The Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi. File
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

Photograph of Jinnah with Gandhi in 1944.
| Photo Credit: British Library’s Digital Collection via Wikimedia Commons

Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations Parvathaneni Harish speaks at United Nations Security Council. File
| Photo Credit: ANI

The story of Bengali food is often told through rivers, fish and fertile soil. Less often it is told through railway platforms, refugee colonies and the ingenuity of people who arrived with almost nothing, except memory.

When millions were displaced during the Partition of 1947, those crossing from East Bengal into West Bengal did not carry heirloom utensils or sacks of treasured ingredients. Most travelled light because they had no choice. What endured was something far harder to confiscate: a culinary memory bank accumulated over generations. The food they cooked in their new homes became a record of loss, adaptation and survival.

“People came with very little. What they carried was memory and a legacy of food,” says food researcher Amrita Bhattacharya who, along with her husband, academic Amit Sen, runs Handpicked by Amrita a farm-to-table supper club from their home in Shantiniketan’s Bolpur. These food legacies have changed Bengali kitchens. 

Amrita Bhattacharya
| Photo Credit:
Handpicked by Amrita

Across refugee settlements that sprang up around Kolkata and elsewhere in the State, cooking became an exercise in survival. Families had to feed children despite limited resources and uncertain incomes. Out of those constraints emerged a culinary philosophy that modern food culture would later celebrate as sustainable and zero-waste.

Vegetable peels found their way into elaborate preparations. The stems of spinach became one dish while the leaves became another. Pumpkin yielded multiple recipes from a single vegetable. Even the water left behind after preparing chhana (curdled milk) was consumed. Rice starch, known as fyan, was tempered with spices and served as a nourishing broth to children.

Amrita at work
| Photo Credit:
Handpicked by Amrita

“What we now call zero-waste cooking was often the ingenuity of people trying to feed a family with very little. They were not thinking in terms of sustainability. They were operating with very little and used creativity to survive,” says Amrita. 

Many of these preparations have since become so integrated into Bengali food culture that their origins are easily overlooked. Yet they emerged from a moment when thousands of families were rebuilding their lives from scratch.

Bengali food is milieu of mixed traditions.
| Photo Credit:
Handpicked by Amrita

Popular narratives often reduce East Bengali culinary heritage to a handful of ingredients, particularly dried fish or shutki. Amrita believes that such assumptions oversimplify a much broader history.

The deeper influence lies in a style of cooking defined by restraint.

Amrita traces this sensibility through her own family history. Her grandparents, who came from the Pabna-Rajshahi region in Bangladesh, cooked fresh fish with remarkable minimalism. Fish was rarely fried. Instead, it was simmered gently with turmeric, salt, green chillies and a light tempering. Prawns were often boiled and eaten with rice. Delicate river fish appeared in thin broths that allowed the flavour of the fish itself to dominate.

The approach stands in contrast to many contemporary Bengali kitchens, where richer gravies and heavier seasoning have become commonplace.

Bengal and the Andamans

Following Partition, thousands of Bangladeshi refugees were resettled in the Andaman Islands. Among them were many Namasudra families whose agricultural and fishing skills made them suitable candidates for life in an unfamiliar frontier landscape. There they encountered a radically different environment.

Communities accustomed to freshwater fish suddenly had to adapt to seafood. They learned to fish in creeks and backwaters, identify edible leaves and understand an ecosystem entirely unlike the one they had left behind.

In 1956, 35 farming families, comprising 196 members, drawn from several parts of Travancore left Madras harbour for the Andaman islands by SS Maharaja, for permanent settlement. They were accompanied by GV Kshirasakar, Deputy Commissioner of the Andamans. The image shows a group of people embarking the vessel.
| Photo Credit:
The Hindu Archives

“It was a different kind of struggle. People had to learn which plants could be eaten, which could be dangerous and how to survive in a completely new landscape,” notes Amrita.

“The food of Bengali settlers in the Andamans, in many villages, the cooking remains closer to the East Bengal of decades ago than what we find in present-day West Bengal. In isolated settlements, fish curries and prawn are boiled in coconut milk often containing only a touch of ‘phoron’ (five spices of cumin, fenugreek, fennel, black mustard and nigella) and a simple tempering. Meat dishes frequently avoid the yoghurt and dairy enrichments that have become common elsewhere,” explains the food anthropologist.

As East Bengali refugees settled across West Bengal, their food mingled with local ingredients and culinary habits. Distinct traditions gradually merged, producing flavours that belonged fully to neither side of the border.

Partition of Punjab 

Partition transformed food cultures across northern India, particularly in Punjab. Communities migrating from Pakistan’s Rawalpindi and Peshawar carried with them culinary traditions that would eventually influence everything from chicken tikka to the culture of roadside dhabas.

Amrita points to the evolution of the ‘sanjha chulha’ or the community oven once found in villages across undivided Punjab.

A traditional tandoor.
| Photo Credit:
Special Arrangement

“It was largely managed by women. Families would prepare dough at home and gather around a shared oven. After Partition, that community structure changed and eventually evolved into the tandoor culture associated with dhabas,’’ she says.

