It was all that the BNP had to show for the rest of its tenure, in the field of bilateral relationship. Neither the BJP-led NDA alliance nor the UPA alliance government that replaced it in early 2004, allow any "special dispensation" for our alliance government.

Perception had much to do in shaping the attitude displayed by both the governments in letting the relationship slide to a state that was merely "diplomatically correct," but only just. One wonders if, after thirty-five years of existing as independent neighbours, our interaction should be circumscribed by perceptions and not by the realities on the ground, the compulsions that each country has to contend with, and the constituencies that the two governments, whatever be their composition, have to satisfy while steering a foreign policy course relating to one another.

But while India has been able to articulate a clear and, even more importantly, consistent policy towards Bangladesh, we have had neither a robust nor a resilient policy vis a vis India. One doesn't need a von Metternich or a Talleyrand to tell one the reason. A divided house, with different political parties having different orientations, dictated more by party than national interest, which affected foreign policy planning, has prevented the charting of a consistent, robust, or resilient, foreign policy.

However, if it is a matter of perception, which in most cases is not the right perception anyway, it would be unfair to hold it entirely against Bangladesh. India, being the bigger of the two, has to take a major share of the responsibility for the current state of our bilateral relationship.

If diplomacy is the art of the possible, unfortunately, the job of our diplomats had been made complicated by factors that ensured that theirs became more a calling of the art of making things difficult, and with some misplaced effort, making it altogether impossible, rather than the opposite.

While it is an acknowledged truth that our policies must obtain the maximum benefit for the country, we seem to forget that the other guy is looking for the same through his own foreign policy. There is the cut and thrust realist motivation, without the realisation that there must be a meeting point that would deliver the maximum benefit to the parties, a win-win situation for all rather than a zero-sum game.

We have, unfortunately, reversed the saying that war is the extension of politics by making our diplomacy an extension of war; the undercurrent of tension, despite the seemingly general aura of good relationship, is noticeable. This is neither good nor should it be allowed to continue.

But a good relationship is also built upon trust. Very few will contest the view that there is a deficit of it between the two neighbours. Why is it that we have to suffer the consequences of an environment in which everything bad that happens in India is attributed to the manipulation of foreign hands, and more often than not those hands are portrayed as belonging to Bangladesh.

And why is it that we feel, in every suggestion that India makes in terms of trade or cooperation in the field of infrastructure or any such venture, that it is motivated by some ulterior designs for its own long-term strategic benefits. Perhaps history has a lot to do with it. Regrettably, the mutual distrust has persisted in varying degrees, depending on who is holding the reins of power in the two countries.

The Indian perception about Bangladesh, we are told, is rather negative. Most Indians carry the impression that Bangladesh is in the grip of radicals, that the whole country is about to fall into the lap of the Taliban, and we are well embarked on the way to the situation that Afghanistan was in not very long ago.

Most of them, however, change their opinion when they get to visit Bangladesh, or have the opportunity to interact with Bangladeshis directly. Unfortunately, a section of the Indian media and a segment of its strategic community are responsible for conveying a totally contorted picture of our country, with a deliberate objective in mind.

Several things have changed in the last few years about India's view of Bangladesh; the most important is in the security and strategic realm, where Bangladesh has replaced Pakistan as a major "source of insecurity," a euphemism that diplomats use for "threat." This is also articulated in various other forms, like the "western border being peaceful now" while the eastern border is not what it might be, suggesting that the onus of keeping it peaceful is on Bangladesh alone.

It is not only a matter of perception; it is a question of mind-set too. Let's take the remarks of the Indian commerce minister who visited Dhaka very recently. He commented, among other things, that: "A secular Bangladesh, which respects diversity and will not be used for terrorist activities against India or any other country, is important for us."

Now, this sort of comment can only come from a mind that is predisposed to a preconceived idea about a country. The comment of the commerce minister, which hides behind no subtlety in suggesting that the governments of Bangladesh had been supporting terrorist activities against India, does very little to remove the air of mistrust.

We in Bangladesh, too, suffer from a stereotypical mindset when it comes to India. But if we suffer from a small neighbour syndrome there are reasons for it, in much the same way that our neighbour justifies its apprehension about us. Many in Bangladesh see an ulterior motive behind every single proposal that India makes (shaped greatly perhaps by the experiences of Farakka and the Tin Bigha). For example, many well informed Bangladeshis feel that the idea behind the Dhaka-Kolkata rail link is not as innocuous as some make it out to be, and that there must be an ulterior motive behind the exercise. It is the groundwork for providing transit to India eventually, they are convinced. This is an example of convoluted thought.

We will deal with the specific issues later, but, as for now, we need some brave people from both sides of the border who can muster the courage needed for breaking the shackles of our mind-set. We must talk straight, and make our positions clear. We must be sensitive to each others' compulsions, and offer help rather than exploit weakness.

Trust can be built up through actions not merely words, and if there are apprehensions they must be put to rest through mutual understanding. There must be greater movement of people between the two countries for more people to people contact, which is one way of removing misperceptions. We can no longer afford to remain a captive to misperception and a hackneyed mind-set.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.