Visit of US Under-Secretary of State: Underlying messages

M. Serajul Islam

The Holiday, April 13, 2012

At the US Department of State, the affairs of Bangladesh are usually decided at the level of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. It was so when I was posted there in the early 1990s. It was only once in a while that the Ambassador used to call on the Assistant Secretary for South Asia and seldom if ever on the Under Secretary of State. During my stint at the Washington Embassy as a Political Counsellor, I used to accompany the Ambassador in his meetings at the US State Department. It was Ambassador Tereshita Schaffer who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary and she used to be enough to deal with whatever issues we had with the US Government. 

Things however changed once we decided to commit troops for the first Gulf War. The US Government, desperate at that time to make the coalition troops to deal with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as broad based as possible, was particularly grateful to President Ershad for committing troops. The fact that Bangladesh was the third largest Muslim country made our decision all the more welcome to the United States.  After that decision of President Ershad, the Ambassador’s access was upgraded to the level of the Assistant Secretary and the Under Secretary. However, as soon as the Gulf War ended, the level of access of our Ambassador was again pushed down to the level of the Deputy Assistant Secretary. 

That was nothing unusual. In fact that is the way the US does its diplomacy. When the US has an interest in any country, the level is raised at their instance. A good example of this style of US diplomacy was the treatment that was given to President Pervez Moshraff after Pakistan joined the war on terror. Pakistan that was a pariah just before 9/11 for usurping the democratic government of Nawaz Sheriff became US’s closest ally after joining the war on terror. In fact, in those days, Present Pervez Moshraff could claim to be in the US President’s closest list of buddies.

It was therefore a pleasant surprise that the third highest ranking diplomat at the US Department of State paid a two day official visit to Bangladesh. Under Secretary for Political and Military Affairs Wendy Sherman’s visit was billed as a familiarization trip as she assumed the office only recently, in September last year. It is a usual practice in the US system for an officer to undertake a visit to the countries under his/her watch after taking office. However for countries such as Bangladesh, such a practice is restricted to the mid-level and junior level officers. The visit was therefore more than an usual familiarization trip;   in fact it was undertaken because the US had messages for the Bangladesh Government just as it had when it sent Assistant Secretary Robert Blake to Bangladesh during the ousting Dr. Yunus from the Grameen Bank.

On the surface, there is nothing unusually important in Bangladesh-US affairs at present to warrant such a high ranking officer of the US Department of State to undertake a visit to Bangladesh. In fact, in her talks with the Foreign Minister, the issues that the two sides discussed were routine. The issue of security figured prominently in the talks. The Under Secretary informed journalists after the talks that the Assistant Secretary for Political and Military Affairs would be visiting Bangladesh on April 19 for a security dialogue. She noted with satisfaction about Bangladesh’s initiatives in tackling terrorism after the Government of Sheikh Hasina assured office in early 2009. 

In her talks with the Prime Minister also the issue of security figured prominently. Ms Sherman welcomed the various actions of the Bangladesh Government in tackling terrorism, particularly its zero-tolerance to terrorism. She nevertheless expressed the view that the task of battling terrorism is a tough one and the Government would need to keep its focus against terrorism all the time. The Prime Minister briefed the visitor about the 5000 plus elections held by the EEC that has recently been strengthened. She assured the Under-Secretary that the next general elections would be free and fair. She requested the US for including Bangladesh in the Millennium Challenge Account to receive assistance from the fund. 

The Under Secretary also assured that Bangladesh would receive US 1 billion in assistance from the US in health, food security, and climate change and disaster management. In her official talks with the Foreign Minister and in her courtesy call on the Prime Minister, the US did not raise anything related to the Grameen Bank nor with the current political stalemate in the country over the system under which the next general elections in Bangladesh would be held. On the latter issue, she just underscored US expectations that it would be free and fair. 

In fact, the importance  of this important visit was revealed not in her official meetings but in what the Under-Secretary said outside these meetings, in her press conference and in the TV interview that she gave to a local TV station for instance. It was also revealed in her visit to the Grameen Bank. It was of course also revealed in what the Government of Bangladesh failed or did not raise with her in the official meeting with the FM and in the courtesy call on the Prime Minister. In her press conference and the TV interview, the Under-Secretary underscored the US view regarding the next elections. She said the US would like to see an election that would be free and fair in which all the parties, big and small would attend. 

Quite clearly that was a hint that the US would be disappointed if the next general elections are held with the BNP and its allies not participating. The Prime Minister true to her form did not lose anytime and responded immediately to such a desire of the US Government. She used the Leader of the Opposition and her usual sarcasm to dismiss any possibility of accepting the BNP’s demand for holding the next elections under the caretaker government. The US would have to be dumb to miss the direction at which the Prime Minister’s sarcastic dismissal of the CG was hurled. 

The Under-Secretary’s visit to the Grameen Bank was also an unmistakable pointer at what the US thinking is about Bangladesh. The Under-Secretary took considerable time out of her short visit to Bangladesh to make a trip to a GB location at Manikgang, not a particularly easy place to access. She made strong points for the future of the GB and the commitment of the international community to its future. Quite clearly, the audience for her strong words for the GB was not the people of Bangladesh but the Prime Minister and her associates who encouraged her to pursue the case against Dr. Yunus. 

The Bangladesh Government is clearly stuck in diplomatic quicksand as a consequence of the differences that have emerged between the two countries over the Grameen Bank and the Dr. Muhammad Yunus episode. The Prime Minister and her aides have publicly spoken in the media that Dr. Yunus has used his influence with the US Secretary of State to stop the WB funding for the Padma Bridge. The Under-Secretary’s visit was the right opportunity for Bangladesh to discuss this perception and find out whether it is correct and to ask the US Government to use its influence over the WB that is obviously has, to remove misunderstanding, if any.   

The Prime Minister did not although it is as its wits end over the mess it has made in dealing with GB and Dr. Yunus. It has found no evidence against Dr. Yunus to sustain its charges with which it had snubbed the US Secretary of State and the US President who had both requested our Prime Minister to deal with the Noble Laureate honoruably that she did not. The Prime Minister then made a strange gesture when she asked the EU to nominate Dr. Yunus for the post of President of the WB that was dismissed without even an attention at the right quarters, although at least two of the Prime Minister’s Advisers stated in the media that the Prime Minister was serious about her request. 

While the Communications Minister is in KL signing a MOU with the Government of Malaysia on funding the Padma Bridge, the Finance Minister has stated that the Government has not given up its hopes that the WB would in the end fund the PB project. He is no doubt worried that it is not just the PB loan that is stuck in the Prime Minister’s dislike for Dr. Yunus; funds from leading financial institutions/donors crucial to Bangladesh’s development are also stuck. His worries notwithstanding, his colleagues are projecting the Malaysian option as a success of the Prime Minister’s leadership for bringing funding for the PB over the WB/JICA/ADB denial and by inference,  US objection. No one in Government seems concerned that a MOU is not even a serious commitment and may never even see the light of day as eventually happens to most MOUs.  

In drumming up the Malaysian option as a success of the Prime Minister’s leadership, the Government is not telling the people what would be the Malaysian take on the funding. Surely, the Malaysian would not provide the funds at the less than 1% interest rate and the generous repayment period of the WB. Malaysia has no reason to do such a huge favour to Bangladesh. It is the same country that is giving our expatriates such an unfair deal. The Malaysians, if they go through the deal, would be eventually doing business with the PB and not providing humanitarian assistance to Bangladesh where the costs could double and the people tied for decades paying tolls for the bridge. In going for the Malaysian offer, the Prime Minister has literally kicked a gift horse in the mouth for pursuing a personal agenda. 

The US Under-Secretary left clear suggestions where US-Bangladesh relations stand at the moment. The US has not forgotten the affront of the Prime Minister made to the US Secretary of State and the US President over the GB issue that has now become almost an obsession for this US administration. She has also left with the distinct hint that the US  would  use its power and influence to see that the next general elections in Bangladesh are held in a manner that would be participated not just by the ruling party but by the opposition BNP as well.  

By irony, the AL today finds itself in the same predicament as the BNP found itself before the last general elections. At that time, the BNP as the ruling party had incurred the displeasure of the United States over the issues of terrorism and corruption and paid the price. This time, over the issue of the GB, Dr. Muhammad Yunus, corruption and refusal to make the playing ground even for all parties to participate in the next general elections, the AL as the ruling party is again facing the displeasure of the United States. 

The BNP made the mistake in its last term by refusing to heed to the US displeasures and paid the price. The AL led government should not take the US displeasures too lightly as the Prime Minister seems to be doing and ending up displeasing the US much more than the BNP. When the last Prime Minister did not take US concerns seriously not only did she lose power;  the people of Bangladesh also suffered  badly with a military rule that set back Bangladesh decades back in its development efforts. That is the message that Ms. Wendy Sherman left to the Prime Minister and her team. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

On making Bangla an UN language

The Daily Sun
April 8, 2012
M. Serajul Islam

In her speech at the UN after becoming the Prime Minister the second time in 2009, Sheikh Hasina made a strong case about Bangla as an official language of the UN. She reasoned that Bangla is spoken by over a quarter billion people of whom 160 million live in Bangladesh. Of course, the fact that Bangla is one of the leading languages of the world on its own strength has also been used to make the case. 

As Bangladeshis, we all support this move of the Prime Minister whole heartedly. But how serious is the case? A language’s strength to be accepted internationally depends to large extent on the strength of the nation or nations that speak that language. In this context, Bangladesh’s standing in the international context is not one that would give our case an immediate acceptability. On a serious note, there is a great deal more to be done to develop our country before our case would receive serious attention in the UN circles. 

In fact, the need to do something for our language in more limited circles is much more of an immediate need than to make our case at the UN. On a recent flight on an airline of the Middle East, the importance that Bangla is accorded or the lack of it was driven home to me.  An announcement over the airline’s PA system said proudly that its flight attendants are proficient in a number of languages some of which are spoken by people far fewer in numbers than Bangla and the nations where these languages are spoken are not developed nations either.  Bangla was not in the list of these languages. 

Yet this flight was carrying almost all Bangla speaking passengers. This airline and other airlines like this one do extensive business carrying Bangla speaking passengers.  In fact this particular airline flies more flights to and out of Bangladesh than all other foreign airlines doing business in our country.  Leaving aside the shortcomings that there may be to make our case a strong one for the UN, there is no reason why this airline with a plane load of Bangla speaking passengers should be announcing “proudly” the proficiency of its attendants in a variety of languages and Bangla would not be one of them. It is an insult to the country. 

It is not just with the language that this airline shows disrespect to us as a nation.  We have over 5 million people assisting these countries in their development efforts. Yet, they do not accord to them even the respect which they show other expatriates helping them in similar ways in their development.  On board these airlines, we get a sampling of what Bangladesh means in the region.  Open any of the newspapers of these countries. Inside, the Indians and the Pakistanis are given separate pages for news of their respective countries. With number of expatriates as close to theirs, news about Bangladesh is not given even a fraction of news from our neighbouring countries.  

The flight attendants/staff of these airlines clearly show how little they care for Bangladeshi passengers. At the Dhaka airport of my recent fight out of Dhaka, we were kept waiting for an hour inside the boarding lounge, seriously overcrowded, with most of us worried about catch our connecting flights from Dubai. The airlines did not have the minimum courtesy to  explain any reason for the delay! It was therefore no surprise that these airlines recently decided not to pay our travel agents commission for selling tickets.  The travel agents took the airlines to court where the matter is pending. These airlines’ have not dared any such action in any countries in our neighborhood.  

Bangladesh is the third largest Muslim country in the world. Article 25 (2) of our Constitution says that “The State shall endevour to consolidate, preserve and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries based on Islamic solidarity.” With such over flowing of our Islamic commitments, we don’t seem to receive the reciprocity that we deserve from those whom we try to please by overstating our Islamic credentials. It is common knowledge that we are perceived as the miskins or the poorest of the poor just because most of our people who work in the region serve in sectors that are unskilled. 

Yet all these countries were economically poor not that long ago. Saudi Arabia for instance was surviving from the money the pilgrims were spending there and Dubai was little more than a fishing outpost till oil was discovered. Hence these countries have no good reason to treat our people the way they do. Equally poor people from equally poor countries such as India, Pakistan,  Sri Lankan and Nepal are treated better than our people in the Middle East. 

The discrimination against our people is largely due to the fact that while our leaders talk big about us as a nation, they do little when it comes to protecting its good name and the interests of its people abroad.  We send our people literally at the mercy of the manpower agents and their counterparts in the destination country who between them fleece our expatriates. Our Government comes in the picture only to claim credit for the huge remittance they send that is a major reason why Bangladesh today has become quite a success story in economic terms.  

