What's new

Can Pakistan and Bangladesh Be Friends?

idune

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
-40
Country
Bangladesh
Location
United States
Can Pakistan and Bangladesh Be Friends?
China and Turkey are providing the opportunity for Pakistan to sit with Bangladesh again. Islamabad must do so with sincerity and self-reflection.

By Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

August 26, 2020

Bangladeshi students wave Bangladesh’s national flag as they sit together after paying tribute to the soldiers, academics, writers, journalists and doctors who were killed during the war of independence against Pakistan on this day in 1971, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008. The bands read: ‘December 16, victory day.’

Credit: AP Photo/Pavel Rahman
On August 14, Pakistan’s Independence Day, the country’s high commissioner in Dhaka, Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, lauded the role that Bengalis played in the creation of Pakistan in 1947. That was preceded by Pakistani foreign office spokesperson Aisha Farooqui saying that Islamabad was now actively working on “moving forward” with Dhaka. Before that, the two premiers, Imran Khan and Sheikh Hasina, held a July 22 telephone conversation.

While August is usually an annual reminder of what binds India and Pakistan together, this year provided a rare opportunity for Islamabad and Dhaka to reminisce about their own fractured past. This was duly felt in New Delhi as well, with Foreign Secretary Harsh V. Shringla rushing to meet Hasina and Bangladesh Foreign Minister A.K. Abdul Momen last week.

Pakistan’s recent overtures toward Bangladesh have overlapped with growing disputes between New Delhi and Dhaka, largely centering around the growing anti-Muslim tilt of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India. In the recent past, differences over the Rohingya refugee crisis, the Citizenship Amendment Act, and the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodha have sparked a diverse array of skepticism from Dhaka.

Meanwhile, where the India-Bangladesh drift has largely remained under the radar, Pakistan has visibly undergone a diplomatic metamorphosis over the past three weeks. Three senior diplomats interviewed for this piece discussed the recent foreign policy reshuffle in Islamabad.

Pakistan’s unprecedented, and previously unthinkable, move to call out the inaction of Saudi Arabia and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) over Kashmir earlier this month has firmly placed the country in the Chinese and Turkish camps. While Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s visit to Riyadh last week was aimed at salvaging Saudi-Pakistan military ties, Islamabad is now openly backing Turkish and Chinese bids for Muslim and global leaderships respectively.

One diplomat informed The Diplomat that with both China and Turkey wholeheartedly backing Islamabad’s Kashmir narrative, much of Pakistan’s recent diplomatic engagement with Bangladesh has been with regard to this fast-growing alliance.

With China more invested in Kashmir because of its growing rivalry with India, and its bid to involve itself in conflicts as the global superpower, Dhaka’s interest in being a part of the China-Pakistan-Turkey nexus could also be piqued by Beijing’s investments in Bangladesh. With over $10 billion worth of Chinese infrastructure projects already there, Bangladesh is now seeking another $6.4 billion for new projects, and $1 billion for Teesta river management.

“Under the Turkey-led Muslim bloc, both Pakistan and Bangladesh can get more prominence as compared to what we have under the Gulf states, who have not only failed to provide support for Kashmir, they’ve actively enhanced their defense and energy cooperation with India, and even Israel,” said a senior diplomat.

The UAE-Israel deal epitomizes the rapid splintering into a new cold war reality, with the Gulf states firmly in the U.S.-Saudi camp. This opened the possibility for South Asian Muslim countries to back the potential China-Turkey bloc. Thus Pakistan’s efforts to woo Bangladesh, backed by China and Turkey, are rooted in global, and regional, realignments more so than any bilateral efforts to reconcile with a tumultuous past.

Therefore, while Pakistan and Bangladesh might find common interests in coexisting in the same bloc, for the two to actually become friends requires an honest discussion on what transpired in 1971 – and the events leading up to it. That mandates Pakistan self-reflecting about its own past, wherein it could find roots of many of its present predicaments, and in turn the pathway toward a progressive, pluralistic future.

Much of what ails Pakistan today can be traced to country’s mistreatment of the Bengalis from 1947 to 1971, resulting in the two wings that fought together for Partition of India separating from one another within 24 years. That bloody divide in 1971 delineated many of Pakistan’s paradoxes that have been rooted in the country’s existence, but remain, unaddressed, in the national ethos.

The 1971 war helps explain why a majority launched a separatist movement, and why despite losing an entire wing Pakistan never had to alter its name. It reminds us how the two epicenters of the Pakistan movement, Uttar Pradesh and Bengal – the latter where the Muslim League was founded in 1906 – are no longer in Pakistan. It underlines how the 1940s separatist movement that claimed that the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are “one nation” has since divided them almost equally into three separate states.

More critically for Pakistan, its divorce from Bangladesh unveiled the implosive fault lines that have only deepened since 1971. For instance, the military’s dominance in Pakistan – and then in Bangladesh – is rooted in efforts to deny the democratic principle of “one person one vote,” because it was feared that it would result in the Bengali majority ruling over the two wings of Pakistan.

As a result, civilian leaders in the then-West Pakistan were more keen on enjoying certain perks under military hegemony than letting East Pakistan have the majority say in running of the country. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had collaborated with the military to reject the 1970 elections, in turn orchestrating the separation of Bangladesh; Pakistan’s continued history of civilian leaders undermining democracy to gain proximity to power has since included Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and now Imran Khan.

Similarly, Pakistan’s paranoid, jihadist, and India-centric security policy is also rooted in events leading up to 1971. The 1965 Operation Gibraltar incorporated two military strategies that have been engraved in Rawalpindi’s General Headquarters: the use of non-state mujahideen and a focus on strategic depth.

Leaving its eastern wing open as bait in the build up to the 1965 war, Bhutto, then foreign minister, hoped to lure India to the east, while it was to be forced to fight on two fronts near Assam if China moved in. While India counterattacked on the western wing instead, and China never moved in across multiple Indo-Pak military engagements, the alienation of Bengalis and Pakistan’s obsession with strategic depth were permanently etched. The fixation with strategic depth has since evolved into Pakistan’s regional security policy, exemplified by its support for jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

Pakistan’s usurpation of Balochistan’s resources, its labeling of Pashtun nationalism as “treason,” the military’s occupation of territory, and its undermining of democracy are all reminiscent of the state’s marginalization of Bengalis. The growing number of Baloch missing persons and extrajudicial killings are a similar throwback to the violence that eventually led to the Bengali genocide of 1971 – one that Pakistan is yet to recognize.

“Bangladeshis across the board feel that Pakistan needs admit its mistakes of the past, acknowledge that its army had perpetrated a genocide and apologize for the atrocities committed,” Ali Riaz, professor of political science at Illinois State University and nonresident senior fellow at Atlantic Council, said while talking to The Diplomat.

“With emerging global dynamics, there are various possibilities. But without the acknowledgement and apology of Pakistan for its heinous crimes in 1971, the road leads to nowhere,” he added.

While military dictators like Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf have acknowledged the events of 1971, Pakistan’s leaders as a whole, and the state officially, has failed to accept the gravity of its crimes. In recent years, the death sentences issued by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal for 1971 war crimes have sparked condemnation from Pakistan. This in turn is seen as Pakistan’s resistance to accept the war crimes from 1971, let alone apologize for them.

“Indeed an apology is long overdue. I think the SAARC Charter should be implemented in letter and spirit,” said historian Ishtiaq Ahmed, the author of “Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947–2011),” while talking to The Diplomat.

Where China and Turkey might be providing the opportunity for Pakistan to sit with Bangladesh again, it must do so with sincerity and self-reflection. That will not only help Islamabad formulate progressive bilateral ties, it might also ring a timely reminder to undo many of the same errors of the past.

For while opportunistic alliances can be temporarily beneficial, Pakistan is currently at a crossroads that could lead to formulation of a more durable unity based on mutual respect and inclusivity. The failure to embrace such a self-identity in 1947 led to South Asia’s goriest post-Partition crimes in 1971.

Collective self-reflection might also help undo the contrasting, but tangible, Islamization damaging the two states. Indeed, the divisive ideology that couldn’t keep the east and west wing together is now separately impairing Bangladesh and Pakistan.

 
. .
Answer, off course, is YES! Pakistan and Bangladesh can have friendly and mutually beneficial relation. Besides economic and other synergies, for strategic and geo strategic reasons, both Pakistan and Bangladesh need to work together.
 
. . . .
Because -

  • both are countries and not two teenagers looking for friendship
  • both can work together on points of convergence limited as they are
  • Bangla is product off the single biggest disaster in history of Pakistan which leaves little positive sentment as we might have for Turkey etc
  • Bangla economic interests compete with Pakistan
 
.
Because -

  • both are countries and not two teenagers looking for friendship
  • both can work together on points of convergence limited as they are
  • Bangla is product off the single biggest disaster in history of Pakistan which leaves little positive sentment as we might have for Turkey etc
  • Bangla economic interests compete with Pakistan
Okay . I hope your authority also hold the same POV .If not then convince them .
 
.
Pakistan and Bangladesh are already best of friends.
 
.
Very hard given the hatred of Bangladesh's common people towards Pakistan and that is due to false narrative and stories about 1971 which are fed to their minds for decades.
 
.
maybe , but we can be allies but we both have to keep our distances i think. Too much bad blood !
 
.
NO.

Bangladesh is a state, not an individual. States do not have friends, brothers or sisters. States only have interests. We should have good working relationship based on mutual respect and mutual interest with all countries of the world including Pakistan. There is no need of 'friendship' with Pakistan or any other country.
 
.
Because -

  • both are countries and not two teenagers looking for friendship
  • both can work together on points of convergence limited as they are
  • Bangla is product off the single biggest disaster in history of Pakistan which leaves little positive sentment as we might have for Turkey etc
  • Bangla economic interests compete with Pakistan
Okay . I hope your authority also hold the same POV .If not then convince them .

He has a point and this is also the reason why the Pak-Bangla relations have always been rocky even at the time when they could be counted as close. If you want to study the relationship between two nations then the first thing you need to look at it is why and how it deteriorated and how quickly did it deteriorate? the latter is very important because it tells us on how solid the foundation of the relationship between two countries was.

They are countries and the concepts of realpolitk dictate that International Relations have no friends but mutual interests. the stronger the interest, the deeper the friendship. Friendship between states and concepts of brotherhood are euphemism for "look how aligned our interests are or look how dependent both are on each other" since they are not individuals but countries whose existence is based on self interest are driven with realistic interest policies. So why cant Pakistan and bangladesh be friends is a question that sounds childish. The will work on points of convergence of interest or strategic aim. The problem is that Pakistan and Bangladesh have no such interest nor strategic aim. Bangladesh is surrounded 90% by India and has bay of bengal. Pakistan has no interest or strategic aim in the region even economic interest is a stretch since considering the distance between two nations, Central Asia is a far more realistic and economically and strategically important region. I am not saying Pakistan should ignore bangladesh but what i am saying is that when it comes to interests and strategic aims, both parties have little to bring on the table to each other thus in an interest driven environment, both parties will give little importance to each other.

Now we also need to understand the history of bangladesh makes the Pak-Bangla relationship very difficult. At extreme you guys are looked at as traitors who betrayed their homeland and at best you guys are looked at as gullible fools who came into the words of India. I am not going to enter into this argument on what was and what is, i am saying that is the mindset you will see mostly and the 1971 war left its scars on the country and you guys do two things. You celebrate the scar and you highlight atrocities by a celebrated institution in Pakistan, whether those atrocities happened or not is not the topic at hand. The fact is that you guys claim them and we deny them and in this scenario, this creates a chasm that will not be easily bridged.

Infact Pakistan economic interest do indeed compete at many sections so our interest not only not converge but diverge.

With all of this, it is very hard to see Pakistan and Bangladesh having strong strategic interest that will help the relations between the two countries survive. This is why Indus believes its not happening and he has a strong point and i am inclined to agree
 
. .
Can Pakistan and Bangladesh Be Friends?
China and Turkey are providing the opportunity for Pakistan to sit with Bangladesh again. Islamabad must do so with sincerity and self-reflection.

By Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

August 26, 2020

Bangladeshi students wave Bangladesh’s national flag as they sit together after paying tribute to the soldiers, academics, writers, journalists and doctors who were killed during the war of independence against Pakistan on this day in 1971, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008. The bands read: ‘December 16, victory day.’

Credit: AP Photo/Pavel Rahman
On August 14, Pakistan’s Independence Day, the country’s high commissioner in Dhaka, Imran Ahmed Siddiqui, lauded the role that Bengalis played in the creation of Pakistan in 1947. That was preceded by Pakistani foreign office spokesperson Aisha Farooqui saying that Islamabad was now actively working on “moving forward” with Dhaka. Before that, the two premiers, Imran Khan and Sheikh Hasina, held a July 22 telephone conversation.

While August is usually an annual reminder of what binds India and Pakistan together, this year provided a rare opportunity for Islamabad and Dhaka to reminisce about their own fractured past. This was duly felt in New Delhi as well, with Foreign Secretary Harsh V. Shringla rushing to meet Hasina and Bangladesh Foreign Minister A.K. Abdul Momen last week.

Pakistan’s recent overtures toward Bangladesh have overlapped with growing disputes between New Delhi and Dhaka, largely centering around the growing anti-Muslim tilt of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India. In the recent past, differences over the Rohingya refugee crisis, the Citizenship Amendment Act, and the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodha have sparked a diverse array of skepticism from Dhaka.

Meanwhile, where the India-Bangladesh drift has largely remained under the radar, Pakistan has visibly undergone a diplomatic metamorphosis over the past three weeks. Three senior diplomats interviewed for this piece discussed the recent foreign policy reshuffle in Islamabad.

Pakistan’s unprecedented, and previously unthinkable, move to call out the inaction of Saudi Arabia and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) over Kashmir earlier this month has firmly placed the country in the Chinese and Turkish camps. While Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s visit to Riyadh last week was aimed at salvaging Saudi-Pakistan military ties, Islamabad is now openly backing Turkish and Chinese bids for Muslim and global leaderships respectively.

One diplomat informed The Diplomat that with both China and Turkey wholeheartedly backing Islamabad’s Kashmir narrative, much of Pakistan’s recent diplomatic engagement with Bangladesh has been with regard to this fast-growing alliance.

With China more invested in Kashmir because of its growing rivalry with India, and its bid to involve itself in conflicts as the global superpower, Dhaka’s interest in being a part of the China-Pakistan-Turkey nexus could also be piqued by Beijing’s investments in Bangladesh. With over $10 billion worth of Chinese infrastructure projects already there, Bangladesh is now seeking another $6.4 billion for new projects, and $1 billion for Teesta river management.

“Under the Turkey-led Muslim bloc, both Pakistan and Bangladesh can get more prominence as compared to what we have under the Gulf states, who have not only failed to provide support for Kashmir, they’ve actively enhanced their defense and energy cooperation with India, and even Israel,” said a senior diplomat.

The UAE-Israel deal epitomizes the rapid splintering into a new cold war reality, with the Gulf states firmly in the U.S.-Saudi camp. This opened the possibility for South Asian Muslim countries to back the potential China-Turkey bloc. Thus Pakistan’s efforts to woo Bangladesh, backed by China and Turkey, are rooted in global, and regional, realignments more so than any bilateral efforts to reconcile with a tumultuous past.

Therefore, while Pakistan and Bangladesh might find common interests in coexisting in the same bloc, for the two to actually become friends requires an honest discussion on what transpired in 1971 – and the events leading up to it. That mandates Pakistan self-reflecting about its own past, wherein it could find roots of many of its present predicaments, and in turn the pathway toward a progressive, pluralistic future.

Much of what ails Pakistan today can be traced to country’s mistreatment of the Bengalis from 1947 to 1971, resulting in the two wings that fought together for Partition of India separating from one another within 24 years. That bloody divide in 1971 delineated many of Pakistan’s paradoxes that have been rooted in the country’s existence, but remain, unaddressed, in the national ethos.

The 1971 war helps explain why a majority launched a separatist movement, and why despite losing an entire wing Pakistan never had to alter its name. It reminds us how the two epicenters of the Pakistan movement, Uttar Pradesh and Bengal – the latter where the Muslim League was founded in 1906 – are no longer in Pakistan. It underlines how the 1940s separatist movement that claimed that the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent are “one nation” has since divided them almost equally into three separate states.

More critically for Pakistan, its divorce from Bangladesh unveiled the implosive fault lines that have only deepened since 1971. For instance, the military’s dominance in Pakistan – and then in Bangladesh – is rooted in efforts to deny the democratic principle of “one person one vote,” because it was feared that it would result in the Bengali majority ruling over the two wings of Pakistan.

As a result, civilian leaders in the then-West Pakistan were more keen on enjoying certain perks under military hegemony than letting East Pakistan have the majority say in running of the country. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had collaborated with the military to reject the 1970 elections, in turn orchestrating the separation of Bangladesh; Pakistan’s continued history of civilian leaders undermining democracy to gain proximity to power has since included Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto, and now Imran Khan.

Similarly, Pakistan’s paranoid, jihadist, and India-centric security policy is also rooted in events leading up to 1971. The 1965 Operation Gibraltar incorporated two military strategies that have been engraved in Rawalpindi’s General Headquarters: the use of non-state mujahideen and a focus on strategic depth.

Leaving its eastern wing open as bait in the build up to the 1965 war, Bhutto, then foreign minister, hoped to lure India to the east, while it was to be forced to fight on two fronts near Assam if China moved in. While India counterattacked on the western wing instead, and China never moved in across multiple Indo-Pak military engagements, the alienation of Bengalis and Pakistan’s obsession with strategic depth were permanently etched. The fixation with strategic depth has since evolved into Pakistan’s regional security policy, exemplified by its support for jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

Pakistan’s usurpation of Balochistan’s resources, its labeling of Pashtun nationalism as “treason,” the military’s occupation of territory, and its undermining of democracy are all reminiscent of the state’s marginalization of Bengalis. The growing number of Baloch missing persons and extrajudicial killings are a similar throwback to the violence that eventually led to the Bengali genocide of 1971 – one that Pakistan is yet to recognize.

“Bangladeshis across the board feel that Pakistan needs admit its mistakes of the past, acknowledge that its army had perpetrated a genocide and apologize for the atrocities committed,” Ali Riaz, professor of political science at Illinois State University and nonresident senior fellow at Atlantic Council, said while talking to The Diplomat.

“With emerging global dynamics, there are various possibilities. But without the acknowledgement and apology of Pakistan for its heinous crimes in 1971, the road leads to nowhere,” he added.

While military dictators like Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf have acknowledged the events of 1971, Pakistan’s leaders as a whole, and the state officially, has failed to accept the gravity of its crimes. In recent years, the death sentences issued by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal for 1971 war crimes have sparked condemnation from Pakistan. This in turn is seen as Pakistan’s resistance to accept the war crimes from 1971, let alone apologize for them.

“Indeed an apology is long overdue. I think the SAARC Charter should be implemented in letter and spirit,” said historian Ishtiaq Ahmed, the author of “Pakistan: The Garrison State, Origins, Evolution, Consequences (1947–2011),” while talking to The Diplomat.

Where China and Turkey might be providing the opportunity for Pakistan to sit with Bangladesh again, it must do so with sincerity and self-reflection. That will not only help Islamabad formulate progressive bilateral ties, it might also ring a timely reminder to undo many of the same errors of the past.

For while opportunistic alliances can be temporarily beneficial, Pakistan is currently at a crossroads that could lead to formulation of a more durable unity based on mutual respect and inclusivity. The failure to embrace such a self-identity in 1947 led to South Asia’s goriest post-Partition crimes in 1971.

Collective self-reflection might also help undo the contrasting, but tangible, Islamization damaging the two states. Indeed, the divisive ideology that couldn’t keep the east and west wing together is now separately impairing Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Bangladesh and Pakistan are already friends. There were/are some disagreements that's just it.

Also tbh a country has allies not friends. There is nothing called friend when it comes to geopolitics.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom