immigrants repatriated. Bangladesh wants its citizens not to be unilaterally expelled. Both countries have legitimate concerns.
A way forward is possible, but it requires political will on both sides.
First, establish a time-bound verification mechanism. Bangladesh should commit to responding to all nationality verification requests within a fixed timeframe (e.g., 90 days). India should provide all necessary information (biometrics, documents, location of detention) upfront.
Second, create a joint working group on repatriation. A dedicated mechanism, co-chaired by the Home Ministries of both countries, could meet quarterly to review pending cases and resolve disputes.
Third, use technology to streamline the process. A shared, secure digital platform could allow Indian authorities to submit verification requests and Bangladeshi authorities to respond without the delays inherent in paper-based notes verbale.
Fourth, separate the issue from political rhetoric. Both governments should avoid using the issue of illegal immigration as a tool for domestic political mobilisation in ways that inflame bilateral tensions.
Fifth, address the root causes. The ultimate solution to illegal immigration is to reduce the incentives for migration. Trade, investment, and job creation in Bangladesh will reduce the push factors. India’s economic growth can create a virtuous cycle, not just a source of friction.
Conclusion: 1,137 Notes, 2,862 Cases, Zero Actionable Responses
The numbers are stark: 1,137 notes verbale, 456 reminders, 2,862 pending cases. Behind each number is a person—a suspected illegal immigrant, often detained, often indefinitely, waiting for a response that may never come. Behind each person is a family, in India or in Bangladesh, separated by borders and bureaucracy.
India and Bangladesh share history, language, culture, and economic ties. They are neighbours. They cannot choose their neighbours. They can choose how to manage their differences.
The current impasse—over 1,000 unanswered diplomatic notes—is not sustainable. It is not a credit to Bangladeshi foreign policy to ignore repeated requests from a neighbour. It is not a credit to Indian policy to threaten unilateral action. Both sides must step back, engage constructively, and build a mechanism that works.
The core issue is repatriation. The core requirement is cooperation. The core failure, so far, is accountability. It is time for both countries to put aside rhetoric and build a system that serves the interests of both nations and the dignity of every individual caught in the gap.
5 Questions & Answers Based on the Article
Q1. How many diplomatic notes and reminders has India sent to Bangladesh since September 2020, and how many cases of suspected illegal immigrants are pending nationality verification?
A1. India has sent 1,137 notes verbale (diplomatic notes) and 456 consolidated reminders to Bangladesh since September 2020. As a result, 2,862 cases of suspected illegal Bangladeshi nationals are pending nationality verification with Bangladesh. According to the diplomatic note sent by India on April 30, “a majority of these communications have not received an actionable response,” and “since September 2020 Bangladesh has not extended the necessary cooperation to India for nationality verification.” Some cases have been pending for over five years.
Q2. What triggered the recent diplomatic exchange between India and Bangladesh on this issue?
A2. The immediate trigger was a media interview given by Himanta Biswa Sarma, then Chief Minister of Assam. Sarma claimed that under his government, Indian border guards were “pushing in” suspected Bangladeshi individuals through unguarded parts of the land border. Bangladesh reacted strongly, summoning the Indian envoy in Dhaka to protest against these remarks. In response, India’s External Affairs Ministry sent a diplomatic note highlighting the thousands of pending verification cases, arguing that the lack of Bangladeshi cooperation was the core issue.
Q3. What is the standard procedure for repatriating suspected illegal immigrants, and where is the process breaking down?
A3. The standard procedure requires Indian authorities to detain suspected illegal immigrants and then request nationality verification from Bangladesh through diplomatic channels. Bangladesh is expected to respond within a reasonable timeframe by providing documents or evidence to confirm or deny the individual’s nationality. If Bangladesh confirms citizenship, India can repatriate; if Bangladesh denies or does not respond, India cannot proceed. The process is breaking down because, according to India, Bangladesh has not provided “actionable responses” to the majority of the 1,137 notes verbale, leaving 2,862 cases pending, some for over five years.
Q4. How did External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal frame the issue, and what did he describe as the “core issue” in bilateral ties?
A4. During a weekly press briefing, Randhir Jaiswal stated that the comments by Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister and Home Minister “must be seen in the context of the core issue of repatriation of illegal Bangladeshis from India.” He emphasised that repatriation requires cooperation from Bangladesh, noting that over 2,862 cases of nationality verification are pending with Bangladesh, some for over five years. He did not directly defend or deny Sarma’s specific claim about “pushing in,” instead pivoting to the broader problem of unresponsive Bangladeshi authorities.
Q5. What five measures does the article propose to resolve the impasse and improve cooperation on repatriation?
A5. The article proposes five measures: (1) Establish a time-bound verification mechanism – Bangladesh should commit to responding to all requests within a fixed timeframe (e.g., 90 days). (2) Create a joint working group on repatriation – a dedicated bilateral mechanism co-chaired by Home Ministries to review pending cases and resolve disputes. (3) Use technology to streamline the process – a shared, secure digital platform for submission and response, reducing delays from paper-based notes verbale. (4) Separate the issue from political rhetoric – avoid using illegal immigration as a tool for domestic political mobilisation that inflames bilateral tensions. (5) Address root causes – reduce incentives for migration through trade, investment, and job creation in Bangladesh, creating a virtuous cycle rather than friction.