The Embassies of other manpower exporting countries under direct instructions of their respective governments work with their host governments so that their expatriates are dealt fairly in terms of pay, privileges and their other interests.  In contrast, in our case in the Embassies the officials are constantly fighting amongst themselves as many Ministries of the Government are represented there without any real line of authority and little coordination. The expatriates make it even more difficult for themselves by infighting  as they are organized on political lines unlike expatriates of other countries where there is no such division. 

It is high time for sake of Bangladesh where our Prime Minister is making such an important move for Bangla and Bangladesh to help her in her cause. The Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Civil Aviation should get together and resolve the small matter of indifference to Bangla by the airlines. The two should also get together and ensure that our passengers get the same respect as any other passenger for there is no concession given to a Bangla speaking passenger for travelling in these airlines.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a major task in talking to the Governments of the Middle East to ensure that our people are not discriminated against for surely ours are as any Bangladeshi serving there would attest. The Embassies should talk with the newspapers and ensure better coverage for Bangladeshi expatriates for surely it is a failure on their part that they have not been able to do anything in this regard so far.  

The initiative for a concerted effort in this regard must come from the top. The Prime Minister must set the ball rolling and take diplomacy to the highest level of the ME leaders and impress upon them the importance that Bangladesh attaches to its Islamic credentials and that its constitutional guarantee to Islam is not just lip service. The rest of her foreign policy team should make concerted and well coordinated efforts to turn the Prime Minister’s initiatives into results. The task here is humungous and would need deeds not speeches to achieve.  

In this context, we are not even at the starting line compared to where our neighbours are. Our expatriates in the developed nations are much better off than their less fortunate expatriates in the ME. They should also be brought into the loop on basis of bipartisanship for giving Bangla the international acceptance and Bangladesh the right image.   The efforts would take decades to achieve if we are serious about giving Bangla the importance that our Prime Minister is seeking at the UN. Towards that objective,  let us focus on the issues at hand such as getting for Bangla the respect of the airlines and our people dignity in the ME. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

.

The vanishing acts of our public life

As I See It Column
The Independent
7th April, 2012

There must be some weird connection with the strong statements that the Prime Minister makes in public and what happens afterwards. As soon as she takes a stand on an issue, for some unexplained reasons, something goes wrong. In recent weeks, she has been making strong claims about the success of her government in bringing a very large amount of electricity to the national grid. In fact, her claim is since coming to power, the Government has added 3000 MW of electricity to the national grid. 

Lo and behold ever since her claim, the load shedding has suddenly become the worst for a very long time. In fact, in the city’s Gulshan area, load shedding has been taking place every alternate hour. The authorities have also done something that was not done before; they have stopped providing electricity to the industries from sunset to sunrise! The CNG stations are also being forced to close down for longer period every day.               

The government came under severe criticism for the quick power rentals through which a lot of the 3000 MG of electricity has been added to the national grid. These quick rentals were established by cutting corners because the government argued that the matter was urgent and hence the normal procedures of government expenditures could not be applied to the power sector. In Pakistan that also went for quick rentals for the same reasons as we have, the Court has recently passed a judgment to shut down the quick rentals for a variety of reasons including corruption.  Nevertheless, the perception in the knowledgeable circle in Bangladesh is that the business benefits of these quick power rentals have gone to people with high political contacts who have already pocketed huge sums most of which they have taken out of the country at the expense of the public. 

The equipments for these quick rental power plants were  procured from abroad at huge foreign exchange. In fact, the sudden dip of the Taka against the US$ a few months ago has been due to the sudden need of foreign exchange to establish the quick rental power plants. The public, curious and concerned that corners have been cut, nevertheless reasoned that all was done for a good cause. For an energy starved country, few were serious enough to hold the government responsible for the corners cut. 

The sudden and dramatic increase in load shedding now has many questioning about what is happening in the power sector. The question that everybody is asking is where has the 3000 MW of electricity vanished? It simply could not have withered away as seems to be the case. Since the Prime Minister has herself gone public over it, her government now owes it to the public to come out with the answer. The longer the authorities take to explain about the sudden shortage of electricity the more will there be questions and suspicions in the public mind. The Prime Minister’s explanation that demand has gone up in recent times does not explain the dramatic and unbearable load shedding of recent weeks. Some of her sarcastic remarks on such a serious issue have upset the people instead of clearing the suspicion surrounding the vanishing electricity. 

Some of the questions that people are raising are not very good for the ruling party as it enters the final stretch for the next general elections. One public perception is that a good number of the quick power rentals have already broken down due to the poor quality of their equipments. Others are saying that the government has already piled up huge amount in unpaid bills to these private rental companies and they have stopped supplying electricity to the national grid for nonpayment of bills. A third perception is the rising price of furnace oil in the international market that the government is contract bound  to pay to the quick rental companies  has rendered the government further  incapable owing to its very weak financial predicament and that the power situation is only going o worsen in the coming summer.

There is another perception that as there is no mechanism to check how much electricity these rental companies are adding to the grid, they are ending up supplying much less but billing the government for the amount contracted nevertheless. Of course, these perceptions may be  wrong but it would also not be fair to blame the public for it because the whole process of the quick rentals has been intransparent that is now breeding these stories.  In fact, what the people are saying makes more sense than the explanations coming from the Government some of which are palpably weak and misleading. 

It is not that this government is the first one to be caught in this vanishing game and cannot come out with acceptable answers. During the caretaker government, then Army Chief General Moin U Ahmed had publicly concluded that the government would be able to recover thousands or crores of Takas that they had claimed had been siphoned off by corrupt politicians/bureaucrats/businessmen. The General had then boasted that the government would recover those thousands of crores of Takas and with it build roads/hospitals and a host of other public welfare projects. Those thousands of crores of Takas were no doubt collected, more by threat of life and honour then on genuine issues of corruption but only a fraction of that money has found its way to the public exchequer. The overwhelming majority of the huge amount realized also simply vanished! 

The same vanishing game was evident again during the share market scam of not too long ago. This time, the investigation to the scam was conducted by a committee appointed by the Government. The committee’s report stated that ordinary investors were made victims of scam run by a few well known investors who were also responsible for s similar scam when the AL was in power the last time. The Report became controversial for a variety of reasons. In the process, the issue of thousand of crores of Taka allegedly skimmed by a few individuals, although well established in the Report, was not pursued or recovered. Not even a small part of the money found its way to the banks or the market. The huge sum of money was taken out of the market through the vanishing game that our politics has mastered.  

