Indian Foreign Minister's visit to Dhaka

Posted : 29 Jun, 2014 00:00:00

AA-A+

Sushma Swaraj's visit of hope

M. Serajul Islam

The visit of Sushma Swaraj has ended quietly compared to the media hype that the country witnessed leading to it. The ruling party wanted desperately to show the people of Bangladesh that the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) government would treat it in the same special way as the Congress government had done. The BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) wanted the contrary - that the visit would show that the BJP government would be different and that the visit would reveal that so as to weaken the ruling party's strength in the politics of the country.

The Indian External Affairs Minister came to Dhaka with an agenda of her own that did not consider the interests of either of the two parties that made desperate efforts to please her and through her, the new government in New Delhi. Sushma Swaraj came to Dhaka to convey a message to the people of Bangladesh that the BJP Government will conduct bilateral relations by putting their interests and the country's sovereignty as indispensable elements of their Bangladesh policy. She also came to Dhaka in pursuit of the new government's policy of close relations with the SAARC (South Asian Association for regional Cooperation) countries that was revealed when the SAARC leaders were invited to the inauguration of Narendra Modi.

Thus in her official consultation with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, the sticky bilateral issues were set aside. The Bangladesh side just flagged some of the outstanding bilateral issues such as the pending Teesta/LBA deals without making any demand so as not to upset the Indian Minister. The Indian Minister also did not raise the sticky issue of the 20 million alleged Bangladeshis. In her meeting with Sheikh Hasina, Sushma Swaraj assured the Bangladesh Prime Minister that New Delhi will deliver the deals "soon" but did not give any time frame like these issues were not important for the visit.

Nevertheless, the visit has been a very important one. In a quiet, unassuming way, Sushma Swaraj with her trademark "tip" and pleasant demeanour, outlined the parameters within which the BJP government will conduct bilateral relations. These parameters are a major shift from the way the Congress had conducted bilateral relations. Henceforth, New Delhi will not play any favourites and relations will be between country-to-country and government-to-government. This will rule out the special position the Awami League (AL) enjoyed under the Congress Government. By emphasizing that the people of Bangladesh will resolve the internal political problems of its politics, New Delhi has underlined that it will not interfere in Bangladesh's politics like the Congress had done for the Awami League. In fact, by stressing that Bangladesh must solve its own political problems, Sushma Swaraj has perhaps unwittingly admitted that such was the case under the Congress Government.

The visit did not just change the parameters, which have been dramatic and substantial. It also revealed New Delhi's view on a major issue with which the AL and BNP are fighting. By meeting Begum Khaleda Zia over the objections of the Awami League, the Indian Foreign Minister established the credibility of the BNP as the main opposition in the country. A week prior to Sushma Swaraj's visit, the UN had recognized the BNP as the main opposition after the faux pas committed by the President's men following his meeting with the UN Secretary General and had urged the AL to negotiate with it for fresh elections. Although Sushma Swaraj did not go to that extent, her meeting with the BNP leader has undermined the ruling party's attempts to sideline the BNP in the politics of the country.

There were other aspects of the visit that revealed that New Delhi does not see the present political situation in Bangladesh the way the AL-led government wants it to. In her speech at the Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Sushma Swaraj mentioned without any direct reference to Bangladesh that institution building and tolerance are vital to growth of democracy. Many were quick to see in this a subtle criticism of the way the Awami League has been ruling the country.

The separate press briefings were another aspect of the visit that underlined that New Delhi and Dhaka are on different wavelengths. Dhaka wanted joint press briefing to give the impression to the people of Bangladesh about the thickness of its relations. Indians demanded separate briefings to convey the contrary view, and got it, that the Indian Minister left the MEA's Spokesman to handle. In Bangladesh's case, it was the Foreign Minister who briefed the media.

The media briefing of the Bangladesh Foreign Minster also underlined that the visit did not go the way the AL wanted. The Minister was defensive in the briefing and took pains to explain that Bangladesh has not granted land transit and the permission given to Indian trucks to use Bangladesh road was a humanitarian gesture. The Bangladesh side highlighted the BCIM-EC as an example of India's interest in making Bangladesh the regional connectivity hub that did not draw any response from the Indian Minister. In fact, on connectivity, the Indian Spokesman said it will be all about connecting the people of the two countries thus setting aside Bangladesh's efforts to use the visit to show New Delhi is as committed to Bangladesh's economic development as was the Congress Government.

Sushma Swaraj's visit was therefore largely a goodwill one. Nevertheless, the fact that she chose Bangladesh as the first country to begin her foreign trips underlines that India values its relations with Bangladesh as important. However, she also undertook the trip to reach out to the people of Bangladesh because the blatant interference of the Congress-led government has pushed India's standing in Bangladesh to its lowest ebb ever. Therefore, through the visit, she has laid down new parameters of bilateral relations to assure the people that it respects Bangladesh's sovereignty and its people. There is perhaps another issue that has led the parameters to be changed. India has not particularly liked the AL-government overtures towards China and its total commitment for Asia's march to world dominance under China's leadership. This message of disapproval has been subtly embedded in the way the visit was undertaken.

Therefore on final analysis, the visit of Sushma Swaraj has not gladdened the hearts of the ruling party. The BNP has gained credibility and will be inspired that the BJP Government will not back the AL government anything like the Congress had done which is the cause of its present nightmarish predicament. However, the visit has not failed to gladden the hearts of many Bangladeshis who believe that India has the power to build or destroy Bangladesh. In that context, the visit of Sushma Swaraj has been a visit of hope for the people of Bangladesh because the parameters that she set within which her government will conduct bilateral relations with Bangladesh will help keep Bangladesh on democratic path and help it to return from the path of disaster towards which it is headed for which the outgoing Congress has played a significant role.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

June 29, 2014 On Sushma Swaraj’s visit

M. Serajul Islam

The much-hyped visit of Sushma Swaraj was exceptional in many ways. If she had visited any other South Asian country as the External Affairs Minister of a government that had just come to power, she would have expected that country’s stakeholder to have more or less the same expectations in receiving her. Her just concluded visit to Dhaka was however different. The ruling party had one set of expectations; the BNP, , another set of expectations in direct contrast to those of the ruling party. The people as the other major stakeholder had a set of expectations different from the two mainstream parties.

The visit was unusual also from another context. The BJP has a history that should have caused apprehensions among the Bangladeshi stakeholders about what to expect from a party that came to power with a huge mandate riding the wave of Hindu fundamentalism. Also, as the opposition party, the BJP had obstructed the Congress government from delivering the Teesta and LDA deals to Bangladesh. Additionally, the BJP had campaigned in the elections against Bangladesh. Narendra Modi had no inhibitions in telling voters that if elected, the BJP government would send packing 20 million alleged Bangladeshis in India, across the border.

Therefore, Sushma Swaraj should have expected a very unfriendly environment in Dhaka. Instead, the ruling AL showed no intention of embarrassing her on Teesta and LBA deals for which the AL led government had given India unequivocal support on its extremely critical security needs and land transit on trial basis, and instead assured Sushma Swaraj the same support it had given the outgoing Congress government. The ruling party did not also express worries about BJP’s history or its anti-Bangladesh rhetoric. The BNP that is know for its critical views about India was also equally interested in pleasing the Indian Minister instead of raising during her visit, critical views about India.

The reasons for such stance of the AL and the BNP towards Sushma Swaraj’s visit are embedded in the nature of Bangladesh’s politics and in the partisan role-played in it by the outgoing Congress Government. That government had supported the AL against both opposition inside Bangladesh and abroad to hold the January 5 elections that helped the Awami League to return to power. The political situation for the AL led government has deteriorated since the elections and pressure from western countries for fresh elections has mounted. Therefore, the AL needs the type of support from New Delhi as it had received under the Congress Government very badly. It therefore hoped that Sushma Swaraj would convey such support of the new BJP government.

The BNP has been badly served by the Congress Government. It feels that had the Congress not interfered for the AL, it would have been able to force the government to hold participatory elections. That did not happen. Instead, the Congress Government took upon itself the task of gaining for the AL led government credibility for the January 5 elections where the western nations and the UN raised serious question about its credibility and legitimacy. The BNP was therefore excited that the Congress was routed in the Indian elections. It has been expecting that the new Indian Government would see the mistakes of the Congress Government and carry forward relations with Bangladesh where the interests of Bangladesh would come ahead of those of the Awami League.

The outcome of the visit has not made the Awami League happy. The Indian Minister made it clear that under the BJP Government; Bangladesh-India relations would be people to people and that in such relations, interests of any political party would be of no consideration. In her speech at the BIISS, Sushma Swaraj underlined the issues of institution building and tolerance and their importance to democracy. Reading between the lines, the emphasis could be construed as criticisms of the way the AL is governing. Further, the emphasis of the Official Spokesman Syed Akbaruddin about relations with people “that transcends any forms of government” is a clear departure from the parameters within which the outgoing Congress Government had conducted bilateral relations with Bangladesh.

Another major message that the visit conveyed to Bangladesh was given through the meeting of the Indian Minister with Begum Khaleda Zia. By meeting her, the Indians followed the direction set by the UN following the faux pas over the President’s meeting with the UNSG. The UN, through a most unusual statement on that meeting underlined that the BNP is the country’s main opposition party and that the ruling party must hold talks with it for fresh elections. India did not go as far as demanding fresh elections but by the meeting with Begum Khaleda Zia, it raised subtle questions about the January 5 elections and established the position of the BNP as the party represents the opposition in Bangladesh.

In the hype over whether the ruling party or the BNP scored the points from the visit, very little attention has been paid to the substantive issues of the visit. The Indians, notwithstanding what the Bangladeshi parties wanted, undertook the visit as one of goodwill. Therefore Sushma Swaraj simply stated that India is going to deliver the Teesta/LBA deals but said little else. She did not provide a time frame of delivery although for the LBA, the BJP government needs just the political will to deliver.

The Indians used the visit to score points for its new foreign policy direction, namely to be seen as the regional leader. In his inauguration, Narendra Modi had invited all SAARC leaders as part of that policy. Sushma Swaraj’s visit was also undertaken under this new foreign policy initiative. Nevertheless, she used the visit also to establish a fresh approach towards Bangladesh; no doubt by acknowledging the fact that the Congress’ policy of favouring the AL has resulted in India becoming unpopular across Bangladesh. Thus in her speech at BISS, in her talks with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister and Begum Zia and in the media briefing, the theme of the visit has been a clear one. The BJP government is interested to reach the people of Bangladesh to regain the popularity India has lost in the country under the Congress.

Two other aspects of the visit have hinted that the BJP government would be different from the outgoing Congress Government. One was that the two sides held separate press conferences as wanted by the Indian side. The separate press conferences suggest that the Indians did not want to be seen too close with the AL led government in its efforts to reach out to the people of Bangladesh. The second was that although the Indian Minister left press briefing to the MEA Spokesman, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister held the press conference of the Bangladesh side. In that conference, he made efforts to explain that Bangladesh has given India permission to use its roads for humanitarian reasons to dismiss perceptions in the country that it has granted to India, the land transit. He also mentioned about the BCIM-EC and India’s interest in it to convey the perception that the AL led government is already getting close to the new Indian Government. The Indians ignored the issue, perhaps because New Delhi has questions about Dhaka’s over-eagerness towards China..

The Bangladesh-India relations have not been conducted under the Congress Government in any professional manner. As a consequence, although India has gained undue advantages, some extremely important, it has been achieved at great harm to Indian image in Bangladesh and by pushing the politics of Bangladesh towards un-democratic path. It appears like the Indian side considered these points seriously. New Delhi knows that both the AL and the BNP are more than prepared to be equally with India and that it will not be necessary for the new BJP Government to play favourites with the two parties of Bangladesh to further its interests. Therefore, for long-term interests of India, the new Indian Government has opted to reach out to the people of Bangladesh.

These messages that have come out distinctly from the visit of Sushma Swaraj has gladdened the people of Bangladesh because they believe that India has the ability to encourage Bangladesh towards democracy. The Indian Minister with the trademark tip on her forehead and pleasant demeanour has impressed the people of Bangladesh although the same cannot be said of the AL. The BNP has been reasonably satisfied with the visit because the BJP government would not play favourites in Bangladesh anymore. Nevertheless, the BJP government must not try to keep Bangladesh satisfied on promises alone, like the outgoing Congress Government, and it must find ways to deliver the Teesta and LBA deals without further delay to improve India’s image in Bangladesh and Bangladesh-India relations on track.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. His email is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_On-Sushma-Swaraj%EF%BF%BDs-visit_900_2_5_1_0.html#sthash.sVA2Sba5.dpuf

When the dream of overseas jobs turns into a nightmare

-->

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

When the dream of overseas jobs turns into a nightmare

M. Serajul Islam

The recent incident in the Bay of Bengal in which five Bangladeshis were killed is no accident.  They were among 318 in a trawler who were trying to reach Malaysia illegally and were killed when Myanmar's human traffickers fired at them. The deaths of the Bangladeshis underscore a great tragedy that has been in the making for quite sometime. It reflects the air of hopelessness and desperation in the manpower market, where the dream of many for a job overseas is shrinking.

Recently, members of my immediate family were in Saudi Arabia for the Umrah. They were in Saudi Arabia a few times before for Hajj as well as Umrah. The news they carried back was that of a sharp drop in the number of Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia. On their earlier trips, they had found the overwhelming majority of those they came across at airports, in hotels, and in other labor-intensive places of work were Bangladeshis. This time, in their hotels, they found that most of the Bangladeshis were gone. Those few who were still there told them that the Saudis were recruiting labourers from other countries such as Pakistan, Nepal and Myanmar (the Rohingyas) to replace the Bangladeshis.

The number of new workers from Bangladesh to other Middle East (ME) countries has also declined but that is not due to a fall in demand. In Qatar and UAE, demand has in fact increased with the 2022 World Cup Soccer in Qatar and 2022 World Expo in Dubai. Yet in both Qatar and UAE, labour export from Bangladesh has declined - in case of UAE, much more. The reason for the decline of Bangladeshi labourers in these two countries and the rest of the ME that no one talks about is the way politics has been conducted in the country since the Awami League (AL) came to power in January 2009, and its reflection in foreign relations. The demand of the secular groups in Bangladesh that Awami League ban Jamaat-e-Islami has been one reason for the declining numbers of migrant workers. Added to that has been the demand in the country for the trial of those who are alleged to have been involved with war crimes in 1971.

The ME countries have not expressed any views on the two issues. They had no reason to do so because what Bangladesh does at home is Bangladesh's business. Nevertheless, the Jamaat has deep links with at least one of the countries in the ME. Therefore, before the AL-led government had decided to hold the war crimes trials and taken an ambivalent stand on banning the Jamaat, its foreign policy team should have explained, for reasons of economic diplomacy, to the ME countries its compulsions on both the issues. On her first trip to Saudi Arabia soon after assuming power in January 2009, the Prime Minister had explained the issues in her audience with the King. Unfortunately, the government ended messing up both the issues, in which the Shahbag Movement, that the government supported, also contributed significantly. Although the Jamaat has not been banned and just one of the war criminals has been hanged, the government ended up giving negative perceptions to the ME countries providing them enough excuse to believe that Islam was being victimized on the two issues.

The impact of the perceptions in the Middle Eastern countries is now emerging. Remittance figures have shown that in the 2013-14 financial year, remittance flow to the country would fall by over US$ 1.0 billion. With no new labourers being recruited to offset the numbers of workers being sent home from Saudi Arabia and many ME countries, the remittance figures are certain to drop further in the future.

The way Bangladesh conducted relations with the UAE also has had a negative impact on the remittance flow. Last year, Bangladesh for reasons no one has explained, voted against UAE in its successful bid to hold the Expo 2018. Bangladesh had instead voted for Russia that lost its bid. The result was, not only did UAE stop recruiting labour; at one stage it had even stopped granting transit visas to Bangladeshis using UAE airports for travelling to Europe and the USA.

The government, unfortunately, is in denial over the shrinking ME labour market. That is not the case in the villages of Bangladesh. There many hundreds of thousands have been encouraged to dream that one day, they too would follow the hundreds of thousands of their brothers/friends/relatives to work in the Middle East. However, lately the dreams of many began to fade as many were returning home with few leaving for their dream jobs. The conflict between the ministry of expatriates' affairs and the BAIRA, the association of manpower agents, has further added to the declining trend in manpower export.

The new BJP government in India has threatened to "push back" millions of alleged Bangladeshis in India.  Although Bangladesh disputes the huge figure that the Indians claim, the fact is that there are a large number of illegal Bangladeshis in India who went there, among other reasons, for a route to the Middle East. Human traffickers cheated them and abandoned them. That was years ago. These days, the human traffickers cannot smuggle Bangladeshis with the promise to send them to their dream jobs in the foreign lands through India, because meanwhile India has raised the impenetrable barbed wire fence along the Bangladesh-India border.

The tragedy in the Bay of Bengal is the result of what is happening in rural Bangladesh. The dream of overseas jobs has been forcing people in the rural areas to take desperate ventures with the temptations coming from the same traffickers who once led hundreds of thousands to a miserable life in the slums of India's Mumbai while promising them jobs in the ME. They are now misleading the new generation of rural Bangladeshis to brave the dangers of the high seas for dream jobs in Malaysia. No one in authority in the country seems to bother about educating these people that since there were no jobs in the Middle East for those who had been eventually trapped in India, likewise there were no jobs in Malaysia for those who were daring the dangerous seas to reach there.

Bangladesh's economy stands on two pillars: the ready-made garment (RMG) sector and foreign remittance. While the RMG sector has deep links with the power structure, the remittance earners are unfortunate who get honourable mention and little else. They are left literally at the mercy of the elements. At the time of going abroad, many of them fall victim to unscrupulous manpower agents for which they end up paying a lot more money for going abroad than the labour force in comparative jobs in the Middle East from other countries. In their place of work, many of them suffer inhuman cruelties with little support from the Bangladesh embassies to deal with their sufferings.

The country's domestic policy that has created misperceptions in the Middle East added to the miseries of the expatriate workers in that region. The consequences have created desperation in the villages of Bangladesh leading thousands to the traps of the human traffickers. Therefore, closing the net on the human traffickers alone would not improve the dangerous situation; for the sake of economic diplomacy, the country's foreign affairs team must go back to the drawing board and re-write their script for successful economic diplomacy with the manpower destination countries, particularly in the Middle East. Meanwhile, the relevant authorities must alert the people in our villages that instead of their dream coming true in Malaysia, there are no jobs at all in that country for illegal immigrants, and for those who risk the dangers of the high seas of the Bay of Bengal to reach Malaysia, a living hell awaits them there.

The writer is a career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Egypt’s presidential election: A counter-revolution

-->

 

 June 15, 2014

Egypt’s presidential election: A counter-revolution

M. Serajul Islam

 Egypt’s “Arab Spring” has turned sour and the country has another new era Hosne Mubarak who appears to have more grandiose visions of military rule than his predecessors including Gamal Abdel Nasser into whose footsteps he is trying to step. In the just concluded presidential election, the script was the same up to even the minor details as all the presidential elections held during President Mubarak’s 30 years of dictatorial rule of Egypt that were always short on credibility.

The new strongman of Egypt has chosen for himself the title that his illustrious predecessors did not have. Gamal Abdel Nasser was merely a Colonel, while Hosne Mubarak was a General. The new President of Egypt has the title of a Field Marshal. In the presidential run-off, he won 96.91% of the votes leaving nothing practically for his poor opponent. Only 47% of the voters turned out on Election Day compared to the 52% that had turned out when Egypt had its last presidential elections two years ago that had elected Dr. Mohammad Morsi as the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, when Egypt had its first direct presidential election, Hosne Mubarak had polled 88.6% of the 22.9% of voters that had turned out to vote.

The way Dr. Morsi was ousted is history. There was of course a lot that had gone wrong in the 13 months the MB had been in power in democratic Egypt. The MB was in a hurry to implement its Islamists agenda. They way it hurried through the drafting and implementing the new Constitution of Egypt without due consultations with the other groups in society and parliament was a grave error. It instantly and rightly upset the secular forces in the country that had been instrumental in bringing down the dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

The equally serious mistake of the Muslim Brotherhood was its failure to consider that although it had won both the parliamentary and presidential elections, it was not the majority in the society and the country. It had failed to realize that there was no way that its Islamic fundamentalist agenda would be accepted without compromise with the secular forces whose role in the “Arab Spring” was more significant than its own. During its short hold on power, the MB government had also indulged in acts of persecution against its political opponents and minorities similar to those committed during the military dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

Nevertheless, its mistakes notwithstanding, the MB had earned the right to rule and legislate the affairs of the country democratically. Therefore, the way the elected President Dr. Mohammad Morsi was removed and the legislature dissolved were also a denial of democracy and democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt. The persecution of MB supporters by the military regime of FM Sisi surpassed those by the regime of Hosne Mubarak on its opponents. Two instances of persecution of MB supporters were unbelievable. In March, the military backed Egyptian court sentenced 529 MB supporters to death for attacking a police station where many who were sentenced were not even present and many were not even members of the MB. In April, the court sentenced 683 MB supporters including some leaders of the party to death for killing one policeman!

These two cases stand out as unique instances in history where so many individuals had been sentenced in a court for killing just one individual; a policeman! Nevertheless, these instances also underlined the determination of the military rulers of Egypt to exterminate the MB for good. There was no doubt that the type of rule that Field Marshal Abdel Fatah el Sisi promised Egypt was welcomed by many who were fed up with the long period of instability following the downfall of General Mubarak that had a disastrous impact on the country’s economy. The Field Marshal was in fact brought to power by the very forces that had ousted the regime of Hosne Mubarak in the wake of Arab Spring, minus the MB that had supported that movement from the outside that had dissuaded the Americans from calling the take over by FM Sisi (then a General) a coup d’état.

Nevertheless, the take over turned out to be more than a mere coup d’état. The regime made no attempts to hide its intentions to re-establish military rule in the traditions of President Mubarak. There was no doubt that such intention also had the support among a substantial number of the masses. However, it was far from what the propagandist of the regime said it was; that it had support of the entire masses. That fact was borne out from the number that turned out to vote for the Field Marshal. The regime had promised a voter turn out of nearly 80%. The eventual turnout was about half of that. There were also reasons to suspect that the actual turn out was even less as many election booths were found empty on Election Day. International observers have also cast doubts on the elections credibility.

What has happened in Egypt is a counter-revolution. The democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt as expressed through the Tahrir Square revolution over 3 years ago has turned a full circle and power has once again gone to the very military that was overthrown by that revolution. The ease with which the military has re-established itself after an initial period of serious efforts of the MB to fight it has led many to write obituaries of the MB. An op-ed that appeared in the NYT of May 23, 2014 entitled “ The Muslim Brotherhood Will Be Back” however reminded those making such conclusions that such obituaries were written about it in the past too but were proven to be untrue. In 1963, Manfred Halpern, a noted Political Scientist, had written, “ secular nationalism had triumphed over political Islam.”

Today, the MB’s opponents are again claiming that the ouster of Mohammad Morsi was not that of a man but of a “world view” that Islam and democracy are not compatible. The NYT editorial pointed at the error of such a viewpoint by stating that the truth was in fact the reverse. It called the claim of MB’s opponent “an odd claim considering that it was the democratically elected Mr. Morsi who was overthrown by the army and not the other way around.” The NYT op-ed espoused the concept and cause of illiberal democracy; the need to accommodate regimes as democratic even where they do not fit into the western prescription that democracy and liberalism are complimentary and are inseparable.

In Egypt and in many countries of the world, regimes elected freely; and fairly and reflecting popular will have found it difficult to live up to liberal democracy. The problem of Islamist parties like the MB is even a more difficult one; they find they cannot “ fully express their Islamism in a strictly secular state.” Alternatively, if Islamist parties were to give up their Islamism “then this runs counter to the essence of democracy — the notion that governments should be responsive to, or at least accommodate, public preferences.” The problems of trying to resolve such illiberalism in democratically elected Islamic regimes by military coup d’état are huge; they could push such Islamist parties under ground and bring with it related consequences and dangers.

Nevertheless, the NYT op-ed has predicted that the assumption of power by Field Marshal Sisi would not in anyway be the end of the MB. Instead, the MB would be lurking in the wings as it had done in the past and waiting for democratic openings “ready to return to political prominence, and perhaps even power.” Therefore, the NYT op-ed concludes that the lesson of the Arab Spring is not that “Islamist parties are inimical to democracy, but that democracy, or even a semblance of it, is impossible without them.”

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Egypt’s presidential election: A counter-revolution

M. Serajul Islam

 Egypt’s “Arab Spring” has turned sour and the country has another new era Hosne Mubarak who appears to have more grandiose visions of military rule than his predecessors including Gamal Abdel Nasser into whose footsteps he is trying to step. In the just concluded presidential election, the script was the same up to even the minor details as all the presidential elections held during President Mubarak’s 30 years of dictatorial rule of Egypt that were always short on credibility.

The new strongman of Egypt has chosen for himself the title that his illustrious predecessors did not have. Gamal Abdel Nasser was merely a Colonel, while Hosne Mubarak was a General. The new President of Egypt has the title of a Field Marshal. In the presidential run-off, he won 96.91% of the votes leaving nothing practically for his poor opponent. Only 47% of the voters turned out on Election Day compared to the 52% that had turned out when Egypt had its last presidential elections two years ago that had elected Dr. Mohammad Morsi as the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, when Egypt had its first direct presidential election, Hosne Mubarak had polled 88.6% of the 22.9% of voters that had turned out to vote.

The way Dr. Morsi was ousted is history. There was of course a lot that had gone wrong in the 13 months the MB had been in power in democratic Egypt. The MB was in a hurry to implement its Islamists agenda. They way it hurried through the drafting and implementing the new Constitution of Egypt without due consultations with the other groups in society and parliament was a grave error. It instantly and rightly upset the secular forces in the country that had been instrumental in bringing down the dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

The equally serious mistake of the Muslim Brotherhood was its failure to consider that although it had won both the parliamentary and presidential elections, it was not the majority in the society and the country. It had failed to realize that there was no way that its Islamic fundamentalist agenda would be accepted without compromise with the secular forces whose role in the “Arab Spring” was more significant than its own. During its short hold on power, the MB government had also indulged in acts of persecution against its political opponents and minorities similar to those committed during the military dictatorship of President Hosne Mubarak.

Nevertheless, its mistakes notwithstanding, the MB had earned the right to rule and legislate the affairs of the country democratically. Therefore, the way the elected President Dr. Mohammad Morsi was removed and the legislature dissolved were also a denial of democracy and democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt. The persecution of MB supporters by the military regime of FM Sisi surpassed those by the regime of Hosne Mubarak on its opponents. Two instances of persecution of MB supporters were unbelievable. In March, the military backed Egyptian court sentenced 529 MB supporters to death for attacking a police station where many who were sentenced were not even present and many were not even members of the MB. In April, the court sentenced 683 MB supporters including some leaders of the party to death for killing one policeman!

These two cases stand out as unique instances in history where so many individuals had been sentenced in a court for killing just one individual; a policeman! Nevertheless, these instances also underlined the determination of the military rulers of Egypt to exterminate the MB for good. There was no doubt that the type of rule that Field Marshal Abdel Fatah el Sisi promised Egypt was welcomed by many who were fed up with the long period of instability following the downfall of General Mubarak that had a disastrous impact on the country’s economy. The Field Marshal was in fact brought to power by the very forces that had ousted the regime of Hosne Mubarak in the wake of Arab Spring, minus the MB that had supported that movement from the outside that had dissuaded the Americans from calling the take over by FM Sisi (then a General) a coup d’état.

Nevertheless, the take over turned out to be more than a mere coup d’état. The regime made no attempts to hide its intentions to re-establish military rule in the traditions of President Mubarak. There was no doubt that such intention also had the support among a substantial number of the masses. However, it was far from what the propagandist of the regime said it was; that it had support of the entire masses. That fact was borne out from the number that turned out to vote for the Field Marshal. The regime had promised a voter turn out of nearly 80%. The eventual turnout was about half of that. There were also reasons to suspect that the actual turn out was even less as many election booths were found empty on Election Day. International observers have also cast doubts on the elections credibility.

What has happened in Egypt is a counter-revolution. The democratic aspirations of the people of Egypt as expressed through the Tahrir Square revolution over 3 years ago has turned a full circle and power has once again gone to the very military that was overthrown by that revolution. The ease with which the military has re-established itself after an initial period of serious efforts of the MB to fight it has led many to write obituaries of the MB. An op-ed that appeared in the NYT of May 23, 2014 entitled “ The Muslim Brotherhood Will Be Back” however reminded those making such conclusions that such obituaries were written about it in the past too but were proven to be untrue. In 1963, Manfred Halpern, a noted Political Scientist, had written, “ secular nationalism had triumphed over political Islam.”

Today, the MB’s opponents are again claiming that the ouster of Mohammad Morsi was not that of a man but of a “world view” that Islam and democracy are not compatible. The NYT editorial pointed at the error of such a viewpoint by stating that the truth was in fact the reverse. It called the claim of MB’s opponent “an odd claim considering that it was the democratically elected Mr. Morsi who was overthrown by the army and not the other way around.” The NYT op-ed espoused the concept and cause of illiberal democracy; the need to accommodate regimes as democratic even where they do not fit into the western prescription that democracy and liberalism are complimentary and are inseparable.

In Egypt and in many countries of the world, regimes elected freely; and fairly and reflecting popular will have found it difficult to live up to liberal democracy. The problem of Islamist parties like the MB is even a more difficult one; they find they cannot “ fully express their Islamism in a strictly secular state.” Alternatively, if Islamist parties were to give up their Islamism “then this runs counter to the essence of democracy — the notion that governments should be responsive to, or at least accommodate, public preferences.” The problems of trying to resolve such illiberalism in democratically elected Islamic regimes by military coup d’état are huge; they could push such Islamist parties under ground and bring with it related consequences and dangers.

Nevertheless, the NYT op-ed has predicted that the assumption of power by Field Marshal Sisi would not in anyway be the end of the MB. Instead, the MB would be lurking in the wings as it had done in the past and waiting for democratic openings “ready to return to political prominence, and perhaps even power.” Therefore, the NYP op-ed concludes that the lesson of the Arab Spring is not that “Islamist parties are inimical to democracy, but that democracy, or even a semblance of it, is impossible without them.”

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is HYPERLINK "mailto:ambserajulislam@gmail.com" ambserajulislam@gmail.com - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_Egypt%EF%BF%BDs-presidential-election:-A-counter-revolution_886_2_5_1_0.html#sthash.nhBJirfG.dpuf

Contrasting Bangladesh politics with US politics

 

Contrasting Bangladesh politics with US politics

Post Editorial

Sunday, 15 June 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

Washington has been rocked this week by the unexpected news of the defeat of Eric Cantor who was seeking re-election to a Congressional District in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia. Eric Cantor is no ordinary member of the Republican Party. He is the Majority Leader in the House, the “heir apparent” to be next Speaker, a position of tremendous political power in the country. Eric Cantor, over and above all these, has represented the Congress seat from Virginia for 7 times in the past and would have gone to the House of Representative for an eighth time!

Eric Cantor was so confident of his victory that he spent the day of the election taking care of his legislative business as the Leader of the majority party in the House instead of any worries about the outcome of the election. He is a key Congressman in two major issues before the Republican Party and the Congress as the country heads towards elections for the Congress later in the year that also will have a major impact on the presidential election to take place in the end of 2016.

Paul Kane, writing the headline story in The Washington Post on June 11, 2014, stated that Eric Cantor “was considered the necessary linchpin in any possible breakthrough on a number of difficult issues facing Congress, from an overhaul of immigration policy to fiscal and tax reform. “  With Eric Cantor now out, Speaker John A Boehner who after an initial period of difficulties found in Eric Cantor a “loyal deputy”, will now find himself in a difficult situation in dealing with the Democrats on the tough issues related to fiscal, tax and immigration reforms. He will be under increasing pressure from the Tea Party members of the party as the gather force to derail the possibilities of compromise on these issues. Without compromise on these issues, the Republican Party would no doubt please the Tea Party members and their extreme conservative followers but could end up losing nationally as the country gears towards elections to the House of Representatives later this year. The fall of Eric Cantor did not just end the career of a politician almost without warning when he was on course to reaching the top. It has brought out into the open a host of other possibilities about US politics that are not just matters of concern for the Republican Party but for the country. One of course is that fact that it will put at jeopardy a possible  compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats on “ an overhaul of immigration policy to fiscal and tax reform.” 

Eric Cantor lost to a Tea Party candidate, David Bratt, a Professor who was not considered a serious challenger as he was not well known and his campaign was underfunded. His candidature received a last moment shot in the arm that took him ahead to take the primary with 55% of the votes after Eric Cantor made comments about the pending immigration bill just days before the primary election. Talking to a CBS affiliate in the US city of Richmond, the House Majority Leader had advocated citizenship for the children brought to the country illegally. That was enough to swing the voters as David Brat accused the Congressman of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, a highly sensitive issue among the conservatives. Eric Cantor’s defeat has also been attributed to the fact that he has been too busy with national issues and issues of the Republican Party and has lost his touch with his district.

Readers may keep in mind the fact that the election that Eric Cantor has lost is what in US politics is known as the primary.  He is still a member of the Congress and will remain so till the elections to the 435  seats of the Congress are held in November. The primary is a system unique in US and some western democracies that narrows down candidates of the parties for the main election. It also transfers the power of nominating candidates for national elections from the party leaders to the people.

The political parties do not choose the candidates who contest in national elections, to the Congress and White House, in the United States.  The candidates choose themselves by contesting in the primaries. These primaries are conducted at the grassroots without the direct interference or influence of the party leaders at the top level. The primaries also underline the way democracy as reflection of people’s power works in both these parties. Any member of the party can nominate himself/herself and contest in the primaries. There is no limit to how many members can participate in any one constituency in the primary. The candidate who wins the primary wins the nomination of the party.

The party does not choose on its own even the candidate it nominates for the presidential election.

Any ordinary member of either party can declare himself/herself to become a candidate for election to become the President of the United States. He/she must do so by declaring his/her candidature at the primaries. For the presidential election, the two parties have a fixed number of primaries and the candidate that takes the majority of electoral votes in these primaries is the candidate that the party must nominate as its choice for the presidential election. This is why it was possible for someone like Jimmy Carter in 1974 and Bill Clinton in 1992 to become presidential candidates although at the top level of the two parties, both the former Presidents were practically unknown political figures when they were nominated. Likewise, the candidate who just ended the promising career of Eric Cantor is a political unknown in the top level of the Republican Party. Yet he won the right to become the candidate of the Republican Party from Virginia seat defeating the candidate who is one of the top political leaders of the country.

In Bangladesh, the system we have is in direct contrast to the system at work in the United States. All political parties, and in particular the mainstream ones, consider it almost their God ordained right to nominate candidates for national elections at the top level of the party. The party supporters at the grassroots have simply no influence or input in choosing the candidate in their constituency for the parliamentary election.That is not all. The mainstream parties have meanwhile transformed their God ordained right to nominate candidates to all the constituencies as a very lucrative business and fund raising opportunity as candidates offer mind boggling sums for receiving party nominations. This system has also allowed individuals with money, both legal earned through business and illegally, to become members of parliament for they have the money to buy their nominations. This is also one reason why the country’s politics is so corrupt.

In the United States, the system of primaries emerged out of the progressive movement that began in the early part of the last century. The movement called progressiveness is still evolving. It helps bring issues into politics that people want because the primaries allow them to send to the elected offices those they choose. Perhaps it is time for such a movement to begin in Bangladesh. Perhaps such a movement that could bring primaries to Bangladesh could be the answer to the current ills of the country’s politics that is taking the country towards great uncertainty.

The writer is a former career Ambassador. His email id is
ambserajulislam@gmail.com

The unforgettable Mahbubul Alam: A giant among his peers

Post Editorial

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Author / Source: M. SERAJUL ISLAM

 

A month or so ago, I was watching from Washington, a Bangladesh television channel’s talk show in which Mr. Mahbubul Alam, Mahbub Bhai to many of us, was the only guest. I was shocked at his emaciated appearance. He of course spoke in his usual easy manner and explained what he wanted to explain in a way that was his trademark; the ability to tell the hardest truth while not losing his charming smile and easy manner. After the show, I called my daughter’s father-in-law Mr. Ziaur Rahman, Zia Bhai, a well-known former senior editor of the Voice of America who knew Mahbub Bhai, as a close friend and conveyed to him my concerns about him.

Zia Bhai had called him soon afterwards after I conveyed to him my concern.  Mahbub Bhai had told him that he was doing fine and that he had been to Bangkok where the doctors had given him a clean bill of health. A day before he died, Zia Bhai called me to inform me that his wife had called him to tell him that Mahbub Bhai was at the ICU of a hospital in Dhaka and was fighting for his life and that she and their 3 daughters were leaving for Bangladesh. Sadly, before they could reach Dhaka, Mahbub Bhai had passed away.

I knew Mahbub Bhai as a Foreign Service officer. Although he was one of the most outstanding career journalists in the country’s history, he had also distinguished himself in the foreign service that he served both at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Dhaka and also in the Bangladesh missions aboard.  At the Ministry, he was a Director-General (External Publicity) and at the missions, he was  Press Counsellor in London,  Press Counsellor in Washington and later he was sent to Washington for the second time as  Press Minister. When I was posted to Washington in 1990, Mahbub Bhai was already posted there as the Press Minister. Mahbub Bhai was also the Bangladesh Ambassador to Bhutan.

Mahbub Bhai was a more capable and distinguished diplomat than many who have served in the Bangladesh Foreign Service as career diplomats. In Washington, a capital that is the hardest for a Bangladeshi diplomat dealing with the press and media, Mahbub Bhai distinguished himself like no one had before him and no one since. He had mastered the most important attribute of diplomats that is building personal contacts with those in the host country who they considered would be helpful to them to further their country’s interests in their areas of responsibilities.

In 1992, I saw the ability of Mahbub Bhai when the then Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia visited the United States on an official trip. He utilized his contacts that he had painstakingly built to get the Prime Minister publicity that money could not buy. He was able to get the Prime Minister interviewed both in the Washington Post and the New York Times that underlined the brilliance of his abilities as Press Minister. He was able to get the interviews in those prestigious papers because he had from the day he arrived in Washington built the contacts with the papers so that he would be able to get publicity for VVIP visits to the United States. The two papers interviewed the Prime Minister more because of the personal contacts of Mahbub Bhai with the papers than because of their interests in either Bangladesh or the Prime Minister.

I remember Mahbub Bhai on the first VVIP visit we made together. It was the visit of President HM Ershad to Fiji to attend the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGRM) in 1981. I joined that visit from Canberra where I was then the Second Secretary. Mahbub Bhai was then the Director-General (EP) in the Foreign Ministry. That visit was HM Ershad’s first visit overseas as the country’s Head of State. In Fiji, being his first participation in a high profile meeting, the President was naturally not at ease.

The Foreign Minister was the high profile HMS Doha. There were army officers aplenty in that delegation of President HM Ershad and the poor civilians were constantly being watched for their performance. Mahbub Bhai was unperturbed and in the company of Abul Ahsan, who was on that trip as the Additional Foreign Secretary, underlined the high quality of the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as professional diplomats. I did not see Mahbub Bhai tense or worried even for a fleeting moment and he performed his duties and responsibilities like “business as usual.”

Zia Bhai told  me many stories about Mahbub Bhai the journalist. In particular, he told me how highly he was rated in the Pakistan days. He was the Bureau Chief of the Dawn, at that time Pakistan’s leading newspaper, to New Delhi during the India-Pakistan war of 1965. His reports from New Delhi were the talk of entire Pakistan at the informed circles because they provided the most detailed and in depth coverage of that war from the Indian perspective. In particular, his reports of the debates in the Lok Sabha during the war had made him a star in the media circles of Pakistan. Earlier, his coverage of news about the death of Pandit Jahwarlal Nehru and the event of his funeral had earned him the attention and respect of readers of Pakistan, both East and West. 

I found Mahbub Bhai’s public exposure as the Information Adviser to the Caretaker Government before the emergency was declared in January 2007 as so positive that it made me proud to have known him personally. In the short time he was in that role, Mahbub Bhai distinguished himself and impressed everybody by the way he would talk to the media. These days, we see our Ministers make a mockery of their meeting with the media. If they would care to take the videos of Mahbub Bhai’s meetings with the media during his short tenure as the Information Adviser that must be in the archives of the private TV channels, and studied those, they would have so much to learn. One major lesson they could learn from the life of Mahbub Bhai is how to establish authority and earn respect without showing arrogance or pride.

I started to write my column in The Independent primarily because of Mahbub Bhai’s encouragement and that of another colleague of his Golam Tahboor. At one time, between the two, they had gathered a team in The Independent that was talented enough to challenge any newspaper in the country. I spent many hours at his office with Tahboor Bhai talking of the possibilities of the paper. Sadly those promises were not fulfilled, not at all because of Mahbub Bhai but because of the lack of vision of those who needed to give his talents and leadership abilities due recognition.

I met Mahbub Bhai last year in Washington where he would come on a yearly visit every year, as his three daughters live here. On these visits, Zia Bhai would always arrange a dinner for him at his house together with common friends of the two in Washington. Zia Bhai arranged the last meal we had together as a lunch at a restaurant as Mahbub Bhai was unable to give time for the dinner. We chatted for a long time mainly about common friends and of course about the politics of Bangladesh. 

Among those I know and have known, Mahbub Bhai had the most rational and analytical assessment of politics of Bangladesh without the biasness over which most of us are unable to rise. He was not happy with the political situation and believed that we all had a duty to ensure that the country’s current tryst with the type of negative and destructive politics we are now witnessing in the country must end.Gustav Flaubert had said that “a friend who dies; it’s something of you who dies.” Mahbub Bhai had many friends and admirers.  I have no doubt that in them, as in me; it is a part of us that has died in the passage of Mahbub Bhai from the material world to the world of eternity. May  Almighty Allah rest his soul in eternal peace.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

On fallacy of the clash of civilizations

Post Editorial

Saturday, 07 June 2014

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

While prepa­ring for the lectures I gave recen­tly on Islam and globalization, I came across a wide array of books and articles that suggested that Islam and globalization are at the two ends of the spectrum with no common meeting ground. Famous Political Scientist Samuel Huntington in his book “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order” ruled out the chances of the Islamic countries ever being a part of the process of globalization. Instead, he predicted that there would inevitably be a clash between the western civilization and “the Islamic civilization”.

Professor Huntington originally articulated the idea of the so-called clash in an article for the Foreign Affairs journal in 1993 that he titled as “the Clash of Civilizations?” The question mark suggested that he had some element of doubt about the thesis. In the book however he dropped the question mark that suggested that any doubt that he had at the time of writing the article had gone and he was convinced that the world was inevitably moving towards a clash between the western world and the world of Islam. He therefore wrote the book as a prescription to the western world to prepare itself in order to be in the position to lead the new world order that would emerge as a result of the clash between the western world and the “Islamic world.”

The events of 9/11 were the perfect breeding ground for such a thesis to find acceptance in the West. Many in the West grabbed Professor Huntington’s theory and used it to justify the heavy price that the Muslims have paid since 9/11 for the crimes of the few terrorists who have been alleged to have committed the dastardly acts on 9/11.

The United States and allied troops went to Afghanistan and later to Iraq in pursuit of those they thought had masterminded the 9/11 attacks and their compatriots. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims, including women and children as  “collateral damage” as the US led allied troops pursued Al Qaeda and “Islamic terrorists”. The US left Iraq a few years ago. It is now preparing to leave Aghhanistan with its combat troops numbering 100,00 together with 40,000 from allied countries  by the end of the year. In Iraq,  the  current semblance of democracy  notwithstanding,  the country is yet far from becoming the sort of country that the US had promised it would be after it had removed Saddam Hossain for power and hanged him.

Sectarian viloence between the Sunnis and Shias resulting in deaths in large numbers are now common place. The US would be leaving Afghanistan by year’s end after its  longest  war ever  with the Taliban showing  signs of returning once  the US troops leave the country. In fact, between  Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has established the cardinal errors in the thesis of Professor Huntington, errors that have been  underlined by another scholar of history Edward Said in no uncertain manner.

Years before Professor Huntington wrote his book,  Edward Said in his book “Orientalism”, written in 1979,  had exposed the gross error in the way  the western world perceived the Orient. He underlined the West’s failure  to understand the internal cultural/regilious/ethni divisions and differences among those that made up the Orient among whom were the Muslims.Edward Said later elaborated his ideas in the light of Professor Huntington’s book and the spin given to  it  in the West as justfication for the actions of the United States and the alied troops   in Iraq and Afghainstan. In series of lectures and articles, he argued that the Muslims are niether  a monolith  nor a civilization  and that within the so-called Islamic world, there were regional, cultural and sectaran differences that made the argument forwarded by Professor Huntngton palpably erroneous.He underlined  the differences between the  Arab Muslims who constituted only 20 % of the  Muslims  of the world but perceived in the West as the entire Muslim world and the Muslims  elsewhere.

The present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan have  destroyed Professor Huntington’s thesis  on clash of civilizations further. Instead it underscored the correctness of Edward Said’s arguments about the wrong path taken by the United States and the alllies   in pursuing their so-called war on terror. In fact, the  present situation in the two countries went to establish that the Muslim world was  far from being a monolith that Professor Huntington had said it was  and in no way ready or interested or  even in any positiion to clash with any civilization, let alone the West. In fact, Muslims are dying at the hands of fellow Muslims suggesting that the clash of civilizations had been used by the West as an excuse to attack Muslim countries and that the Muslim countries had little to do with the clash and instead were the victims.

That the western countries had themselves contributed to the  one-sided clash between the West and  the Muslim countries  has been  underlined very recently by no other than Hillary Clinton. In an interview to FOX TV recently, she said that the Taliban in Afghanistan that “we are now fighting” was created by the United States . She also stated  that the US acting through Pakistan had sponsored and supplied the other logistics to arm and strenghten the Taliban so that it would work with the Mujahideens to fight the Najibullah Government and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Once the Soviet Union fell and the war in Afghanistan ended, the US withdrew  from the region and left Afghanistan to be overtaken by the Taliban and Pakistan to be permanently scarred by the Taliban Frankenenstein that it had helped create. In fact, even Osama Ben Laden’s safe passage from Sudan to Afghanistan was arranged by the US intellegence.

Therefore, the admission  from Hilary Clinton that USA had a hand in establishing the Taliban is  promising. It shows a sense of responsibility of the West in acknowledging problems in  the Muslim countries where the cause of the problems have not been the Muslim countries but the western powers. There are other promising signs in  the USA of  the country  moving away from the position where it was holding Muslims no matter where they came from, responsible for the crimes of few in the context of the events of 9/11. Already, the signs are visible in places like  the airports where Muslims no longer feel they are being held up and harassed because of the crimes of the 9/11 terrorists. The US State Department recently came out with a publication available on the internet. It  showed how American  Muslims  , estimated by sources to be close to 7 million, have been  integrating in the US mainstream and how their efforts were  being supported  by the Americans encouraged by the US Government. Readers may wish to read the publication available in the website given here;

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/­Ameri­­can_Muslims.pdf. If the integration of American Muslims into mainstream America is successful and it looks it is going that way, it could lead to positive developments for integrating the Muslim countries with the West.  Muslim Americans have their linkages with hundreds of millions of Muslims in the rest of the world where the message of their successful integration would undoubtedly have positive ramifications. That in turn would no doubt establish the fallacy of Professor Samuel Huntington’s thesis of the clash of civilizations; that a new world order would emerge as a consequence of that clash.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador and his email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Sushma's visit: Will it answer Bangladesh's worries?

 

June 10, 2014

Sushma's visit: Will it answer Bangladesh's worries?

M. Serajul Islam

What will Narendra Modi do with Bangladesh? This has been the subject of concern in the country's politics ever since the new Indian Prime Minister led the Bharatiya Party (BJP) to the biggest victory by a party/alliance in the last 30 years. Never before has the attitude of an Indian government towards Bangladesh been the subject of so much discussion in the country. In 1971, before the people of Bangladesh had time to worry about Indian stand, New Delhi not just had backed the Bangladesh war of liberation 100 per cent; it had also taken upon itself the task of looking after the 10 million refugees who had fled to India to escape the genocide perpetrated in the country by the Pakistani military.

New Delhi has always felt comfortable dealing with an Awami League government in Dhaka. When India had a Congress government and Bangladesh an AL-led government, then New Delhi felt that dealing with Bangladesh was like dealing with a power that could not be anymore friendly. But the BJP has been a little different and has in the past not shown any preference between the two mainstream political parties - the Awami League and the BNP - in conducting bilateral relations with Bangladesh. In 2001, when the BNP had come to power with a 2/3rd majority, the BJP had made genuine advances towards the BNP for establishing pro-active bilateral relations but those efforts were frustrated by the BNP.

When I was posted in Japan, I had an in-depth discussion with the Indian Ambassador to Japan Mani Tripathi on this aspect of Bangladesh-India relations. Mani Tripathi had gone to Japan on a cross posting from Dhaka where he was the Indian High Commissioner at the time of the 2001 national elections in Bangladesh. The Indian diplomat had told me that as the High Commissioner in Dhaka, he knew that the Awami League had no chance in wining the 2001 elections and that BNP would sweep the seats. He had therefore alerted New Delhi well ahead to be ready to deal with the incoming BNP Government. His initiative resulted in New Delhi being the first country to congratulate the BNP's victory and also the first to name a Special Envoy to visit Dhaka.

In both the cases, the BNP Government spurned the BJP Government's positive moves. The BNP Government, according to Mani Tripathi, announced the messages of congratulation from other countries before the one from India and did the same with the issue of Special Envoy although in both the instances, the BJP Government reached the BNP Government ahead of the other countries. It is not just the 1999-2004 BJP Government that had tried to deal with Bangladesh on a country-to-country basis; all non-Congress Governments of India had likewise done so. In fact, Bangladesh has benefitted more under non-Congress governments because those governments considered the interests of Bangladesh ahead of those of any political party in the country. The AL-led government achieved the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty of 1996 and the Chittagong Hill Tracts Agreement in 1997 under non-Congress governments while under the Congress Government in its last term, it was denied the Teesta and the LBA deals after Bangladesh had delivered to India, its security interests and land transit on a trial basis.

The present BJP Government has taken office at a time like never before as far as India-Bangladesh relations are concerned. The Congress Government had gone overboard in dealing with Bangladesh by considering the political interests of only the Awami League. It directly intervened in Bangladesh's internal affairs in the context of January 05 elections to ensure the Awami League returned to power a second time. It did so because it argued that if the AL did not return to power, the religious fundamentalist would and that would not be in India's interests. The other argument for Congress' blatant interference in Bangladesh, of course, was that the AL would support India's interests in a way New Delhi wanted which of course was the case.

The fact that the BJP is itself a religious fundamentalist party has destroyed the Congress' secular argument and therefore has removed the major foundation for New Delhi's need to interfere in Bangladesh blatantly as the Congress had done. That leaves the issue of India's national interest and how to achieve it as the only issue that would determine the BJP Government's policy towards Bangladesh. The AL-led government has publicly assured the new government ion Delhi that it would give it same support as it had given to the Congress Government. It has overlooked the BJP's role under the Congress Government when it was the reason why the Teesta and the LBA deals were not delivered.  Further, the AL-led government has also overlooked the BJP's other anti-Bangladesh stands, notably on the alleged Bangladeshis in India. Therefore, the BJP should only be too happy to deal with the AL-led government because it has offered India full support for furthering its interests in Bangladesh without demanding the two pending deals or demanding withdrawal of the threat to  "push back" the alleged Bangladeshis.

Jane's Defense Weekly (JDW) in a recent review of the direction of Bangladesh-India relations under the BJP Government has therefore predicted that it would follow the trend set by the Congress government. In fact, the BJP Government would be stupid to do otherwise under normal circumstances. However, the circumstances are hardly normal. First, the BNP would have been the party the BJP would now be dealing with had the January 05 elections been a normal, democratic one. Second, there is deep resentment in the country over the January 05 election. Third, the western countries have questioned the January 05 elections and continue to urge the Bangladesh government to hold participatory elections. Fourth, the AL-led government has so far been unable to win over the people to encourage them to forget the nature of January 05 elections. Finally, the BNP has changed its India policy dramatically and has offered to the BJP the same friendship as the AL-led government.

The above-mentioned factors would no doubt be at the back of Sushma Swaraj's mind as she comes to Bangladesh at the end of the month. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had requested Narendra Modi to consider Bangladesh his "second home" and make it the first country for starting his overseas trips. That he would be going to Bhutan instead and that Bangladesh is not yet in the list of countries he would be visiting up to September would suggest that Narendra Modi has not fallen for the Prime Minister's "second home" bait. He would instead be sending his External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to Dhaka no doubt to assess the political situation in Bangladesh first-hand. The new foreign affairs team in New Delhi must have meanwhile no doubt alerted the PMO in New Delhi about the political predicament of the AL-led government and that in the country and among the western countries, there is serious concern over the legitimacy of the government.

The BJP government and in particular Narendra Modi would need something that the Congress Government did not - namely American goodwill. For US goodwill, Narendra Modi would be visiting Washington in September. Bangladesh had figured to some extent in the coolness of Washington-New Delhi relations under the Congress Government. No doubt, Bangladesh would figure again in Obama-Modi talks as it had between Obama-Manmohon Singh when the latter had visited Washington in September 2013. In fact, the BJP government's Bangladesh policy would be clear only after the Obama-Modi talks in Washington. There are reasons to believe that those talks could be different from those between President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohon Singh.

Sushma Swaraj would not be expected to promise much to the AL-led government as according to JDW, "the Teesta river and land disputes over water flow from Bangladesh to India are likely to remain unresolved". There is no reason for her to make BNP happy either. In fact, as the BNP is no longer in parliament, she would not be expected to meet the BNP leadership. Nevertheless, unless she goes into some sort of denial, there is no reason for her not to see on her visit to Dhaka that the Congress had pursued a policy with Bangladesh that was wrong and could not be sustained because the country is yearning for new elections. Most importantly, she cannot unless in denial, fail to see how the Congress' policy in placing the interests of the Awami League ahead of the interests of Bangladesh has harmed India's standing in the country.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador.