US Ambassador speaks on Shahabag and current political situation

Daily Sun

Maarch 17, 2013

M. Serajul Islam

The US Ambassador broke the long silence of the foreign Ambassadors on commenting on the current political situation in Bangladesh.  Ambassador Dan Mozena called a “Meet the Press” at the American Center in Dhaka recently and interacted with the media at length on Shahabag and the related issues of politics in the country. The Ambassador’s media briefing was significant because it was undertaken after he  returned to Dhaka from a visit to the United States.

The Ambassador spoke about Shahabag, Jamat and banning it, the ICT, violence and political instability and the coming elections in the context what he had told people who had asked him questions on these issues when he was in the United States.  Nevertheless, an Ambassador does not provide views in a public forum that are not his government’s especially when he has just returned from his country while a political turmoil was raging in the country of his accreditation. Therefore Ambassador Mozena in fact did public diplomacy with his “Meet the Press” event; informing Bangladeshis what in reality is his government’s views on the current situation in the country.

Ambassadors have openly spoken on our politics in the past, often critically, in violation of specific provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that strictly prohibits diplomats from speaking on the internal affairs of the host country. In Bangladesh, Ambassadors in the past have not just openly talked about our internal affairs; they have often taken sides in our politics. In 2007, their interference assured emergency in the country. This time, the Ambassadors have acted differently; almost all of them have remained quiet. Before leaving for his US visit, Ambassador Mozena had briefly said he was impressed with the peaceful nature of the Shahabag movement as a democratic right of the youth but little else while all of  his colleagues kept uncharacteristically silent.

The correctness or otherwise of Ambassadors speaking on our internal affairs notwithstanding, Ambassador Mozena was careful in what he said in his “Meet the Press” event.  Clearly he did not want to ruffle feathers by becoming controversial with what he said. He took the emotions running high in the country seriously without making any value judgment on any of the issues or overtly taking sides over these. His description of Shahabag as a peaceful and democratic movement of the youth highlighted its strength. Indirectly, it can even be interpreted as an endorsement of the Shahabag movement.

However, he did not give Shahabag the type of  whole hearted endorsement that the Indians gave in his “Meet the Press” event. He focussed on the entire range of issues that have been thrown into the political arena as a result of the Shahabag movement. The most important one upon which he focussed was the demand for banning the Jamat that came out of Shahabag. He stated that the matter of banning Jamat rested on “appropriate authorities”. He nevertheless described Jamat as a “recognized political party with members in Parliament.” The Ambassador also declined to say anything when a journalist asked him if the USA viewed Jamat as a moderate Islamic party that is significant. Reading between the lines about what he said about Jamat, the Ambassador did not back the demand from Shahabag and moves from the ruling party to ban Jamat.

The Ambassador said that the United States government supported the need to bring to justice those who committed crimes against humanity in 1971. He however made it clear that his government expected that the trials “must be fair, must be transparent and must be consistent with domestic and international standards, including international covenants for civil and political rights”. The Ambassador also left no one in doubt that his government did not support the demand from Shahabag backed by a section of the ruling party for death of the accused under any circumstances for which laws have been changed so that no accused would escape the gallows. Ambassador Mozena also expressed sorrow for the death of over a “100 people and loss of property” and concern at the attacks on Hindu temples and Hindu homes. He called upon all Bangladeshis across the political spectrum to express their views peacefully and to shun violence that was an oblique reference to the Jamat and the BNP. Nevertheless, he placed the responsibility upon the government “to continue to endeavor to ensure the safety of its people.”

Ambassador Mozena expressed the most important message from the Government of the United States to Bangladesh when he touched upon the issue of elections. He said that the way out of the current dangerous predicament in which Bangladesh finds itself, aggravated by the Shahabag youth, is for all political parties to “find a way forward to hold free, fair and credible elections.” In expressing such a view the Ambassador also said that in such an endeavor, “the friends of Bangladesh” would join hands to assist the election process. Thus, what the Ambassador said in his “Meet the Press” were just not the views of Washington; there is reason to believe that before he addressed the media, Ambassador Dan Mozena must have discussed what he would say with his colleagues from the western nations in Dhaka. In fact, after his media briefing, the Canadian Ambassador in Dhaka also urged all concerned to seek a negotiated way out of the current dangerous situation facing Bangladesh.

On balance, Ambassador Mozena’s media briefing was an implicit critique of the government’s handling of the current political problems facing the country. Apart from pointing at Jamat and BNP for choosing the path of violence, his views backed the opposition BNP’s two main demands in politics; namely to ensure an election in which it would be able to participate and to conduct the trials of those accused of crimes against humanity in accordance with “domestic and international standards” including international covenants for civil and political rights. Aware that his views would not final favour with the ruling party, the Ambassador stated that Washington-Bangladesh relations have never been as good as it is now in an attempt to make his other views sugar coated. He referred to the US-Bangladesh partnership dialogue and few other positive developments in bilateral relations to substantiate his comment on the excellence of these relations.

Ambassador Mozena’s media meeting touched the right chord in the minds of many in the country who are praying on their knees for a negotiated way out of the dangerous situation in the country. Those who followed what he said have also been encouraged that a negotiated way out is also the desire of other “friends of Bangladesh.”  The recent postponement of the visit of the Amir of Kuwait is a signal that the international actors are beginning to take serious note of the political situation in the country as the United States has with Ambassador’s media briefing. The ball is now in the court of the Prime Minister to decide between peace and protracted civil disturbances that would ruin the economy. She could decide in favour of peace if she just listened to the advice of the US Government and “friends of Bangladesh” on holding elections that would allow all parties to participate.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

  

The Shahabag Movement and the media

The Independent

16 March, 2013

M. Serajul Islam

In the initial phase, the Shahabag youth movement or the Gonojagoron Mancha (GM) had caught the imagination of perhaps the largest number of the people in any movement since 1971. The first few days of the movement also established the fact that the crimes committed in 1971 by the local collaborators of the Pakistani army had not been forgotten. People across the political divide wanted capital punishment for those who had been brought before the ICT. The movement promised to bring the nation together in the same spirit as it was united in 1971 under Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman; a unity that was the major reason that helped Bangladesh to become independent in 1971. There were great expectations that the GM would show the way to the nation out of its tryst with evil in the country.

Unfortunately, the GM belied its initial promises. It is now petering out into another manifestation of the partisan politics of the country. In fact, if it stopped at that, the country would no better no worse.  Shahabag has very sadly divided the nation in a manner that the partisan nature of politics was not able to do. The BNP vacillated initially about the GM, then gave it qualified support but later withdrew it completely. The Jatiya Party called for a Jihad against the Shahabag movement for its alleged anti-Islamic stance. The AL’s patronage of the GM and the actions it took to appease the youth injected into the partisan politics an element of conflict that has, in the words of HM Ershad, pushed the country to the brink of a civil war. Thus for all practical purpose the Shahabag movement that had promised to unite the nation has left it dangerously divided.

The media became the voice of the GM. It concluded that those not with Shahabag movement were anti-liberation forces and called it the second liberation war!  The media did not inquire why the Shahabag movement did not express any anger on the government; on the ICT or the prosecution team that failed to send Qader Mollah to the gallows. The ICTs have been established by the Government. It claimed that these Tribunals are of world standard. The prosecution team has also been selected by the government that ministers and party leaders repeatedly defended as qualified to deal with the cases before the Tribunals.  Therefore, the GM should have attacked the government for the failure to hang Qader Mollah. Instead, it attacked first the Jamat and subsequently the BNP and the Jatiya Party as if they were responsible why Qader Mollah was not hanged. The media made no effort to reveal the reasons for the pro-government and anti-opposition nature of the Shahabag movement that an objective media would have.

The media also ignored the presence of well known AL activists from its cultural front in the midst of the Shahabag youth leaders. It also ignored the regular visits of AL leaders and government Ministers to Shahabag.  It made no attempts to explain why the government had installed the temporary toilets in Shahabag and extended to the Shahabag youth all the other facilitates they needed to carry on with their movement unhindered.  When the GM moved to other sites in Dhaka, the government ensured all facilities so that the youth could carry on their movement without any hindrance. Even when it had become palpably evident that the government had hijacked the Shahabag movement and was using it for furthering its political agenda, the media insisted that the youth were acting independent of any political influence. When the BNP and the Jatiya Party took clear stands against the Shahabag movement, it reacted just as the ruling party would. The media also set aside this palpably hand in glove relationship between the GM and the government.  

When it was revealed in Amar Desh, one of the very few newspapers trying to explain the GM differently; that some of the Shahabag bloggers had been posting in their blogs against Islam and Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), the media quickly defended the bloggers and accused the Jamat for such sacrilegious postings. The media did not bother to check facts that would have revealed that Rajiv Haider and some of his fellow Shahabag bloggers were reprimanded in a Dhaka court for anti-Islamic posting on their blogs much before the Shahabag movement started. The media figured that people would believe that Jamat had indeed posted those horrendous and dangerous anti-Islamic postings and no questions would be asked and Jamat would be condemned and hated even more. In fact, whenever Shahabag faulted, the media covered their failure as if it was their own like.  They thus overlooked the presence of one  who has been accused for the murder of Biswajit among the organizers of Shahabag.

Unfortunately the Shahabag movement did not evolve the way the media expected. The anti-Islamic postings on blogs deeply affected the sentiments of a much wider section of the people and even among many who initially supported Shahabag whole heartedly. The media overlooked the change in people’s spontaneous support of Shahabag after the anti-Islamic blogs became public knowledge.  It also overlooked the fact that after the initial spontaneity, the Shahabag crowd was largely a sponsored one where the ruling party brought the crowd, particularly the students from Dhaka’s schools and colleges. While it was common knowledge that the ruling party had entrusted their leaders in Dhaka’s 40 odd wards to bring people to Shahabag, there was not a word about this in the media.  A few TV stations with links to the ruling party covered the Shahabag movement round the clock to give the impression that the movement was exploding where in reality it was going in the opposite direction.

The exposure of the anti-Islamic postings was no doubt a watershed in the decline of the Shahabag movement. People also started to ask a few pertinent questions of their own as they began to see an eerie similarity in the agenda of the Shahabag youth and that of the ruling party like for instance the demand for banning the Jamat and the pointing of fingers at the BNP, instances that the partisan media just pushed under the carpet.  In fact, as soon as the BNP withdrew its support for Shahabag, claiming it was a ruling party sponsored movement  to deflect public attention from its failures with issues of governance, Shahabag literally became a front for the ruling party against its political opponents the BNP and the Jamat.

As the influence of the government over Shahabag became evident, people felt sorry for the Shahabag youth because they  could have done their movement and the country immense good if they had cared to speak on the larger malaise in the society instead of in the end pursuing the political agenda of the ruling party. In pursuing their partisan political agenda, the youth did so with a spirit of vengeance where 5/6 years olds were seen chanting death to Razakars that many thought did not give the GM the sort of positive vibe that there was in the initial days of the movement. As people saw these changes in Shahabag, they also realized that they had forced the government to change the laws so that the Tribunals would have no power except to hand the accused death sentences! They felt the government had undermined the rule of law by changing the laws to appease the Shahabag youth.

The dust over Shahabag is not going to settle soon.  The danger of the movement leading to the sort of catastrophe that HM Ershad predicted cannot be ruled out. The country never saw so many deaths in the hands of the law enforcing agencies as in the aftermath of the death sentence imposed by the ICT on Delwar Hossain Saydee. The media blamed the Jamat for the deaths! It did not see anything wrong in the police action that caused the deaths.  The media’s partisan coverage of the deaths and the Shahabag movement contributed to push the country to the edge of the precipice.  The way out of where Shahabag has pushed the nation is dialogue and negotiations among the political parties. It is time for the media to tell the Shahabag youth that they had their moments of glory but they have failed to capture the people’s imagination because they too fell into the grips of the country’s partisan politics and have played with religious sentiments dangerously. The ruling party said it is ready to meet the BNP in any place for talks. It is the only silver lining in the dark sky of Bangladesh.  The media should now shun the partisanship it has shown in covering Shahabag and give the possibility of a negotiated settlement to end the crisis facing the country, its fullest support by stopping  playing politics with the country’s youth and its future.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

Pranab Mukherjee in Bangladesh: An untimely visit

Daily Sun

March 10, 2013

M. Serajul Islam

The recent state visit of the Indian President to Bangladesh was a rare honour shown to the country. It was Mr. Pranab Mukherjee’s first overseas visit upon becoming the Present, the first Bengali ever to live in Rastrapati Bhavan. Unfortunately what could have been a truly worthwhile visit where the whole of Bangladesh could have given the Indian President a heartwarming welcome ended in disappointment as the visit took place while the country was under hartal called by the opposition.

It was just not the hartal that was the dark cloud over the visit; the fact that the Indian President was in the country while the Jamat was on a rampage and over sixty Jamat activists killed together with a few law enforcing personnel made the environment surrounding his visit even darker and gloomier. These facts notwithstanding, the Indian President was received with the 21 guns salute and all the fanfare that goes with a state visit. He met the President and the Prime Minister and important Ministers including the Foreign and the Finance Ministers called on him. His other important engagement apart from visiting his in laws place in Narail was his address in Dhaka University’s convocation ceremony.

In the Indian system of governance, the President is a figure head and not usually expected to get involved in formulation and execution of policies related to foreign affairs. His role is merely to complement the initiatives of the government and in the context of the few foreign visits that an Indian President takes, merely to be of assistance to the government’s foreign policy initiatives. Therefore, in the context of his just concluded visit to Bangladesh, his visit was not intended to take any new initiative in Bangladesh-India relations or to execute any existing initiatives in these relations.

 Nevertheless, Pranab Mukherjee is not just any Indian President. He assumed the office after a lifetime as a politician in the Congress party where he held party and ministerial posts at the highest levels. He is very well respected in the party where his influence is extremely well established and very deep. So is his respect across the party divide. In the context of Bangladesh, he is very important because many of the issues with which Bangladesh is negotiating with India to carry relations forward in line with the vision of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for a paradigm shift in bilateral relations are the ones with which the Indian President had been very deeply involved before vacating his post as the Finance Minister of India to become the Indian President.

Thus, there were a lot of expectations in Bangladesh that the visit of the Indian President would not be merely a ceremonial one. Further, the visit came after a number of very important visits from India to Bangladesh. The Indian Home Minister was in Dhaka in January and signed with Bangladesh the extradition treaty. The Indian Law Minister came before him and the Indian Power Secretary after him. In the context of carrying forward the bilateral relations, the Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai came on a visit early in February that was followed immediately afterwards by a visit by the Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid. These flurry of visits hinted that the Indians were serious about jump starting the bilateral relations that were stalled after the Indians failed to deliver the Teesta water sharing deal during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka in September 2011 and ratifying the land boundary agreement (LBA) thereafter.

News emanating from official sources in New Delhi in recent times was hinting that the Indian Government was close to resolving both the outstanding issues. The Indian Foreign Secretary and the Indian Foreign Minister made positive references to both the issues in Dhaka. The Indian Foreign Minister said in Dhaka that the Indian Cabinet had approved the draft bill for amending the Indian Constitution that would be necessary to implement the addition protocol that was signed in Dhaka during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to ratify the LBA. He further said that the bill in this regard would be introduced during the current budget session of the India parliament and the BJP that was opposing the ratification would relent. He had further said that New Delhi had made progress with Mamata Banarjee on the Teesta Water sharing deal as well.

As a consequence of these developments, Bangladesh expected that the Indian President would state something specific and definite than what the other visitors from India had stated before. Unfortunately, he did not. In what has come to the media from the interviews he gave to the media as well as what transpired in his talks with the Bangladesh Prime Minister and other Ministers who called on him, both issues are still suck in the stage of promises to Bangladesh. The Indian President said he expected that LBA to be ratified in the current session of the Indian parliament. He did not mention much about the Teesta agreement. He nevertheless assured very forcibly that India would always be with Bangladesh as a friend as it had in 1971 and 2013 would be another beginning.  Two members each from the BJP and Trinamool Congress were included in his delegation to give the impression that both the parties were on board for resolving the two outstanding issues.

Despite the President’s assurances on LBA, the news that came from the BJP sources while the Indian President was in Dhaka was a pessimistic one. The BJP said that it would oppose the LBA ratification bill in parliament. If the BJP does so, the ratification bill will be defeated because the Congress and its allies do not have the 2/3^rd majority in the Indian parliament that would be necessary to do so. On the Teesta, the situation in Paschim Bangla is getting more difficult for its Chief Minister Mamata Banarjee to concur with New Delhi. Mamata Banarjee is openly playing the Muslim card in her province where her Trinamool party is sliding. She can hope to keep her hold on power if only she has the Muslim votes. A section of the Muslims are already infuriated over the domestic issues concerning Jamat in Bangladesh. At a time like this, it is very unlikely that Mamata Banarjee would be in a position to please Bangladesh because that would upset her Muslim vote bank for the Islamic fundamentalists apart; PM Muslims in general are not favourably disposed towards Bangladesh.

The Indian President’s visit thus has added little to carry forward Bangladesh-India relations. His visit did however add some controversy over the failure of Begum Khaleda Zia to meet him on the plea of security difficulties. The excuse of the BNP leader was of course not a convincing one. Nevertheless, the BNP could have its own reasons in the not keeping the date with the Indian President. First, New Delhi has overtly played its cards in Bangladesh’s domestic politics over the Shahabag youth movement knowing full well stand. Second, the BNP has a past issue that must have influenced it to decide against the meeting. In 2005, the Indians refused to attend the SAARC Summit when the BNP was in power over political disturbances/hartals in Dhaka, thus embarrassing the government in the country as well as abroad. The disturbances in Bangladesh were far worse where more than 50 people were killed in one single afternoon just days before the Indian President arrived in Bangladesh. Further, the whole period of the visit of the Indian President coincided with violent hartal all over the country. The BNP must have sensed New Delhi had clearly chosen its favourite in Bangladesh and thus a meeting between Begum Khaleda Zia and the Indian President would be futile.

When Begum Khaleda Zia was enthusiastically welcomed in New Delhi not too long ago, many independent observers in Bangladesh had expected that India would not choose between the parties in the country. They were also encouraged that the BNP was beginning to see the positive sides of bettering relations with India on a reciprocal basis. Unfortunately, without apportioning blames, it is regrettable that this positive development in Bangladesh-India relations has been given a serious jolt by the Indian President’s visit to Bangladesh. Nevertheless, one aspect of the visit that the media downplayed was his advice that the political parties in Bangladesh should sit and discuss a way out of the current difficult political situation. Knowing the President’s personal influence over the Bangladesh Government he could do Bangladesh as well and Bangladesh-India relations a world of good if he carried forward this advice through the various channels available to him.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

On the cancelled meeting of Begum Zia with the Indian President

The Independent

March 9th., 2013

M. Serajul Islam

In the backdrop of the frenzy created by Shahabag; mayhem of Jamat and police atrocities that killed 49 people in one afternoon, the very important visit of the Indian President Mr. Pranab Mukherjee ended without the attention it deserved. It was indeed unfortunate that the Indian President decided to undertake his visit at a time when the country was in a state that was anything but normal.  Bangladesh had not seen such political turmoil since the end of its war of liberation and emergence as an independent and sovereign nation.

Mr. Mukherjee’s state visit was a rare honour to Bangladesh. It was his first overseas visit since becoming the 13^th President of India and the first Bengali ever to earn the right to live in Rastrapati Bhavan.  Unfortunately, the visit was undertaken at a time that did not allow Bangladesh to show him the honour that he deserved. His visit also did not give the bilateral relations any major push except more assurances that New Delhi would soon going to resolve the major issues upon which the vision of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations had stalled after India failed to deliver to Bangladesh the Teesta water sharing agreement during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka in September of 2011 and to ratify the land boundary agreement (LBA) thereafter.

The political situation in Bangladesh had been heating up weeks prior to the arrival of the Indian President in Dhaka and was at its worst when he undertook the visit. Thus, it would have been appropriate if the visit had been deferred instead. Even the media in India advised him to do so. To these sad aspects of the visit, a serious controversy was injected when the scheduled meeting between the Indian President and the Bangladesh Leader of the Opposition was cancelled after the Indian guest had arrived in Dhaka at the request of the BNP. The cancelled meeting between Mr. Mukherjee and Begum Zia in fact became the main issue of discussion in informed circles in Bangladesh in the context of the visit in the absence of any definite information from the Indian President on the time frame for the signing of the Teesta Agreement although on the LBA, he said that it would be ratified in the current session of the Indian parliament.

The BNP gave the excuse of security for seeking cancellation of the meeting. This explanation did not have many takers. The Indian side did not  give any explanation that was very understandable. The Bangladesh Foreign Minister described the cancellation as against democracy as the BNP had sought the meeting. While her criticism may have merit, she should have considered against going public. It appeared as if she was expressing the disappointment on behalf of the Indians!  Talking about democracy, the BNP has hurt feelings that they are carrying from the 2009 visit of Mr. Pranab Mukherjee when as his country’s Special Envoy, he declined to meet Begum Khaleda Zia on his visit to Dhaka on the excuse that he had no time although he had enough of it to meet then the already discredited Army chief General Moun U Ahmed and visit Dhaka University to  inaugurate

g a building!.  Nevertheless, in discussions in many circles, the decision of the BNP has been criticized. Many, who criticized, some  supporters of the BNP, said that the BNP would have done itself a favour if Begum Zia had met the Indian President because that would have given her the opportunity to explain her party’s views of the unfolding chain of events in Bangladesh.

Those critical of the BNP’s decision expressed their views without a proper perspective of the recent events in Bangladesh and the Indian reactions to these events. The critics also did not take into consideration  past issues of Bangladesh-India relations. If they had then perhaps the BNP’s decision would not have led them to be critical about it. The Indian President came to Dhaka almost a month after the events erupted at Shahabag. Like everybody in the nation, the BNP had also welcomed the youth movement albeit with conditions that their demand for the trials of those accused for the war crimes should be tried according to international standards. By the time the Indian Foreign Minister arrived in Dhaka, the BNP had made it abundantly clear that it had nothing to do with Shahabag because the youth was demanding death sentence for the accused by altering/changing/amending laws. In fact, they were demanding that those accused would have to be hanged or else they would not retreat from Shahabag. The BNP also saw in the Shahabag movement a clear sponsorship of the ruling party and the government that facilitated it in all ways possible.

Quite clearly, the demand of the Shahabag movement must be totally unacceptable to any democratic country with  respect for the rule of law. India that champions itself as a leading country on both traditions of democracy and rule of law should have taken a clear stand, dispassionately, against such demands of the youth from Shahabag. In addition, the some of the bloggers at Shahabag were also exposed to have written in their blogs anti-Islam diatribes that aroused the sentiments of neither a large section of  the people in Bangladesh who neither supported Jamat nor any other political party of Bangladesh. In fact, the anti-Islamic diatribes caused significant outcry among the Muslims of Paschim Bangla where 12 Islam based parties have come together against the Shahabag movement.

Notwithstanding all these, the Indian Foreign Minister on his visit to Dhaka gave his government’s blessings to the Shahabag movement! Before coming on his visit, the Indian President also blessed the Shahabag youth. In Dhaka, in interviews to the media, he spoke in glowing terms about the youth in Shahabag. Thus before he even arrived in Dhaka, the Indian President took sides in a domestic matter of Bangladesh. Just on the eve of his arrival, large number of Jamat supporters were killed by the police that brought censures from the UN; US State Department and international media all over the world. The Indian President had no words of regret for these killings. In fact, through their support for Shahabag, the leaders of the Indian Government openly played their card in the internal politics of Bangladesh. Therefore it was a courtesy that the BNP excused itself under the plea of security for cancelling the meeting and did not embarrass the Indian President by being more explicit on the issue.

Then there was a small matter of a historical reference that would explain the BNP stand. In 2005, the Indian Prime Minister refused to come to Dhaka for the SAARC Summit on the issue of security because there were hartals in Dhaka called against the BNP  government by the opposition Awami League. If that visit of the Indian Prime Minister’s visit in 2005 could have been called off for security reasons, then the one that the Indian President undertook should have also been cancelled because the security situation was many times worse when Pranab Mukherjee was in Bangladesh. He not only set aside the extremely volatile security situation in Bangladesh, he even went to his in laws place in Narail with his wife and children when the situation outside Dhaka was extremely volatile! By this chain of events, the Indians left no doubt that had Begum Zia met Pranab Mukherjee and explained to him her party’s views on current events, she would hardly have had any sympathetic hearing.

When Begum Khaleda Zia was enthusiastically welcomed in New Delhi not too long ago, many independent observers in Bangladesh expected that India would not choose between the parties in the country. They were also encouraged that the BNP was beginning to see the positive sides of bettering relations with India on a reciprocal basis. Unfortunately, without apportioning blames, it is regrettable that this positive development in Bangladesh-India relations was given a negative spin by the Indian President’s visit to Bangladesh.

All the above notwithstanding, the Indian President made a reference to the need for dialogue among the parties in Bangladesh to get over the dangerous situation into which the country has slipped just before leaving Bangladesh. That advice was under played in the media.  New Delhi that is at present the only government with any influence on the Bangladesh government would need to expand on this because the onus to call for a dialogue rests upon the latter. India could earn the respect of the people of Bangladesh as it did in 1971 if it took the initiative for a dialogue and negotiated settlement among the parties in Bangladesh.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador