Bangladesh's ports have always been at the centre of our economic life, shaping our ability to trade, compete, and connect with the world. As the global logistics landscape shifts and the Bay of Bengal takes on new geopolitical weight, the governance of our seaports has become a defining national issue. Foreign operators running terminals is a common practice across advanced and emerging economies. What matters is how a country selects these operators, enforces competition, and safeguards its long-term strategic interests. Foreign participation in port management is not inherently risky, but Bangladesh lacks the regulatory discipline in this sector that other countries—including those criticising us for appointing foreign operators—have long established.
Interestingly, India, whose media has been vocal about Bangladesh's recent port decisions, has itself handed numerous terminals to foreign operators—such as DP World, APM Terminals, PSA, and other international players—years ago. The difference is that India regulates them; their port policy includes explicit competition safeguards. As a result, no single operator can control multiple terminals in the same port region, and in several cases, operators are barred entirely from bidding for adjacent facilities. This ensures that no one company, domestic or foreign, can dominate a port's cargo flow or pricing power. In other words, India's criticism may be politically convenient, but the underlying principle that guides its own policy is sound.
Bangladesh, by contrast, has been moving towards a structure that risks concentration. The proposal to award the New Mooring Container Terminal (NCT)—our most advanced and profitable existing facility—to DP World, while also considering the same operator for one of the major terminals at the new Bay Terminal, effectively gives one foreign entity a dominant position in Chattogram. The concern is not mistrust of foreign firms such as DP World, but ensuring that no single operator, regardless of origin, has excessive control over our national logistics backbone. Globally, ports are among the sectors where monopolies are most closely regulated as efficiency gains can quickly be overshadowed by long-term dependency and loss of bargaining power. Bangladesh has not yet institutionalised these safeguards, which is a serious gap.
It is equally important to recognise the genuine value that foreign operators bring. When the Navy-backed team managed NCT temporarily, productivity rose noticeably within days, proving that managerial discipline, digital processes, and coordinated planning can dramatically improve efficiency without requiring new infrastructure. International operators have technology, systems, global network relationships, and operational depth to lift our performance even further. Their presence is not a threat to sovereignty; it is a chance to modernise. Yet, efficiency alone cannot justify opaque processes or rushed decisions. A strategic asset cannot be leased out with limited public disclosure or competitive bidding. An interim government, in particular, must operate with extra caution because commitments affecting decades should be built on extraordinary transparency and legitimacy.
Therefore, the main debate should be whether Bangladesh has created the right framework to invite foreign operators responsibly. A strong framework would begin with transparency. Port concessions are public-interest contracts; their financial terms, performance benchmarks, investment obligations, and dispute mechanisms should be disclosed. Opacity weakens public trust, fuels political suspicion, and diminishes the government's negotiating leverage for future concessions. While certain commercial details may be confidential, most of the agreement should be open to public scrutiny.
Equally essential is competitive tendering. Around the world, top operators prefer bidding in open, rules-based processes because it creates legitimacy and reduces the risk of political friction. Bangladesh has leaned heavily on government-to-government arrangements, which often bypass competition and create the impression—fair or not—that deals are being negotiated privately rather than secured through merit. Terminal operation is not the same as financing a mega-project; it is a commercial service best awarded through competitive processes. If we want the best global players and the best deal for the country, competition is our greatest ally.
The third critical pillar is a competition regime that prevents concentration. Bangladesh should adopt clear anti-monopoly rules, similar to those in India, Singapore, and the European Union (EU). No operator should be allowed to control more than a defined percentage of capacity within a port. Operators that run one terminal in a region should not automatically qualify for another unless a clear competitive case exists. Additionally, future concessions should be distributed across multiple partners to avoid the structural risk of having one actor, foreign or domestic, shaping the logistics flows of the entire country. This kind of diversification is not only a commercial safeguard; in the Bay of Bengal context, it is a strategic imperative.
The geopolitical reality cannot be ignored. Bangladesh sits at the intersection of major global rivalries. China, India, Japan, the US, and the Gulf states all view the Bay of Bengal as critical to their strategic and economic interests. Every port concession, therefore, has geopolitical weight. A balanced mix of partners spreads risk, enhances Bangladesh's negotiating power, and positions the country as a connector rather than a captive. If one state-linked corporation—whether from the Gulf, East Asia, or elsewhere—dominates multiple terminals, Bangladesh's strategic space narrows. Strategic diversification, rather than dependence, is what allows a small state to navigate big power competition with confidence.
Yet, the long-term goal cannot simply be diversified foreign participation. Bangladesh must also build its own capability. Every concession agreement should include mandatory commitments for training, technology transfer, and local managerial development. Ports are becoming digital, data-driven, and increasingly automated. Bangladesh must ensure that its young professionals and engineers gain the skills to eventually lead and innovate in this sector, rather than remain permanently subordinate to foreign expertise. The best global operators are accustomed to such arrangements and often welcome them; it strengthens the operation itself and builds goodwill. We should demand nothing less.
All these concerns—competition, transparency, geopolitics, and capability—have been voiced by experts as well as by young political and civic leaders. Their central message is not opposition to reform, but a call for rules, fairness, and long-term thinking. What they fear is the possibility that modernisation without safeguards will leave Bangladesh more vulnerable, not more empowered.
Bangladesh has an opportunity now to rethink its port governance in a way that aligns efficiency with sovereignty, global expertise with national interest, and foreign participation with domestic capability. If we adopt strong competition rules, enforce transparent bidding, and secure a balanced set of partners, our geography can become a source of enduring strength. Without these, we risk creating dependencies that future generations will have to undo at a great cost. We deserve modernisation that strengthens the country, not shortcuts that weaken its negotiating position. If we are thoughtful, disciplined, and transparent, our ports will not only become more efficient; they will become pillars of national power, economic resilience, and strategic autonomy in a rapidly changing region.
Ahamedul Karim Chowdhury is adjunct faculty at Bangladesh Maritime University and former head of the Kamalapur Inland Container Depot (ICD) and the Pangaon Inland Container Terminal under Chittagong Port Authority.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
