Dr Zahed Ur Rahman, an Adviser to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, experienced treatment from Indian immigration officials that was both unwarranted and highly discourteous. According to reports confirmed by Dr. Zahed himself, he was made to wait for nearly two hours at New Delhi airport without any clear justification, despite possessing a valid passport and visa. The Bangladesh High Commissioner to India, M Riaz Hamidullah, along with another diplomatic officer and a protocol official from the High Commission, had arrived at the airport to welcome Dr. Zahed upon his arrival.
Upon disembarking, he was taken to the immigration area where he submitted his passport for entry. However, the subsequent events were anything but routine. After handing over his passport, he was directed to a general waiting area and instructed to wait — a wait that extended to nearly two hours, with no explanation provided.
During this time, officials from the Bangladesh High Commission, including the High Commissioner himself, maintained active communication with India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in an effort to resolve the situation.
Eventually, Indian immigration authorities informed Dr. Zahed that he was permitted to proceed and enter the country. However, by that time, he had made a decision. He declined entry and, despite repeated requests from immigration officials, refused to leave the airport. Arrangements were subsequently made for him to return to Dhaka via Colombo. The fact that a visiting dignitary of state-ministerial rank, who also serves as an Adviser to the Prime Minister, was made to wait for hours without explanation reflects poorly on the professionalism of the Indian immigration process and has understandably incited anger in Bangladesh. This incident also raises significant questions that warrant clarification. When an individual of Dr. Zahed’s stature, effectively holding the rank of a state minister, travels abroad, even with an ordinary passport, it is customary diplomatic practice for the relevant High Commission to be involved in the process.
These kinds of communication is typically delivered through a diplomatic note or a formal letter that details the visitor’s status, the purpose of their visit, and the anticipated arrival information.
Once this notification is received by the Ministry of External Affairs, it is usually disseminated to the pertinent agencies, including immigration and security bodies under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
This process ensures that officials at the entry point are informed of the arrival of a senior government representative, allowing them to make the necessary protocol arrangements.
This raises a straightforward yet significant question. Did the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi formally inform the Indian Ministry of External Affairs about Dr. Zahed’s visit prior to his arrival?
If such a notification was indeed sent and the incident still transpired, the responsibility would lie firmly with the Indian side, and the treatment received by Dr. Zahed would constitute a serious diplomatic embarrassment.
Conversely, if the essential diplomatic communication was not made, it would indicate a considerable oversight by the Bangladesh High Commission itself. While this would not excuse the actions of immigration officials, it would prompt valid inquiries regarding whether appropriate diplomatic protocols were adhered to before the visit.
For this reason, it is essential for Bangladeshi authorities to clarify the protocol arrangements that were in place prior to the trip. The conduct of Indian immigration has already been called into question. Whether there was also an unnecessary procedural failure on the part of the Bangladeshi side is a matter that deserves a definitive response.