In Bengal, Punjabi settlers adapted to local ingredients over time. Community kitchens incorporated regional vegetables and cooking styles. Dishes that once relied on one set of greens began appearing with Bengal’s lal shaak (red spinach) and kalmi shaak ( water spinach). Culinary exchange flowed in both directions.

Bengal’s Burmese connection

In the decades surrounding the Second World War, many Bengalis returned from Burma under circumstances that closely resembled refugee journeys. Settling in areas such as Kolkata’s Barasat and Subhashgram, they brought back culinary traditions acquired across the Bay of Bengal.

Mohinga
| Photo Credit:
Getty Images

Their influence survives in dishes such as mohinga, Myanmar’s beloved fish and noodle soup. Even today, versions of the fish-based broth can be found in neighbourhoods associated with former Burmese settlements. Families continue to prepare khow suey at home, while ceramic bowls made of Chinese clay, once used for these meals remain treasured heirlooms.

Amrita believes another overlooked refugee contribution lies in ethnobotanical knowledge: an intimate understanding of edible plants, leaves and greens.

The ecology of East Bengal fostered familiarity with a vast range of leafy vegetables and aquatic plants. That knowledge travelled across borders, influencing how ingredients were used and valued.

Fish scales became crisp snacks rich in collagen and calcium. Ageing coconuts were turned into fritters rather than discarded. Multiple varieties of dal evolved into delicacies.

Every fish broth, peel fritter and humble bowl of rice starch carries the imprint of a journey. The trains have long stopped arriving, but the migrations that reshaped Bengal still linger at the dining table.

Published – June 20, 2026 08:00 am IST

Salal Dam, Chenab river, Resai. File
| Photo Credit: ANI

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Tuesday (December 30, 2025) said “tensions between India and Pakistan” were among the list of hotspot issues “mediated” by China this year.

New Delhi has been maintaining that the May 7-10 conflict between India and Pakistan was resolved through direct talks between the DGMOs (Director General of Military Operations) of the armies of the two countries.  At the May 13 press briefing, the Ministry of External Affairs had said, “regarding ceasefire and what sort of role other countries played, etc. See, the specific date, time and wording of the understanding was worked out between the DGMOs of the two countries at their phone call on 10th May 2025, commencing at 15:35 hours.” India has also been consistently maintaining that there is no place for any third-party intervention in matters relating to India and Pakistan.

“This year, local wars and cross-border conflicts flared up more often than at any time since the end of WWII. Geopolitical turbulence continued to spread”, Mr. Wang said, speaking at the symposium on the “International Situation and China’s Foreign Relations” in Beijing.

“To build peace that lasts, we have taken an objective and just stance, and focused on addressing both symptoms and root causes”, he added.  “Following this Chinese approach to settling hotspot issues, we mediated in northern Myanmar, the Iranian nuclear issue, the tensions between Pakistan and India, the issues between Palestine and Israel, and the recent conflict between Cambodia and Thailand”, he said.

China’s role in the May 7-10 Operation Sindoor conflict between India and Pakistan this year came under serious scrutiny and criticism, especially the military assistance provided by Beijing to Islamabad.

On the diplomatic front, China, on May 7, called on India and Pakistan to exercise restraint even while expressing regret over India’s airstrikes.   “China finds India’s military operation early this morning regrettable”, said a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement on the first day of Operation Sindoor, reacting to questions on India’s airstrikes and escalating tensions between India and Pakistan.

“China opposes all forms of terrorism”, a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said in an apparent reference to the Pahalgam terrorist attack and urged both sides to exercise restraint in the interest of peace.

Also read | The new battle challenge of China-Pakistan collusion 

But China’s active military support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor in May has become a sharp reminder about the negative impact of China-Pakistan close ties on Beijing’s relations with New Delhi.    For its part, China, whose arms exports amount to over 81% of Pakistan’s military hardware, sought to downplay India’s Deputy Chief of Army Staff, Lt General Rahul R Singh’s assertion that Beijing used the conflict as a “live lab”, declining to directly answer his charge.

Gen. Singh said China’s strategy during Operation Sindoor was based on its ancient military strategy of “36 stratagems” and killing the adversary with a “borrowed knife” to buttress the point that Beijing extended all possible support to Pakistan to cause pain to India.

Good momentum

In his speech on China’s foreign policy initiatives, Mr. Wang spoke of the good momentum of improvement of relations between India and China and spoke of Beijing’s invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take part in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit held in Tianjin in August this year.

“Also, this year, we invited the leaders of India and the DPRK to China. China-India relations showed a good momentum, and the traditional friendship with the DPRK was cemented and further promoted”, he said, adding that the SCO summit was a resounding success.

China’s engagement with neighbouring countries entered a new stage of building a community with a shared future at a faster pace, he said.

On the BRICS, he said, “the 20-member BRICS family grew more prosperous. And BRICS cooperation was ever more robust under the expanded format”.

“This year, economic globalisation met serious setbacks. The tariff war dealt a blow to international trade rules and disrupted the global economic order. The choice between openness and isolation became imperative”, he said in apparent reference to U.S. President Donald Trump unleashing unilateral tariffs against China and other countries.

He said the China-U.S. relationship was one of the most consequential bilateral relationships in today’s world.

“The strategic choices of the two countries will shape the course of world history”, he said.

“On major issues of principle, we maintained firm and unequivocal positions. On issues concerning China’s core interests, we responded with strength and held our ground”, he said.

“At the same time, we engaged and talked with the U.S. to seek cooperation, foster a more rational, objective view of China, and address differences through consultation and dialogue,” he said.   Both Mr. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, with their frequent interactions, “guided the giant ship of China-U.S. relations through troubled waters and steered it in the right direction”, he said.

China and the U.S. must seek solutions to their respective concerns based on equality, mutual respect and reciprocity, and find the right way for the two major countries to get along with each other.

Published – December 31, 2025 12:12 am IST

The fisherman identified as Babu died Thursday, officials said. (Representational)

The fisherman identified as Babu died Thursday, officials said. (Representational)

The Neutral Expert (NE) appointed under terms of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), 1960, decided that he was “competent” to decide on differences between India and Pakistan on the design of hydroelectric projects built on the Indus Treaty-rivers. India, in a statement, on Tuesday “welcomed” the move.

The decision on January 7 by Michel Lino, the World Bank appointed NE, and made public via a press release on Monday, however, does not help resolve a demand by India in January 2023 to renegotiate the IWT but only keeps alive the differences between the two countries on the dispute resolution mechanism, laid out under the terms of the IWT.

Last September, The Hindu had reported that India decided there would be no more meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC), made up of representatives of both countries until the IWT was renegotiated. The last meeting happened in Delhi in May 2022. Since January 2023, India has written four times to Pakistan to initiate talks on revising the treaty but is yet to receive a formal response.

The dispute resolution mechanism laid out under the terms of the IWT — as India interprets it — says that disputes must first attempt to be resolved by the PIC. If they do not succeed, the matter would be weighed by the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert. If this fails too, the matter would be decided by a Court of Arbitration.

However, while India has held that each step must be fully exhausted before both sides agree to moving on to the next step, Pakistan has moved on without waiting for India’s concurrence.

While both countries first seemed to agree on the World Bank appointing a ‘neutral expert’, Pakistan in 2016 asked for a Court of Arbitration. The World Bank first ruled that having a neutral expert and court together could lead to “contradictory outcomes”. However, in 2022, it facilitated the setting up of both an expert as well as a chairman to the Court of Arbitration. India has refused to attend proceedings in the Court of Arbitration at The Hague. Pakistan has maintained that it is working within the terms of the treaty, whereas India says the treaty does not allow such parallel dispute mechanisms.

The press statement, issued on Tuesday, said that while the NE, could under the terms of the treaty, decide on technical disputes it did not invalidate the existing Court of Arbitration. “With respect to Pakistan’s first alternative submission, the Neutral Expert notes that he does not address any issues pertaining to the competence of the 2022 Court of Arbitration. The Neutral Expert concludes that the fact that the 2022 Court of Arbitration is presently considering certain matters that partially overlap with the points of difference does not affect his competence over differences…,” the NE-issued press statement noted.

In the days ahead Mr. Lino is expected to hear both India and Pakistan and decide on whether design parameters of the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects conform with the IWT.

“The latest decision is significant to India because the Neutral Expert has decided that all seven issues — and they are all technical — are in his remit. This means that none of those issues can be taken up by a Court of Arbitration. In previous disputes involving the IWT, whenever the NE has decided on a matter, it has been accepted by both parties. The CoA isn’t an appellate body,” a senior official, familiar with IWT proceedings, told The Hindu on condition of anonymity.

India, in a statement, said that it “welcomes the decision…which upholds and vindicates India’s stand that all seven questions that were referred to the Neutral Expert, in relation to the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects, are differences falling within his competence under the Treaty”. Pakistan so far has not responded to Mr. Lino’s decision.

“Having upheld his own competence, which comports with India’s view, the Neutral Expert will now proceed to the next (merits) phase of his proceeding. This phase will culminate in a final decision on the merits of each of the seven differences… India will continue to participate in the Neutral Expert process so that the differences are resolved in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Treaty… India does not recognise or participate in the illegally constituted Court of Arbitration proceedings…The Governments of India and Pakistan also remain in touch on the matter of modification and review of the Indus Waters Treaty,” the India statement added.

The treaty, that divided up the six Himalayan rivers equally between India and Pakistan, allows India the unrestricted use of all water from the three eastern tributaries of the Indus river (Sutlej, Beas and Ravi) while Pakistan receives use of the western tributaries (Indus or Sindhu, Jhelum and Chenab).

Pakistan had first raised objections to India’s construction of the 330 MW Kishenganga hydroelectric project on the Jhelum river back in 2006, and then objected to plans to construct the 850 MW Ratle Hydroelectric Project on the Chenab river as well. Both India and Pakistan differ on whether the technical details of the hydel projects conform with the treaty, given that the Jhelum and Chenab were part of the “western tributaries”.

(With inputs by Suhasini Haidar)