Then there is the vanishing act by the murderers of the journalist couple. The Home Minister’s 48 hours’ time frame to catch the murderers has turned in to a cruel joke. The powerful lobby of journalists who came together on a bipartisan basis to put pressure on the authorities has so far failed. This is just one more example of how things just vanish in our public life, things that include electricity, money, murderers and what not? The cliché that facts are stranger than fiction only would be able to describe these vanishing acts in our public life. Unfortunately, people are losing their faith in government as a consequence of these vanishing acts. Sarcastic remarks and blaming past governments and the opposition will not help the ruling party gain the credibility it needs to win the next elections. 

The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt

Is the AL shifting its India policy?

Daily Sun
Sunday, 1st April, 2012
M. Serajul Islam

There is a perceptible change in stance in the way the AL leaders are talking about India in recent days. In her recent speech in Sylhet, the Prime Minister has stated in forceful terms that Bangladesh would oppose the construction of the Tippaimukh Dam if it goes against the interest of the country.  

Earlier, when the new Indian High Commissioner had made his courtesy call on her, the Prime Minister asked India to conclude the Teesta deal quickly; to include Bangladeshi experts in any study for constructing the Tippaimukh Dam and  to reciprocate to the gestures that Bangladesh has made for improvement of bilateral relations. She also asked India to take concrete steps to stop the killing of innocent Bangladeshis on Bangladesh-India border. 

Bangladeshis are pleasantly surprised that the Prime Minister is talking about her displeasure with the Indian Government for they were getting accustomed to this Government’s eagerness to please India even before they asked. Foreign Minister Dipu Moni who encouraged people hitherto to consider it their national duty to please India mustered the courage to decline the Indian offer to deal with Bangladesh’s case with India bilaterally on demarcation of the maritime border. 

Nevertheless, the voice of disapproval with India is still not as forceful as most people would like. On the proposed Tippaimukh Dam, the bipartisan consensus in Bangladesh among the people is that it would bring disaster to the country. To those who are aware about the conventions concerning international rivers, India’s decision to build a dam nearly 170 meters high is a major violation. An upper riparian of an international river can only build such structures unilaterally if their height is limited up to 15 meters.  

The landmark decision at Hamburg by ITLOS has been received by the people of Bangladesh on a bipartisan basis as one of the best piece of news since we became independent. The news was particularly welcome as Myanmar and India through the equidistant principle had threatened to take away a major portion of our access to the Bay of Bengal. The way the two countries had intended to draw the line refused to take into consideration the concave nature of our coast and our population as well as the need for our people to have adequate access to the sea. 

The Hamburg decision has eased our access to the Bay of Bengal on the Myanmar side but still we need to have a similar decision in our case with India that will be decided in another forum, the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. At this stage, we can legitimately expect that we will be able to get a favoruable verdict at The Hague as well because ITLOS has set the precedence by accepting   the equity against the equidistant principle.  Nevertheless we would not know for sure what we will receive for the Tribunal till the decision is finally made in 2014 although Hamburg should give us the confidence in the strength of our case.

Given their consensus view against Tippaimukh, the people of Bangladesh expected the Prime Minister to tell the Indians that their decision is arbitrary and against the interest of Bangladesh. Instead, the Prime Minister in her speech at Sylhet seemed not yet convinced that the Dam would be a nightmare for Bangladesh. She appeared still convinced that India would not do anything without consulting Bangladesh. She asked people not to worry over it and assured them that Bangladesh would raise the issue in the JRC.

The Foreign Minister in rejecting the Indian offer for bilateral resolution of the maritime boundary issue also hesitated to displease India completely. She also held out the possibility of bilateral consultations if India accepted the principle of equity. At a time when most Bangladeshis have taken the Hamburg decision as a prelude to a similar decision at The Hague, the prospect of also talking with India bilaterally as the FM has hinted has frustrated many who, going by the history of Bangladesh-India bilateral relations, feel that such a step would be walking into a trap particularly when they have very little confidence in the team that has negotiated with India bilaterally under this government. 

The Prime Minister and her Foreign Minister, by their respective statements, have nevertheless acknowledged that India has emerged as a political card with both mainstream parties now preparing their respective strategies for the next elections due in two years time. India’s failure to deliver on the issues of sharing the waters of the common rivers, stopping the Tippaimukh and stopping killing of innocent Bangladesh by the BSF on the Bangladesh-India border has enhanced the anti-Indian feelings in Bangladesh. Bangladeshis have been particularly disappointed that India has not tried to resolve these critical issues after promising to do so, on reasons that are not very convincing. The fact that India has accepted  Bangladesh’s concessions on the important issues of security and land transit that Sheikh Hasina provided at great political risks and so far  has failed to reciprocate has made many curious about what India has in mind. 

Awami League has now realized that they have negotiated with India without doing their homework. They just convinced themselves that India would not disappoint the Awami League Government.  Both Dipu Moni and Gowhar Rizvi expressed their hopes on the Teesta deal late into the evening of 5^th September even after the Indian Foreign Secretary had announced in a press conference that India was taking the Teesta deal off the table during the Indian Prime Minister’s Dhaka visit the next day. The naïve hopes of the two left no one in doubt that they believed in India unreservedly. Even after the Dhaka fiasco over Teesta, Ministers of the Government made statements that India would sign the deal in 3 months time out of their conviction in India’s good intentions. 

That has not happened.  Border killings have not stopped. India went ahead and decided to sign a contract to build the Tippaimukh leaving Bangladesh to learn of it from the website of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. A disappointed AL now realizes that India’s failure to reciprocate has placed the party in a tight political corner where the BNP is beginning to gain favour with the people with the rising anti-Indian feelings in the country. Hence it is beginning to express its disappointment with India although not yet in a position to make its case against the Indians strongly.  

There are some who supported the AL’s move to make unilateral concessions to India in the belief that India would open its market to Bangladesh and make it the connectivity hub of the region. These people, mostly economists, have not bothered about issues of water, land border, Tippaimukh or killings at the border. Unfortunately for them, the economic benefits are not coming fast enough. India has already become an issue in the context of the 2014 elections. 

It is to this reality to which  the AL is slowly reacting. They have also belatedly woken  to the fact that New Delhi is in no position to deal with Bangladesh on water, trade and exchange of enclaves issues without consent of provinces/parties and interest groups. In fact, politicians like Chief Minister Mamata Banarjee, parties such as the BJP and interests groups such as India’s RMG sector have the power to deny Bangladesh its rights on the contentious bilateral issues and the centre has little power to do anything. 

