"As I see it" column
The Independent
M. Serajul Islam
Politics
make strange bed fellows. Before the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to
Dhaka in September, 2011 that ended in disappointment, a meeting between an
Indian President and Begum Khaleda Zia would have been impossible to imagine
and that too in New Delhi while Bangladesh had an AL Government. It was
nevertheless very pleasing to see Pranab Mukherjee receiving Begum Zia at
Rastrapati Bhavan, New Delhi. Going by what appeared in the media, their meeting
was positive where they agreed about the need of building mutually beneficial
bilateral relations by looking forward instead of back.
A
lot has been said about the BNP’s past anti-Indian stance as if this was why
the BNP leader was invited. In fact, some of the BNP leaders themselves
acknowledged that past with regret to give such a feeling. One who had spearheaded the anti-Indian stance
of the party while the BNP was in power during the 2001-2006 period, former
Foreign Minister Morshed Khan said that the party’s past stance on India was a
“mistake.” Unfortunately, the BNP leaders who are in a hurry to acknowledge
their “mistake” have not done themselves or their party much credit. They
failed to understand that India’s interests and changes in international
politics were as much, if not more, the reason for the visit to which the
softening of BNP’s stance towards India helped. They also failed to highlight
that BNP’s past anti-Indian stance t was to a large extent the result of
India’s failure to be fair to Bangladesh and condescending with it.
Take
for instance the meeting between Begum Zia and Pranab Mukherjee in Rastrapati
Bhavan. One must welcome this meeting for there is a huge potential here for the
future of Bangladesh-India relations. Nevertheless, while acknowledging their
“mistakes”, the BNP leaders must keep in mind about what led to the BNP’s
anti-India stance in the past. When Pranab Mukherjee as Foreign Minister came
to Bangladesh as a Special Envoy in February, 2009, he declined to meet Begum
Zia on the lame excuse that he had no time for the meeting. He in fact had time
for meeting by then the discredited Army Chief General Moyeen U Ahmed and
opening a building in Dhaka University that India funded.
At
that time, New Delhi did not care much for its policy of reaching out to the
democratic multi-party polity of Bangladesh. Its main interest then was to keep
Sheikh Hasina happy. In fact till the ill-fated visit of the Indian Prime
Minister to Dhaka in September 2011, New Delhi did not feel any necessity to
reach out beyond the Awami League that was
giving India what past Indian governments were desperate to receive from
Bangladesh; namely a full assurance for its security needs and the land
transit. In fact, the negotiators of the AL led government gave/promised these
Indian needs even without being asked and without seeking reciprocity. New Delhi nevertheless promised on its own
that for these concessions, it will make Bangladesh the regional connectivity
hub and provided Banagladesh with a US$ 1 billion soft loan and later converted
US$ 200 million out of it as grant.
It
was only after the edifice of Bangladesh-India living happily ever after was
brought down by Mamata Banarjee that New Delhi realized that even an obliging
government in Dhaka cannot give India anything without reciprocity as the AL
led Government quickly withdrew its offer of land transit once India failed to
deliver the Teesta deal. Nevertheless, the negotiations between New Delhi and
Dhaka succeeded in highlighting the
benefits to both sides of building bilateral relations where each showed the
political will to carry relations forward. India saw the tremendous benefits of
the land transit and security assurance and Bangladesh, the benefits of
becoming the connectivity hub and of course the prospect of revolving its
water, trade and land boundary issues through positive engagement.
On
the Bangladesh side, the negotiations also succeeded in convincing the BNP to
change its anti-Indian stance because it felt for the first time that India was
willing to deal with Bangladesh fairly. It also felt that the Indian promise of
making Bangladesh the regional connectivity hub was sincere. The BNP also
watched favourably the concessions that India gave on trade that is helping Bangladesh
close the trade gap weighed heavily in favour of India. It of course
acknowledged with a sense of gratitude India’s contribution to Bangladesh’s war
of liberation. It believed that New Delhi would have given Bangladesh
the Teesta Deal as well as the LBA had
it not been frustrated by Mamata Banarjee and the BJP. The BNP nevertheless now
feels that the Congress led government is in no position to deliver either of
these to Bangladesh but that if negotiations are kept on the right track, these
needs of Bangladesh will come Bangladesh’s way eventually.
New
Delhi also learnt a few lessons while noting favourably the change in the BNP’s
stance. New Delhi realized that concessions given by the AL without the BNP on
board will not be sustainable. Therefore it is reaching out for the “democratic
multi party polity of Bangladesh”, particularly because it is concerned about
the waning political strength of the Awami League. International politics has
also added to change the political scene dramatically to make strange
bedfellows out of New Delhi and the BNP. India’s strategic alliance with USA
with the intent of containing China and Myanmar’s decision to forge relations
with USA has added to the geopolitical importance of Bangladesh. Both India and
USA are therefore interested in political stability of Bangladesh for more or
less the same reasons.
Recent
politics in Bangladesh has left little doubt in New Delhi and Washington that
Bangladesh will slide to political disaster if the AL carried out its way of
conducting the next elections in Bangladesh. In both capitals, there is
consensus that the change in Bangladesh should reflect the popular will. At the same time, both India and USA have
doubts about the BNP over its Jamat connections. In fact, in both the capitals,
concerned officials would compare notes on what the BNP leader said about its
alliance with Jamat to her Indian hosts though from the media briefing given by
the aides of Begum Zia, there has been no mention whether at all this subject
was raised by the Indian leaders with Begum Zia. Assuming this was raised and
Begum Zia’s stand has cleared the minds of the Indians, then one would no doubt
see India and USA take positive stand for an election in Bangladesh where the
BNP would also participate.
Assuming
on the other hand that this subject was not raised, that seems very unlikely,
or that it was raised and Begum Zia’s explanation was not convincing, there is
still the strong likelihood that India and the USA would ultimately seek a
level playing ground for the next elections in Bangladesh. Begum Zia has done
enough to encourage the Indians to do so. Her firm commitment for India’s
security concerns and connectivity or land transit in exchange for Bangladesh’s
water, trade and other demands must have been received in New Delhi very
positively. In fact, her upgrading connectivity to the concept of
Bangladesh-China-India Consortium with the deep seaport at Sonadia have enough
prospects to attract India more than just connectivity leading to making Bangladesh
the regional connectivity hub.
Begum
Zia’s visit has also helped in creating awareness in New Delhi that despite the
AL and the BNP being on each other’s throats, in their conflicting ways they
have sent a consensus message to New Delhi that no party in Bangladesh can give
India anything unless India is willing to reciprocate. The visit has
underscored the fact that Bangladesh-India relations can move forward only on a
quid pro quo basis.
The
BNP will now need to build on a successful visit of its leader to benefit from
its outcome that could be positive for it and the nation provided if it carried
out future negotiations professionally and out of the media. It should insist
with New Delhi privately that the immediate need for Bangladesh is to have an
election where it could participate and that it will keep its commitments,
provided India kept theirs, no matter whether in government or in the
opposition after the next general elections.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador and Secretary to the Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment