Comments | Print | Share | Rate
SIFY
The lessons from Hasina’s visit
2010-01-20 21:17:34
Last Updated: 2010-01-20 23:42:57
Bhaskar Roy
As Bangladesh Prime Minister Sk. Hasina returned from her three day (January 10-13) visit to India, her country found its people totally engaged with this one development. Domestic reactions were on expected lines. While Sk. Hasina and her party along with their allies described the visit as a remarkable success, the opposition led by the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) projected it as a total failure and surrender to India.
The central point, however, is the fact that in Bangladesh, no foreign relations attracts the kind of attention and importance, and raises emotions as ties with India do. This is very significant. It makes it abundantly clear that in their appreciation of India, Bangladeshis remain as deeply divided as they were during the 1971 war of liberation.
As an aside, it was very interesting to note the crowd reaction to the Bangladesh-India-Nepal tri-series cricket tournament in Bangladesh. The support to the Indian team was surprisingly high. This, compared to the photographs carried in some Bangladeshis newspapers in the 1980s and 1990s showing Pakistan beating India all over in the 1982 Asian Games in New Delhi indicate that things are changing.
While addressing a press conference in New Delhi on January 13, Prime Minister Sk. Hasina made a very perceptive observation to a reporter’s question. She said strong anti-India elements have been there as demonstrated by the 1954 Pakistan elections (Bangladesh was East Pakistan then), and she could not do anything about it. These anti-India voices can be subsumed if the common people of Bangladesh benefit from the Indo-Bangladesh relations, she added.
This is the truth. It is becoming increasingly clear that many Bangladeshi leaders who sided with the pro-liberationists in 1971 were actually pro-Pakistani and anti-Indian. Two senior leaders, Khandakar Mustaque Ahmed and Taheruddin Thakur, were directly involved with the assassination of Bangabandhu Sk. Mujibur Rahman along with most members of his extended family on August 15, 1974. Only his two daughters, Sk. Hasina and Sk. Rehana, survived as they were abroad.
In November that year the same group of army officers who killed Sheikh Mujib also assassinated four top Awami League leaders who were incarcerated in the Dhaka central jail. Two other developments in this connection are notable.
The “killer majors”, as the group of army officers were known popularly, were elevated to diplomatic postings and given amnesty by the government of the day. And the Jaamat-e-Islami, which was banned for its pro-Pakistani activities against the freedom fighters and pro-liberation minded Bengalis, was politically rehabilitated. The trial of war criminals was also stopped.
All this happened in the period between Sk. Mujib’s assassination and President Zia-ur-Rehman’s period. Zia-ur-Rehman, as a major in the army, was a highly decorated freedom fighter. But his actions during his tenure at the highest position in the country suggested a pronounced anti-liberation bias.
President Zia, who formed the BNP, worked to create tensions with India. H.M. Ershad, who took over after Zia’s assassination in 1981, eased the bilateral relations to an extent. By this time, the anti-India forces were well entrenched, mainly with the assistance of the BNP. The JEI was still untouchable among most Bangladeshis.
But the worst period in India-Bangladesh relations was witnessed during the BNP-JEI led four party alliance rule from 2001 to 2006. This was the period which saw a sharp rise in Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, hosting of Indian insurgent groups like the ULFA and others, and a close co-operation between Bangladesh’s intelligence agencies and Pakistan’s ISI to launch cross-border terrorism into India’s heartland. The accidental interdiction of ten truck load of arms at the Chittagong port in April 2004, revealed the kind of arms support Bangladesh was providing the ULFA. The case is still under investigation.
The world now realises that the BNP-JEI government had become state sponsors of terrorism, because top ruling government leaders, their intelligence agencies and bureaucrats were involved in such operations. Attempts were made on the life of Sheikh Hasina, who is considered to be pro-India and the living symbol of liberation.
The Awami League returned to power in the December 28, 2008 election with a sweeping majority because the BNP-JEI government had ravaged the country in more ways than one.
The vast majority of Bangladeshi Muslims believe in secularism, democracy and historical friendly relations with India. Most Bangladeshis are emotional and sensitive people who do not contribute to obscurantism and terrorism, and look towards modernism and development. No wonder the JEI won only two seats at the last election.
But this is no reason for complacency. The BNP and JEI have created a strong support base. The JEI’s support is on strong religious and ideological grounds. The BNP’s support is more opportunistic and remains vulnerable to outside incentives.
Returning to Sheikh Hasina’s India visit, the agreements and MoUs signed, and the joint statement issued at the end of the visit, it is no surprise that the Bangladesh opposition has concentrated on only a few sensitive issues. But in their eagerness to trash the upgraded bilateral relations, they have exposed their core concern, which is unacceptable to the civilized world.
The opposition sharply criticized the three agreements on mutual legal assistance on criminal matters, transfer of sentenced persons, and combating international terrorism, organized crime and illicit drug trafficking. They have argued that these arguments are in Indian interests only, and not Bangladesh’s.
This is strange logic. Is hosting criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers and organized crime in Bangladesh’s interest? Do they expect international praise for such a policy, or do they believe destabilization of India as the pinnacle of their destiny?
The government of Sk. Hasina was severely attacked by the BNP and the JEI for assisting India in arresting ULFA leaders like its chairman Aurobindo Rajkhowa. The Bangladesh based ULFA leaders were described as freedom fighters who the country should support, and compared to Bangladeshi freedom fighters. It was also said that by handing over ULFA leaders to India, Bangladesh was making an enemy out of this organization and jeopardizing Bangladesh’s security.
This preposterous suggestion shows that the opposition desires that Bangladesh remains a platform and incubator of anti-India terrorism, unmindful of the calamity these same groups can unleash on the country. This is not viciousness, but utter madness.
The opposition also castigated land and water transit to India as counter to the country’s security and sovereignty, explaining the Indian army could transit through these routes to north-east India. Similarly, access to Bangladeshi ports for India has been objected to on lame grounds. At the same time they are silent on India’s accord to allow road connectivity to Nepal and Bhutan to Bangladesh, a long standing demand, the billion dollar credit line for infrastructure construction including up gradation of railways. They also opposed the 250 mw power supply to Bangladesh, and lifting of negative tariffs on 47 items.
In brief, India is anathema to the entrenched anti-India sections. But it is unfortunate to see worldly wise and erudite BNP leaders like Morshed Khan join this chorus. Of course, his Pakistani links are also family entrenched.
All issues cannot be resolved in one visit. But this one visit promises to restore and build upon the trust between the two countries on a much larger scale. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has agreed to revisit the 1974 Indira-Mujib pact on land borders and adversely possessed enclaves, promised not to do anything on the proposed Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river which may adversely affect Bangladesh, and move to resolve river waters dispute, especially the Teesta. Bangladesh and India also agreed to resolve the maritime boundary question bilaterally.
These are, however, issues on which the Bangladesh opposition pin their stand against India. While the maritime boundary may be easier to settle with give and take, there will always be space for criticism. River waters is a more difficult issue. There are 54 rivers, big and small, flowing from India to Bangladesh. Water is becoming a precious commodity. Nature cannot be predicted and the upper riparian stands to be blamed. Small problems will always remain between countries sharing common rivers and common borders. These can be managed if there is mutual trust.
It is now India’s turn to act, and act quickly. The people of Bangladesh are waiting to see the gains from this new relationship. If they are dismayed, the battle may have been won but the war lost.
Bangladesh now needs the support that can solidify relations between the largest country of the subcontinent and the most densely populated country of South Asia. South Asia can grow faster if all the countries agree to grow together. Otherwise, India can grow alone but it will be a difficult growth.
Prime Minister Hasina has staked a lot on her India initiative, and India has responded superbly. We cannot let the momentum get embroiled in bureaucratic lethargy. If this relationship is brought to fruition, and there is no reason why it should not, it would be a lesson for the rest of the region, including Pakistan. Relations must be on equality, as Prime Minister Singh indicated.
Size does not make a big brother, but a strong and friendly hand does.
The “Manmohan Singh doctrine” is in the making. But the bottom line remains: all hands must work together. Are Kathmandu and Colombo listening?
Do not bring in extraneous powers to work against each other. Learn from history. This should be the motto of SAARC.
Bhaskar Roy, who retired recently as a senior government official with decades of national and international experience, is an expert on international relations and Indian strategic interests.