AL’s dissent is expected to increase in the time ahead because India is now in no position to deliver what Bangladeshis legitimately expect from it. There is talk of an election in India within a year following the recent provincial elections. This will further delay for India to deliver on promises, of course if they had the honest intent to deliver in the first instance, which in turn will only increase anti-Indian feelings that the AL can now overlook only at its political peril.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan

On new Banks and more Universities

As I See It Column
The Independent
March 31, 2012
M. Serajul Islam

A young member of parliament on a popular TV talk show said something astounding on the permission that the Government has given to establish a number of private universities. He said that permission has been given to one applicant who cannot even sign his name! He did not name the individual but he assured viewers that in due time he would reveal it. 

In the same talk show, the permission being given to a number of new banks was also discussed. I was pleasantly surprised to hear a ruling party MP criticize the issue. He said that to his knowledge, those who applied are not in a position to raise the minimum of hundreds of crores of Taka necessary up front to establish a Bank these days. He was apprehensive that the sponsor Directors of these new Banks would loan money, using political influence, from the nationalized Banks that in turn would take public money away for benefit for a few individuals with little of banking credentials but a lot of political influence. 

I can guess why certain politically connected individuals would be so interested to be sponsor directors of private banks. By investing a pittance, sponsor directors in the past have minted fabulous amounts. It is not that they just minted money; even their behaviour pattern has been affected by the money they have made. When these sponsor directors address their bank officials, they address them like they are royalty and the bank officials, serfs! They insist and their employees oblige for fear of their jobs that they be addressed as “Hon’ble Directors”!  

Nevertheless, these private banks have played a great role in the economic miracle of Bangladesh. Bangladesh’s RMG sector has emerged because of the financial backing they have received from these private banks. However, the private banks are already over numbered and the sector, over saturated. In fact, if the Bangladesh Bank would impose the strict regulations, a good number of the existing banks would go under the water because their fundamentals are wrong. They are surviving by managing and juggling their accounts by many tricks available with the regulatory authority  under political pressure or otherwise to overlook their violations of banking regulations. The BNP’s statement not too long ago that some banks could fail was not entirely baseless. 

Added to this poor health of the private banks, the pool of officers required at run banks at managements levels are limited and existing banks are in shortage of quality officers. An interesting phenomenon of the private banks in Bangladesh is the regular movement of officers at management levels from one bank to another by lures of pay and other perks. One has to wonder from where the new banks would get the senior officers they would require to operate successfully. 

The phenomenal development in the banking sector in terms of technology has allowed banks to offer services to the clients more efficiently with less manpower and without reaching out to them in the physical sense. In other words the banking sector is not really in need of more new banks for better service. In fact, what is more necessary is to consolidate the existing banks by  amalgamation of those banks  whose fundamentals are still weak and  surviving by managing things in a manner that are neither transparent nor legal. The new banks that the government will bring to the banking sector will weaken these banks and make them susceptible to collapse and create a situation that could be dangerous for the economy and the image of the country. 

Clearly, the names that have come in the media on the applicants for the new banks do not increase anybody’s confidence. The other very important point here is the fact that it would not be as easy for the sponsor Directors of these new banks to become rich as the sponsors of the first and second generation banks have been. Those using their political influence to get the government’s permission for establishing new banks may face a rude shock when they get down to operations. There is great risk; their efforts could end in failure and with that, the money of the people who would be depositing/investing money in their banks. Even the better banks of the country are currently going through a very difficult phase. Their managers running from pillar to post chasing deposits like their lives depended on it. 

Then of course there is the public perception that the money that has vanished from the share market, money of hundreds of thousands of small investors who were cheated in the share market scam would find its way into these new banks.  The perception is not something wishful because the fate of the thousands of crores of money that has been skimmed off from the share market has never been found although a committee set by the government did name a few individuals who the report said were responsible for the scam. If this perception is true, then on the point of ethics, the new private banks would always remain suspect. 

It is general knowledge in the banking sector that Bangladesh Bank opposed the proposal for new banks seriously. The Bangladesh Bank Governor tried his best to oppose the Finance Minister who wanted the proposal to go through. In the end, it is not economics or banking needs that has won. The proposal for new banks got through for reasons of politics. Given the ugly nature of our politics, one has to be apprehensive about the impact that these new banks would have on the economy. Where the first and second generation banks have helped the economy, the third generation banks, because they are being given for political reasons,  could have an impact on the banking sector that it could very well do without. 

Politics that helps resolve conflicts in other countries to develop has been the bane of our development efforts. Without the type of politics that we have witnessed in the last four decades of our independence, we would have by now achieved a great deal more than what we have. The political culture that is now a common topic of discussion everywhere in the country, by common acknowledgement, has hit a nadir.  

This political culture reflects no tolerance to opposing views and no respect for anyone else except one’s own needs and interests. Greed is another characteristic that our present political culture reflects. It is this culture that has led to the Government to give permission to set up new banks. It is again this culture that has been the key factor for permitting the new private universities. Like in the banking sector, the need of the moment is to close a number of the existing universities. Giving permission for new ones would be giving incentive to business of making money ahead of the needs of education. 

It is open secret these days that a lot of private universities sell degrees. Darul Ahsan University has done this right under the nose of both the BNP and AL governments. Even the best private universities run from a pool of teaching staff and only a few can claim to have a teaching staff of its own. The new private universities would be established in places far from Dhaka. Where would they find the teaching staff? If the objective of the government is to give every district of the country a private university that in the Pakistan days did not have even a good college, then it can be congratulated. But sadly the truth is that these new universities would not be able to compare with the private colleges of those days.   

Not long ago, the University Grants Commission that regulates the private universities had voiced concerns about many of the existing universities. It seems the authority of the UGC has been taken over by the needs of politics and the greed of politically connected people. The young parliamentarian now has a national duty to reveal the name of the illiterate person who will now own a private university.  

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

                     

ITLOS decision opens up vast possibilities in the Bay

Daily Sun
25 March, 2012
M. Serajul islam

The decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas (ITLOS), Hamburg in the case on delimitation of maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar is indeed significant news for us. The ruling is also expected to have a positive impact on our case against India as both India and Myanmar in their on and off decades long negotiations always harped on the equidistant method as the only delineating principle against Bangladesh’s assertion on the use of equitable principle for achieving "equitable solution" as per Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC)) that both the neighbours of Bangladesh have ratified and ITLOS now has upheld. Our case against India is still under consideration at the UN’s Permanent Court of Arbitration at Hague.               

 In the case against Myanmar, 21 members of ITLOS plus two ad-hoc members from the contesting states heard the case. In The Hague, there will be three members of ITLOS and an ad-hoc member each from Bangladesh and India. Decision of the ITLOS is binding and final while at the Court of Arbitration, the contesting parties can appeal a verdict. 

By applying the equidistant method as the only deciding principle, Myanmar and India wanted to take away most of our legitimate claims on the extended maritime zone as ensured under the LOSC in the Bay of Bengal. At ITLOS, the judges also accepted the concave nature of Bangladesh’s coastline and called for the use of equitable principle a fortiori. Another feature of the ITLOS decision has been the acceptance of St. Martin as an island that allowed Bangladesh full 12 nautical mile territorial sea instead of the 6nm that Myanmar had been insisting that brought the two countries close to a conflict in 2008 over gas/oil exploration. 

The ITLOS judges gave Bangladesh 200 miles from the base line as our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) opening up to the High Seas in a manner that Government of Bangladesh says allow us  fishing rights in the Bay over 111, 000 sq km in the EEZ that is significantly more than our land area  on Myanmar side only. The ITLOS judges also gave Bangladesh mineral and other resource  rights in the same area and beyond  the 200 miles continental shelf and beyond to be determined on scientific evidence later by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf of the UN, a right  that Myanmar never  accorded to Bangladesh in the past. A similar future decision in the on-going against India could give us a comparable area of the Bay of Bengal that India would not like as it has already showed the inclination to keep Bangladesh zone locked perpetually not to speak of exercise of Bangladesh's rights in the outer continental shelf. The fact that the Bay is rich in both hydro-carbons and marine resources makes the  cognizance of our legally due claims at ITLOS potentially the best news for Bangladesh since our independence.  

India had for decades spurned our legitimate claims on sea and common waters based on equity was quick to acknowledge the new realities based on Bangladesh's legitimate rights vis-à-vis its past attempts to impose its will on us. The new Indian High Commissioner in his first courtesy call on our Foreign Minister communicated his Government’s offer for the bilateral negotiation to resolve the issue, an option which we have been carrying out with them for decades without an iota of meaningful progress.   One would wish that the media had asked the High Commissioner when he gave the  interview  the reasons for this change of heart of  the Indian Government  when 38 years of our utmost friendly efforts could not budge them an inch from their negotiating position as if their opening shots were their bottom line. 

The decision on our case against Myanmar has opened up vast possibilities for this resource starved nation. We must be careful how we proceed from here onwards. The issues before the Government are not one shot affair by any calculation. It is definitely not an Awami League versus BNP issue. The verdict in Hamburg is also not a zero-sum victory for Bangladesh either.   Myanmar also received a substantial area in the Bay out of the verdict. In fact, against Bangladesh’s 111,000 sq km gain, it received nearly 200,000 sq km. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister must be given due credit and applause for her decision to take our case to ITLOS because she did so against the hitherto established trend to succumb to all Indian needs and demands without any quid quo pro. The Foreign Minister and her team led by Commodore Khurseedul Alam, Additional Foreign Secretary, must also be warmly felicitated for doing an excellent job for Bangladesh. The team of international lawyers was wisely chosen who we should not forget argued the case for us. 

In fact, the ITLOS verdict is the outcome of policy continuity of a very rare type in Bangladesh’s politics from one government to another. Bangladesh acceded to the UNCLOS in the last stages of the last AL term. The BNP Government followed this up and did the bulk of the groundwork in preparing the case upon which Bangladesh went to Hamburg. It fought very hard and succeeded in making the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the focal point of the Government to pursue our case. The Ministry developed a separate wing and expertise under the direct supervision of then Legal Adviser AKH Morshed and a retired Foreign Secretary and an international expert of the subject. State Minister Reaz Rahman also played a major role in developing the wing in the Ministry and fought and succeeded with the other Ministries for adequate funding. The AL Government wisely picked up the threads from where the BNP had left making the case perhaps one of the very rare examples where the AL and the BNP have followed each other for the cause of the nation. In this context, the felicitations extended by the Leader of the opposition to the Hamburg verdict also augurs well for the case of bipartisanship concerning this extremely important national issue. 

Nevertheless, before we go ahead and implement the Hamburg decision and look at the Indian offer, Bangladesh Government must get down to very serious introspection. There is also a need to look at the decision of ITLOS by putting it under the scanner. It is true that compared to what Myanmar had threatened to take away from us, we have recovered a substantial portion of that but not all that we aspired to, once again legitimately.  Therefore we have to ascertain how much we have failed to gain and why by the set legal standards and jurisprudence of judgments and awards to-date on other maritime boundary cases.  We need these answers to argue ur case at The Hague against India. Although the Hamburg decision may likely help us against India, nothing can be taken for granted. 

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni ruled out the possibility of withdrawing our case against India from the UN Permanent Court at The Hague. She nevertheless held out the possibility of bilateral negotiations if Indian proposal are favourable or acceptable in the light of ITLOS decision. Once again this is an extremely friendly gesture to the Indians given their behavior pattern on record. Let us put it in this way that the time is on our side and we need not hurry in any way to respond to the Indian request officially.   

In deciding on the Indian offer, we should keep in mind that India has not only attempted to impose the equidistant method as the only delineating principle on use  for determining the adjacent maritime boundary, it reportedly encouraged Myanmar to do the same as evidenced by the engagements of Indian law of the sea experts in the panel of lawyers of Myanmar initially.. Then there is of course the history of Bangladesh-India negotiations on the issues of water, trade, land boundary and killings at the borders interlaced by un kept and broken promises and assurances deliberate or otherwise. That history alone should be the single most important factor to be cautious of the Indian offer especially when we have very good reasons that the Arbitration Court would give us a far better binding decision than we can hope to receive from India.. 

Teesta, Tippaimukh, the river linking projects and the non-stop killings of our innocent and un-armed citizens on Bangladesh-India border are but a few of the real life empirical evidences that cannot but remind and haunt our policy makers of the perils of taking Indian proposals and even agreements signed at the highest political level  seriously in any kind of outcome through bilateral discussions as opposed to definitive international judicial pronouncements. There is no harm in asking the Pakistanis on how India is upholding the spirit and words of the specific provisions of the Indus Basin Treaty Agreement sponsored by no less than an authoritative international actor like the World Bank in their inter-se relations.  

We are totally inexperienced in benefitting from the vast prospects that the Hamburg decision has opened up for us and if we receive a fair judgment from Hague in 2014 as we expect to. This is where we would need to take two important decisions as soon as possible on a bipartisan and national basis. First, we must create a national authority of experts and professionals with whatever resources needed to deal with the prospects of exploiting and managing our rights and obligations in the Bay of Bengal.  Second, we must also have the vision of acknowledging that whatever we get eventually after the 2014 verdict, we will have a part of the Bay of Bengal that we will share with Myanmar, India and regional countries where there would be no legal disputes over exercise of rights.

India and Myanmar would need us as much we would need them to develop the resources of the outer continental shelf over which we might have common rights based on the ITLOS and possibly the Hague verdicts. In fact, the ITLOS judgment and the expected one from Hague should encourage us for a regional approach over a bilateral one not just in the Bay of Bengal but also for issues of regional concerns such as our water rights over the international rivers and regional connectivity keeping in mind that on maritime issues and other issues of importance to us, we have had unproductive experience with both India and Myanmar bilaterally. The ITLOS judgment should give us the confidence as a nation to deal with these countries.  

However, to achieve our best national interests, the prime need of the moment is national unity. We wasted the rich prospects that came our way in 1971 because of lack of unity after that had given us our cherished and blood- earned independence. This is Bangladesh’s critical and perhaps the last chance to emerge as one of the success stories among modern nations. It is unity alone that can bring home the real benefits for the masses that ITLOS verdict has opened up and the one from The Hague may add to.

The writer is a retired career diplomat and former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.

On Our traits as a nation

As I See It Column
The Independent
24 March, 2012
M. Serajul Islam

Very few talk about where we stand today as a nation as we cross the threshold of history to move to 41^st year of our independence. Why should we? Most of us are just too busy living in a make believe world of what a great country ours is. We claim we have the best culture. Our language is the best. We are the only nation to have shed blood for our mother tongue. Ours is the most beautiful, the most scenic motherland of all! Whatever we do as a nation and want to praise ourselves, we do so in superlative terms. The claims undoubtedly have solid base. The question to ask is what have we done to turn the solid base into achievements apart from loud mouthing them?    

Like for instance our Book Fair.  Over the entire month of February, the media, particularly the private TV channels were spending a good part of their time and energy covering this fair on a daily basis. It looked like that this was more a media event, a fun one at that, than serious business of giving readers the benefit of some good books worth buying.  

The private TV channels revealed particularly startling information about the Book Fair. Nearly 90% of the books in the country are released in the market through this Book Fair.  For a country with 160 million people, claiming so much on issues of culture and language, one must wonder whether this in any underscores our standing as a   serious nation when it comes to books and publishing/reading books. In fact, it reflects to the contrary. 

For those who make tall claims over the Book Fair, let me say this. A serious nation creates the right environment for all, particularly the new generation, to develop the habbit of reading by creating public libraries and libraries at the educational institutions. Such a nation takes for granted that books, reading habbits, culture and development are inextricably linked. Serious nations do hold books fairs but not as the sole basis of producing books. Our much lauded and touted Book Fair seems to be giving this impression. 

Of course, there is no reason to lessen in any way the importance of the Book Fair. The authorities must be highly recommended for their efforts. The same cannot be said of the media, particularly the private TV channels, who seem inclined to turn such a serious business as books as something of fun, a mela in the Bengali translation of the word. It was heartening to learn that publishers are printing more books than it the past. Nevertheless, there is now the need to evaluate on the quality of the books before making those big claims. 

I did not want to digress to the Book Fair but I did so to make a point; that we have this habbit of looking for a few good things in our national life and to exaggerate these beyond proportions. In doing so, we hide the stark realities in which we live. Perhaps it is because of the stark realities of our lives that we pick up the few good things and exaggerate these as an escape from reality. It is this escapism from reality through exaggerating the few of our good points as a nation that does not allow us to overcome the negative national traits we have that is not helping us in realizing the vast potentials that were ours to achieve when we became independent in 1971.  

The reality is that we now live in a society where almost every aspect of our national live has become partisan. Politics that resolves conflicts in other countries creates more conflicts in our country. When the nation hoped that the opposition would enter the parliament to create the right environment of bipartisanship, it was partisanship of the worst type to which we were treated, courtesy the private TV channels. The diatribe to which the lady BNP MP exposed us was the last thing we wanted to see. 

One understands, as the Opposition Whip explained, that the ruling party has hurled abuses at the opposition leaders in languages no better.  But then he should also understand that two wrongs do not make a right. Public speaking is no small business. It needs talents and more importantly, it needs training and dedication. It would be too much to expect from our MPs, particularly the women MPs most of who are in Parliament not on merit, a speech as the one Mark Anthony gave over Caesar’s dead body where by praising the assassins craftily, he turned  everyone against them. 

Nevertheless, we could expect from them common sense. Common sense should have dictated that this lady MP to refrain from abusing her opponents. Is she had, her speech would have had more profound impact upon everybody. It is true that her party has been subjected to lots of abuses by the Treasury bench, particularly by again two lady MPS,  where President Ziaur Rahman, Begum Khaleda Zia and Tareque Zia have been abused in languages that are not worthy of print. It seems like the lady MPs are adept in the art of the foul language ahead of their mail compatriots!

The BNP lady MP could have flagged the abuses in a more civilized manner. Instead of returning those abuses in worse language, she could have spoken in the line her party has taken in national politics lately that has attracted people’s attention favourably, the path of democratic protest.  Such a course would have gone with the demonstrations and long marches of the BNP that are constitutionally permissible, instead of hartals and would have hurt the AL politically. People who were turning sympathetic to the BNP are now seriously perturbed whether they can look at the BNP positively. One expected that after the public reaction of the BNP Lady MP, sense would return in the Parliament. It did not and the Treasury and the Opposition followed the BNP Lady MP as a trend setter much to the disgust of the nation! 

The recent ruling of ITLOS is great news for Bangladesh. It opens up huge prospects for Bangladesh to the hydro-carbon and marine resources of the Bay of Bengal. Importantly, the ruling will strengthen our claims vis-à-vis India and give us another large mass in the Bay of Bengal. This is a victory for Bangladesh. Unfortunately, here too we are witnessing partisanship where the ruling party is claiming that the victory is its. The ruling party is missing another opportunity of uniting the country not realizing that bringing to shore the rich prospects that the ITLOS ruling has opened would need a united nation behind it. The ruling party seems to have decided to use a national victory as a party issue to overcome some serious political setbacks in recent times. 

Bangladesh won its independence in 1971 because 75 million people united for the cause of freedom. In the midst of this insensible lack of unity on national issues and our national trait to live in a make believe world on exaggerated claims of culture, language and the rest, we are letting precious time pass us by where we are distancing ourselves more and more from the rich prospects that the emergence of Bangladesh had brought before us in 1971. If we can achieve the illusive unity that we once showed in 1971 and set aside our national trait of self-glory, the rest of the world will tell us that we have a lot of excellent national characteristics and not we ourselves drumming these claims. But who is listening? Common sense and decency have taken leave of our politics and politicians and those who are the public face of the nation.

The writer is a retired career diplomat and a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.

Can economics drive Bangladesh-India relations?

Daily Sun

March 18, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

A good friend asked me to look for some positive developments in Bangladesh-India relations to arrive at a balanced view of the way in which these relations are moving. In particular, he said that as a result of the initiative of our Prime Minister, there have been big strides on the economic front, particularly in our exports to India. His emphasis was on the 65 RMG items that have been given duty free access to the Indian market that he felt would help Bangladesh make big inroads in to the Indian market.

In a number of seminars I attended recently, I came across some economists who have strongly opposed those critical on Indian failure to reciprocate on issues of water, border and land boundary. They termed such criticisms of India as rhetoric and detrimental to the interests of Bangladesh. They asked the critics to wait with a little patience to see the benefits that Bangladesh would soon receive from Indian policies aimed at assisting Bangladesh benefit from  trade cooperation  trade with it.

In my own writings in a number of newspapers on Bangladesh-India relations, I have been critical of the way India has failed to reciprocate to the courageous gestures and initiatives of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. I felt that our Prime Minister took great political risk to unilaterally offer India full support for its security concerns by stating firmly that Bangladesh would not be allowed to be used for terrorist attacks on India. In that context, she handed to India seven top ULFA insurgents who had been hiding in Bangladesh that has virtually ended the strong movement of independence of Assam.

As a former Director-General for South Asia  in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and having served in New Delhi, I have always felt that Bangladesh’s future and its prosperity is inextricably linked with developing positive relations with India. Factors of geopolitics make this absolutely indispensible.  However, this geopolitical compulsion is not upon Bangladesh alone. India too is as much dependent on geopolitics to seek positive relations with Bangladesh. Land transit from mainland to India to the 8 northeastern states is not just an economic imperative for India. In fact, the more important reasons are, first , security of the northeastern states and, second,  its integration with India.

Even in last term of the AL, land transit was an issue that the Government would not discuss with India because it was considered Bangladesh’s only card to negotiate with India for its legitimate rights on water, trade and border issues. Unfortunately this time those who feel that Bangladesh needs good relations with India for its own sake have been left wondering what more could Bangladesh have done to make India happy.  In Bangladesh, where India is a factor in politics, it is more a wonder why India would push the Awami League that is its natural ally historically into such a predicament where its failures are going to cost the AL heavily in the elections due in two years’ time.

The Indians, unfortunately seem to care very little for sentiments in Bangladesh or the predicament of the Awami League. The Indian Prime Minister saw for himself the deep frustration among the people on the failure to sign the Teesta deal. He acknowledged that by assuring in his speech to a gathering of Dhaka’s elites in Dhaka University that his government would make all efforts for the Teesta   deal to be signed as soon as possible. That is not happening and the Teesta deal seems now to be sinking into the quick sands. Other issues such as killings on the border, Tippaimukh, etc have moved away from the expectations of the people of Bangladesh.

Instead of caring for the sentiments of the people of Bangladesh, the Indians have introduced new and dangerous issues that are perplexing. The project or linking the Brahmaputra with the Ganges   is one such issue. The Indians had always their eyes on the water of the Brahmaputra that the Indians could not dam because of the terrain and its fast flowing nature. The Indians wanted a link canal to connect the two rivers to take the water on the Indian side to augment the flow of the Ganges and its own needs and those of Bangladesh.

The proposal was preposterous for many reasons and Bangladesh under both military and civilian regimes never took this seriously except as an Indian ploy to vex us and divert our demand for more share of the water of the Ganges.  They have brought this age old proposal that Bangladesh has in the past, on bipartisan basis, rejected as dangerous to its existence for reasons they alone can explain. If this project materializes, India would succeed in damning or diverting waters from the major common rivers, the Ganges, the Teesta, the Brahmaputra, and the Surma/Kushiyara. Recently, India has forced into Bangladesh to withdraw the water of another cross border river the Feni River.  The act infuriated President Ershad so much that he led a long arch to Feni to protest the reprehensible act as he did to protest the failure of India to sign the sharing of the water of the Teesta.

Indian actions are strange and difficult to fathom. What is stranger is the fact that there are many in Bangladesh who do not see anything unusual in such actions by India and refer to those who criticize these Indian actions as people who do not want well for Bangladesh. They hold the view that the openings that India has given Bangladesh in trade is going to bring such huge benefits that what India does or does not do on Teesta/Brahmaputra/border killings would not matter all. They of course point to the US$ 1 billion soft loan and India’s promise to make us as the connectivity hub of the region to overlook what India is doing or not doing on rest of  the bilateral issues.

There is bad news for those who cannot be motivated to think ill of India no matter what because of the rich economic promises they think India is offering us. In fact, my friend who was not happy with me for my critical views on India for its failure to deliver told me that till end of February, Bangladesh had exported an additional US$ 600 million to India benefitting from Indian decision to give Bangladesh duty free access on a number of RMG items. My friends who are in business have told me that recent policies of India are enhancing our exports. However whether few hundreds of millions of extra US $ or a billion would be enough to satisfy India’ denial to give us our legitimate demands on water, border and other issues is very doubtful.

The serious issue here is one of trust. In the past, India has promised Bangladesh many things but has always found one way or another to break its promises. India recently banned export of cotton to Bangladesh because of low production. The ban was later partially withdrawn not for our sake but for pressure from Indian cotton growers. Bangladesh depends for 35% of its cotton needs on India and a ban has the potential to cripple our RMG/textile sector. The ban should alert us to think how much we can depend on India to deliver.

Those who look at economics as the engine to drive Bangladesh-India relations have a lot on their plates to convince the people about what India really has in mind. The public mood has turned against India quite clearly. There were some good signs that the Indians were concerned with the changing mood in Bangladesh and were due to send their Foreign and Finance Ministers to Bangladesh. The visits were supposed to take place last month. Has India lost interest in Bangladesh or perhaps taken us for granted to consider it un-necessary to explain its failure to deliver on Teesta, Tippaimukh, Feni River and now the river linking project that  Bangladeshis feel will turn Bangladesh into a desert? Perhaps the Indians are complacent because we have amongst us those who are helping their cause by highlighting the promise of economic gains and no

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt