Bangladesh does not need India’s permission to join. But one unknown wartime-access rule could force New Delhi to rethink its entire eastern security map.

Bangladesh’s possible entry into the Makkah Pact has become one of the most hotly debated security issues in both Bangladesh and India. It is being discussed on television talk shows, social media, political platforms and in everyday conversations across the two countries.

At the centre of the debate is a simple question: Bangladesh is a sovereign country, so why should India care if it joins the pact?

The first part is correct. Bangladesh does not need India’s permission to choose its friends, defence partners or military alliances.

India, however, is asking a different question. If Bangladesh joins a defence pact that includes Pakistan, what military rights could Pakistan eventually gain inside Bangladesh — and what would happen if India and Pakistan were at war?

That is where a debate about Bangladesh’s freedom of choice becomes a much larger debate about India’s national security.

Bangladesh Sees Sovereignty, India Sees Security

Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan created the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement around a collective-defence principle: an armed attack on one member is to be treated as an attack on all.

Bangladesh has not joined, but Dhaka has shown interest in possible membership.

For many Bangladeshis, the issue begins with sovereignty. India surrounds Bangladesh on most sides, has a much larger economy and military, and has long exercised enormous regional influence.

A hardline Islamist-nationalist strategist in Bangladesh may therefore argue that closer ties with Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would give Dhaka more strategic room and make it harder for India to pressure Bangladesh.

From that viewpoint, the pact does not have to mean preparing for war with India. It can be understood as deterrence: a way to ensure that Bangladesh is not strategically alone.

There is also a fairness argument. India has defence relationships with powerful states, including the United States, Russia, France and Israel. A Bangladeshi nationalist may ask why India’s partnerships are described as strategic autonomy while Bangladesh’s are treated as a threat.

An Indian strategist sees something different. Pakistan has fought several wars with India and remains one of its principal military rivals. For New Delhi, the harder question is whether Pakistan could gain treaty-based military rights inside a country directly beside India’s eastern and northeastern regions.

Bangladesh may see strategic balance. India may see Pakistan entering its eastern security calculation.

The Makkah Pact Clause That Could Change Everything

The pact’s most important operational rules are not publicly known. That uncertainty is the heart of the debate.

Imagine that the agreement contains, now or in the future, a rule saying: “During an armed conflict, members may use the territory, airspace, ports, airfields and military facilities of other members when required for collective defence.”

There is no public evidence that such a clause exists. This is a hypothetical example, not a claim about the current Makkah Pact.

If membership means only consultation, political support and voluntary military help, India may remain uncomfortable, but the direct military effect could be limited.

The calculation changes if every full member receives broad or automatic wartime access to every........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)