Indian High Commissioner provokes opposition on Tipaimukh

Published in The Daily Star, July 4, 2009


THE Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka Mr. Pinak Ranjan Chakravarti has taken the centre stage in our volatile politics, albeit for the wrong reasons. He has incurred the wrath of the BNP who has demanded his withdrawal immediately. According to media reports, the High Commissioner made disparaging remarks about the BNP without naming it for opposition to the proposed Tipaimukh dam at a seminar on regional connectivity sponsored by the India-Bangladesh Friendship Society. The Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni was present as the chief guest.

The Indian High Commissioner has also been in the news before his controversial speech while making rounds in the Secretariat, explaining to the Ministers that the Tipaimukh dam will not be harmful for Bangladesh and that it would not be constructed in violation of international law. His efforts have been reasonably successful as some of the Ministers have supported him in the media; although, outside this small circle, significant opposition has been building up against the dam across a wide section of the people.

In fact, environmental groups and the civil society in Bangladesh were already at work articulating public opinion against Tipaimukh dam before the High Commissioner's speech. In Manipur where the dam will provide electricity and control floods, indigenous people have described it as a "death trap." Environmental groups there also have fiercely objected to this dam. There is a whole literature available on the internet on vicious opposition inside India to Tipaimukh. Quite expectedly, the BNP, sensing the political potentials, has been leading the opposition to the dam.

The issue has all it takes to arouse passion in Bangladesh. If constructed, it will affect Bangladesh's northeast the same way the Farakka Barrage has started environmental degradation in the north-western part of the country. This dam, like the Farakka, is on an international river that India has planned without proper consultation with Bangladesh as the lower riparian. The site of the dam is on an earthquake prone zone that raises the possibility of devastating the north eastern part of Bangladesh with water if the dam is destroyed by an earthquake in future.

The High Commissioner has not cared to take note of the passion building in Bangladesh or opposition in his own country over the dam. He said instead that Bangladesh has no position under international law to object to the project. The High Commissioner has dismissed the opposition to the dam as “India phobia” implying that the BNP is responsible for it, although to a vast majority of the people of Bangladesh, this is patriotism. In fact, thanks to the High Commissioner's efforts, he has brought “India phobia” and patriotism to mean the same in the context of the Tipaimukh issue.

The high commissioner's explanation that the proposed dam would not violate international law and, therefore, Bangladesh has no right of objection is very simplistic. There are serious legal issues that could be subject of a separate article. Additionally, Bangladesh Water Development Board officials in 2003 had informed through the media that the Tipaimukh dam is part of a grand plan to connect thirty international rivers that flow from India to Bangladesh by building man-made canals and dams to divert water from India's flood prone northeastern region to the relatively arid central provinces. The high commissioner has not mentioned about these serious matters concerning the dam that the public of Bangladesh are learning nevertheless as they become more and more concerned with the potential dangers.

In Bangladesh, we are more tolerant than any other capital in giving leeway to foreign ambassadors and high commissioners over their activities as guests in our country. We tolerate them even when they address press conferences to openly accuse us of being corrupt, ungovernable, etc. in contravention of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. In this case, the Indian high commissioner has trashed public sentiment over a very volatile issue and provoked the BNP, a major party in Bangladesh that has twice formed the government, leaving it with little choice than to react in the manner in which they did. He disparagingly made statements that questioned the expertise of Bangladeshi experts and accused opponents of the dam for “lies” in projecting the dangers of the dam.

The high commissioner should have been summoned to the Foreign Ministry for an explanation for these remarks, particularly those hinted at the BNP. Unfortunately that was not possible because the foreign minister was present when the high commissioner made his remarks. However, she chose to remain silent and gave the BNP an opportunity to shoot at two targets with one bullet. They have been looking for an opportunity to confront the high commissioner for his views on Tipaimukh in recent times. He has given them this opportunity in a silver platter by his speech. Dipu Moni's silence has come as a “political bonus” to the BNP as they called for her resignation together with the withdrawal of the Indian high commissioner.

The foreign minister seems to be finding herself increasingly on sticky wickets while facing the media. In this instance, the Indian high commissioner spoke before she did. She thus had the opportunity to react to the remarks. If she had an antenna attuned to diplomatic norms and deviations, she would have instantly realized that she has been put on a spot, just like she was when an Indian journalist caught her on the wrong foot with the question on “buffer state” during the visit of the Indian foreign minister in February.

Indian diplomats are well known for their professionalism and their calm under testing circumstances. They never reacted in the manner the present Indian high commissioner has even when provoked. In fact, Indian environmentalists oppose this dam more forcefully than ours do and that makes the tone of the high commissioner's remarks difficult to comprehend. During the last BNP government, the present high commissioner's predecessor was made to listen to an anti-Indian diatribe from then Bangladesh foreign minister in a seminar. She retained her calm during the seminar, which was then considered by everyone as a professional reaction to an unprofessional conduct.

In February this year, the Indian foreign minister visited Bangladesh as special envoy and met the army chief without meeting the leader of the opposition. In April, the Indian foreign secretary also met the army chief. These meetings have raised questions and concerns in Bangladesh about Indian intentions. The high commissioner's speech enhances these concerns because it suggests that India's diplomacy vis-à-vis Bangladesh is becoming more assertive and arrogant and less helpful for development of better Bangladesh-India relations.

Bangladesh is a deltaic plane where the rivers that flow from India through her into the Bay of Bengal give her the fertility to sustain one of the most densely populated parts of the world. The grand Indian Plan will turn this fertile deltaic plane into part desert and part land unfit for agriculture due to rising salinity. The proposed Tipaimukh dam will carry on this dangerous process started by the Farakka barrage by destroying the fertile Sylhet division that receives water from the Barak River into its Surma and Kushiara rivers. The high commissioner has suggested generation of electricity as a main reason for construction of the Tipaimukh dam. In fact, it will generate only 400 MW of electricity. If India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan cooperate for building dams in Nepal where the terrain is natural for such projects, then there would be ten times more electricity with the added advantage of controlling dangerous floods in these parts. The argument of electricity generation from Tipaimukh dam is therefore a very weak one indeed compared to environmental threats and damages to Bangladesh-India relations that it would surely cause.

The prime minister correctly sensed that the Indian high commissioner has raised a politically harmful controversy for her party and Bangladesh. She has therefore asked the BNP to send its own experts to study Tipaimukh, whose opinion would be considered in adopting Bangladesh's response. The ministers have also stopped talking about the dam. The high commissioner's speech may in fact become a conduit in bridging the AL-BNP divide against Tipaimukh for its dangers to Bangladesh. It should now move the foreign ministry to enforce norms in the way ambassadors act in Bangladesh.

Indian elections and the Bangladesh perspective

Published in The Daily Star, May 23, 2009

THERE is a similarity in the just announced results of the Indian elections with Bangladesh's on December 29th. The winners in both cases were expected to win but the ultimate results were beyond their most optimistic expectations. In India's case, the Congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) overcame the anti-incumbency bug to return to power. Manmohon Singh, already named to become Prime Minister for another term, will thus become the first PM after Jawaharlal Nehru in 1961 to return to office in successive elections. It was the Congress' best show in many decades. The party won 203 seats; a number they passed in 1984 and 1991, both held after assassinations (1984, Indira Gandhi; 1991, Rajiv Gandhi) that brought the party sympathy votes.

In the final tally, the Congress led UPA won 260 seats, just teasingly short of the magical figure of 272. Its main opponent the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) secured 158 seats. In the last elections, the Congress had won only 145 seats and was at the mercy of its alliance partners, an amalgam of left and regional parties, to govern India and carry out the economic reforms crucial to India's future. This time, the party is much better poised to stamp its authority on alliance partners and thus it will be better placed to carry its agenda of economic reform. It can get the remaining number short of 272 without any horse trading. The elections will thus bring a stable government in New Delhi.

The results have given a national party the mandate to govern the country after many decades when politics in New Delhi was subjected to the regional agenda with region based parties sharing power with a national party like the Congress or the BJP in a manner where they could dictate many of the decisions. In fact, one of the most decisive verdicts of the Indian elections has been the choice of the voters against regionalism, although before the elections regional leaders such as Mayawati, Buddhadev Bhattacharya, Narendra Modi and a few others were being touted as possible Prime Ministers. The elections have thus rejected regionalism in national politics.

Among the other clear choices that the voters have made, one is undoubtedly for a secular India. BJP leaders themselves have put blame on Varun Gandhi's anti-Muslim hate speech during the campaign and Gujarat Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi's name coming up as a possible Prime Minister of India as two of the main reasons for NDA's resounding defeat. Mr. Modi earned notoriety both in India and abroad for his role in instigating anti-Muslim riots in his province in 2002 for which he has been black listed for US visa by the US authorities. The Indian voters have thus cast their votes for secularism and against communalism.

The UPA, however, did not win the elections on just these negative factors. The voters have taken note of the positive changes that India has achieved in the last five years and concluded that they needed the Congress for another term with a clear mandate to transform India into one of the top economies of the world. They have also voted with the clear perception that in the turbulent times through which India is passing with the rest of the world, she needed at the centre a national party that would look to the outside world rather than get bogged down with conflicts and politics in the regions of India. The results indicate a faith in the Congress for its policies and outlook.

The routing of the left front that had been a major obstacle for the Congress-led government is another major outcome of the elections. The left led a third front and lost even in its traditional strongholds of Kerala and West Bengal. It came out of the UPA government and opposed many of the economic reforms and the civil nuclear deal with the USA. Mamata Banarjee's Trinomul bagged 19 seats and with Congress winning 25 of the 42 seats in West Bengal, leaving the left with 15, it gave rise to speculation that the left's decades-old stranglehold in WB may be fading. The voters have also unequivocally rejected the left in national politics as a third force.

The voters' choice for UPA will have a positive impact on how India builds its strategic partnership with the United States. When Manmohon Singh signed the civil nuclear deal, President Bush was in office. As Prime Minister of a stronger Indian government, Manmohon Singh can now build upon that partnership with President Obama. He will now be in a more comfortable situation dealing with President Obama on other issues extending from economic reforms to climate change. President Obama will also find himself dealing with a new and strong Indian government at a time when the US is deeply involved with security of the region, with situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan sliding and in need of a dependable regional ally. A strong government in New Delhi will also send equally strong signals abroad to dispel fears of foreign investors.

Indian voters have always been fascinated with charismatic national leaders and for good reasons. In the British days, they were fascinated with Gandhi, Patel and a host of other national leaders. In free India, they were fascinated with Nehru and then Indira Gandhi. Then as regional politics took hold in New Delhi, charismatic national leaders became history. This year's elections witnessed the re-emergence of charisma in Indian politics manifested with all the charm and aura in the person of Rahul Gandhi, whose mother Congress Chief and wife of late Rajiv Gandhi matched her son as another charismatic leader in Indian politics. The son and mother duo had a significant impact on voters in favour of the Congress led UPA. Rahul, the anti-thesis of his cousin Varun, is now seen as a Prime Minister waiting in the wings and will surely be inducted in the new government.

For Bangladesh, the results have opened opportunities on a number of fronts. It will allow our government to interact with a stable government in New Delhi led by a resurgent Congress with which the Awami League has traditional and historical affinity. As a Prime Minister Dr. Manmohon Singh is wise and positive and we can expect that in his second term he will focus more on improvement of relations with neighbours including Bangladesh. The elections will bring into Indian politics a new generation of leaders led by Rahul Gandhi who can be expected to look forward to for a better South Asia than has hitherto been the case. We were disappointed at the way relations have been handled since the AL came to office in January, particularly surprised that the Indian Foreign Minister visited Dhaka and had failed to meet the leader of the opposition while meeting the Army Chief. We hope the new government will be more sensitive towards Bangladesh.

The Indian elections have many lessons for us if we are willing to take. The grace with which LK Advani accepted defeat is a lesson that, if taken by our leading politicians, could really open a world of opportunity for us. His offer to resign to take responsibility for his front and party's defeat is a democratic tradition that we could emulate in Bangladesh. On his part, Manmohon Singh sought Advani's support and constructive criticism to run the new government, saying: “we must open a new chapter in the working relations between the government and the principal opposition.” Sonia Gandhi's leadership style where she has put the nation before self is one our political leaders could follow.

The new governments in India and Bangladesh are expected to run parallel over the next five years. These are momentous times when opportunities are knocking at our doors. In Bangladesh, there has been a perceptible change in mindset for better relations with India based on mutuality. A strong government under Manmohon Singh can ensure a similar change in the Indian mindset. The two Prime Ministers must meet without losing time to cash upon the wind of change in our respective countries. They should send the message to the respective administrations that they have the political will for the change in the mindset that has kept Bangladesh-India relations from achieving their potentials. We should also make diplomatic efforts to reach Sonia Gandhi for her support in building Bangladesh-India relations and not get bogged down at the level of the Indian External Affairs Ministry where we seem to be stuck at the moment. The new Indian Government will take office after the parliament meets on June 2nd.

Indian Diplomacy and the focused Army General

Published in The Dhaka Courier, May 15, 2009

The recent news of the Indian High Commissioner's meeting with the Leader of the Opposition Begum Khaleda Zia was unexpected coming after the Indian Foreign Minister and the Indian Foreign Secretary had visited Dhaka and ignored the former Prime Minister that left many raised eyebrows with a lot of unhealthy speculations and criticisms to boot.

India's democratic credentials are universally acknowledged. Most of us have heard about the famous exchange the legendary Jawaherlal Nehru had with his three defense chiefs who had called on him soon after India's independence in 1947. He kept them waiting a long while, knowing their intention was to advise him on Pakistan, and when they faced him, he simply asked them to leave their uniforms if they wished to "advise" a Prime Minister on political affairs.

Therefore, when the Indian Foreign Minister came to Bangladesh and found time to meet our Army Chief but none to call upon the Leader of the Opposition, there were a lot of expected criticisms. The reason given by the Indian side that Pranab Mukherjee could not meet Khaleda Zia for lack of time was a poor one, given that he found time to visit Dhaka University, in addition to meeting General Moeen.

The meeting of the Indian Foreign Secretary Shivsankar Menon with the Army Chief was also equally surprising because it is unusual for someone in his position to call on someone like General Moeen while on an official visit. Since he followed his boss to meet the Bangladesh Army Chief, it may not be unfair to either to suspect that they both had something secret to discuss with him that forced them to break with practice and protocol. It would be interesting to find out whether an Indian Foreign Minister or a Foreign Secretary, while visiting another country, has met someone like General Moeen, especially as in case of Pranab Mukherjee, where he skipped meeting the Leader of the Opposition.

For good reasons, Indian diplomacy as Indian democracy is based on solid credentials. Indian Foreign Service has some of the finest diplomats. Therefore, for justifiable reasons, the meetings of Pranab Mukherjee and Menon with General Moeen have raised many questions in Bangladesh. A lot of this has also come out of the controversial role the General has played during the post 1/11 emergency rule when he tried to impose upon Bangladesh his "vision" of democracy that did not have any place for either Sheikh Hasina or Khaleda Zia. He summarily assumed politicians to be corrupt and got a large number of them incarcerated. Then he changed course and under his encouragement, the civilians in the emergency government negotiated an agreement for the 29th December elections that BNP thought favoured the Awami League.
During the emergency, the General also visited India and met senior leaders of the Congress-led Government. Before undertaking the trip, he said that he was going to put the Bangladesh-India relations on track, something political governments had failed to do, and would even meet the Indian Prime Minister that did not eventually happen. He, of course, met the Indian FM on this trip.

These facts about the General are known to the Indians. Yet the Indian Foreign Ministry arranged the meetings that have naturally caused suspicion in Bangladesh about what transpired in the meetings. There were reports in the Indian media that Shivsankar Menon came to warn Sheikh Hasina about a plot to assassinate her that was picked up on the internet chat sessions! Like the reason given for the Indian FM's failure to meet Khaleda Zia, this explanation is also a very wishy washy one that no one in Bangladesh has taken seriously.

Geopolitics and political realities leave Bangladesh and India with no alternative but to be good neighbours if they want the welfare of their peoples and their countries. Bangladesh, an agricultural nation where rivers sustain life and livelihood of its people, has 54 of the 56 rivers flowing from India. Our position is between the mainland India and seven Indian provinces in the Northeast whose economic development can only be fully achieved with Bangladesh's cooperation. Further, at times when terrorism is a major concern in India, it is essential for Bangladesh with its 150 million people to succeed and move forward as a state. If we fail, India cannot avoid the consequences as Bangladesh then can very well turn into a hotbed of international terrorism.

Few things have happened in Bangladesh recently that suggests we have crossed a bend to align our relations with India in a win-win perspective. Parties and informed groups are now openly talking on issues such as land transit/connectivity and giving India use of our ports that were taboo subjects in our politics not too long ago. The emergence of the AL with a massive mandate that has historically good relations with the Indians, particularly the ruling Congress, is another positive development for realigning Bangladesh-India relations on the basis of mutuality.

It is, therefore, surprising that Indian diplomacy should be making moves that are bound to cause legitimate concerns in Bangladesh. There are other causes for worry coming from the Indian side. In his meeting with Sheikh Hasina, Menon extended to our Prime Minister an invitation on behalf of the Indian Government to send a delegation to look at Tipai Mukh barrage, little concerned that this is an explosive issue for damaging relations, as dangerous as the Farakka issue. Already opinion inside Bangladesh is crystallizing dangerously against this barrage which people feel that just as the Farakka barrage will eventually turn northwest Bangladesh into a desert; this barrage will do the same to northeast Bangladesh after it is commissioned in 2012.

For achieving good and sustainable relations, India must change her mindset from bilateralism and seek regional and sub-regional resolution of the problems that have stood in the way of good relations between our two countries. The sharing of the issue of water of the common rivers, which is a major cause of ill feelings between our two countries, can easily be turned into a bondage for sustainable friendship given the undeniable fact that sub-regional approach to this issue could leave both India and Bangladesh together with Nepal and Bhutan with not only just enough water in the dry season but also enough electricity to share and devastating floods to contain.

Indian diplomacy in Bangladesh is perhaps focusing the wrong areas and thereby overlooking a momentous opportunity, one that may not come again in foreseeable future, when Bangladesh is really eager to improve its relations with India. Overtures to Bangladesh's armed forces together with building of barrages like Tipai Mukh (not forgetting fencing the border) are some of the recent Indian steps in opposite directions. Such overtures from Dhaka's point of view could throw Bangladesh-India relations into a new abyss out of which fundamentalism and terrorism could grow dangerously. A successful and stable Bangladesh is to India's advantage; while an unstable Bangladesh with attempts to project it as a 'failed state' is dangerous for India also. It is still a mystery why Indian diplomacy is moving in a wrong way to ensure the latter.

Indian High Commissioner's meeting with Khaleda Zia may be a move to manage relations from sliding, although India must do a lot more to re-assure Bangladesh. The Indians need Khaleda Zia on board for improvement of relations. They also need to talk to Sheikh Hasina to encourage her to resolve conflicts in Bangladesh's politics and not create any. Indian diplomacy is on test again not just for Bangladesh's sake but for India's as well.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee Visits Dhaka

The Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee completed a one day visit on February 9th to Bangladesh as an Envoy of Prime Minister Manmohon Singh. He met Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, held official talks with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni and met a few other senior Ministers of the Bangladesh Government.

Two agreements were signed during the visit. The first was the Agreement on Investment Promotion and Protection and the other the Bilateral Trade Agreement. The first one was a new agreement and the second one was a renewal of an agreement that the two sides had signed earlier. At the official talks, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister and his the Indian counterpart went over a whole range of bilateral issues such as security, border management, strengthening connectivity ; trade and investment and water sharing issues.

No joint statement was issued after the talks. The two Foreign Ministers held separate press conferences. In his press conference, the Indian Foreign Minster did not respond positively on Sheikh Hasina’s call for a Joint task Force to Combat Terrorism. He said that political will, sincerity were more important than setting up any task force. The issue was again raised by Sheikh Hasina when the Indian FM called on her at her official residence. The Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, after the meeting, told reporters that the India FM agreed with the proposal that contradicted what Mr. Mukherjee himself told journalists earlier after his talks with Dipu Moni. In her own press conference, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister faced difficulty and tricky questions related to security and involving Pakistan. An Indian journalist queried her about Bangladesh being used by Pakistan as a “buffer state” for importing terrorists against India to which the Bangladesh Foreign Minister was unable to respond in a way to defend Bangladesh’s case that raised quite a few eyebrows from the Bangladeshi journalists present.

Prior to the visit, the Bangladesh media was full of speculation about issues such as trade and transit, both controversial where relations have remained stagnated. At least two Bangladesh ministers had contradicted on Government position on the issue of transit. The Minister for Commerce and the State Minister for Foreign Affairs were involved in contradicting each other.

The Indian Foreign Minister who arrived in a special aircraft was given protocol given to a visiting Head of State/Government as he was received in the VVIP terminal at Dhaka airport. An explanation given by the Government said that as Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is looking after some of the responsibilities of his Prime Minister, this special gesture was made to him. The Indian FM’s trip was just for a day and was very hectic. He also visited Dhaka University for a ceremony in connection with a floor being built in Dhaka University’s Arts Building with Indian assistance for the Drama Department. Mr. Mukherjee, however, could not find time to meet Begum Khaleda Zia, the leader of the Opposition.

Going by the media hype in Bangladesh, the visit of the Indian Foreign Minister was quite an anti-climax. The tough issues were glanced through without any decisions to move relations ahead. Given Indian concern on terrorism, one expected some agreement on the proposal of Sheikh Hasina on the joint task force. This did not happen. One can surmise that the Indians are not clear whether the Bangladesh Prime Minister was proposing a South Asian initiative or a bilateral one and hence the lack of interest. Given the well known Indian mindset that one has seen over the years, India is never forthcoming on any initiative on controversial issues that are multilateral, always preferring the bilateral approach. The issues of water sharing between Bangladesh and India is a case in point where India has stubbornly refused to bring Nepal into negotiations , despite the fact that with Nepal, this region could just not solve its problem of shortage of water in the dry season but also flood in the rainy season.

The Bangladesh side also showed during the visit that it has no clear sense of direction about dealing with India. The team work is just not there and there are still too many people at government level talking about the issues in a manner that just not shows a lack of professionalism but to add a cliché; here are too many cooks making the broth. In an age of globalization, foreign affairs need much more professional handling. Knowing that India is going to have an election very soon, the Foreign Ministry should not have allowed the media hype by killing all the speculations and instead should have advised the media to see the visit as a goodwill visit and nothing more. The Indians have done just that.

The Mumbai carnage: Time to go to the roots

THE carnage in Mumbai is a shocking reminder once again of the fear that few non-state actors can cause, which only full scale wars between nations could in the past. In 9/11 acts of terrorism, it was one score; in the Mumbai massacre, the perpetrators were fewer who actually caused the carnage and mayhem. There are of course many more involved in organizing and executing these acts such as terrorist organizations and nation-states. Pursuing them to root out terrorism has so far been futile as these terrorists and their groups keep on changing strategies as they have done in the Mumbai carnage to escape detection. The Mumbai terrorist attacks, the tragedy and carnage notwithstanding, should therefore lead those pursuing the war on terror to make a strategic shift and deal with the causes as much as the perpetrators. So far, at least since 9/11, the objective has been to pursue the perpetrators with little attention to the causes that breed terrorism. The events surrounding the Mumbai carnage are still murky. It is evident nevertheless that the attackers came from the high seas after off loading from a larger ship in the Arabian Sea and landing in Mumbai in water rafts. The way they carried the operations at 10 different locations and the ease with which they did so is another mystery for Mumbai has been subjected to terror attacks before and has an advanced security net. It is therefore quite possible that domestic terror organizations and perhaps the infamous Mumbai underworld may have been involved in assisting the foreign terrorists. India is near another general election. The Mumbai carnage is not good news for the ruling Congress party. There has obviously been a massive failure of security. To counteract political damage, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took the first lead, blaming “foreign hand” for the carnage. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee made that explicit by naming Pakistan and Pakistan backed terrorist organization Laskar-i-Taiyyba. Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patel has resigned that brought an instant negative reaction from BJP that said it was “too little too late”. P. Chidambaram, widely regarded as one of the architects of India's economic miracle, has been shifted from the Finance portfolio to Home. Initial Government responses in dealing with the carnage have thus been political; aimed at containing the negative fallout of the carnage on the Congress' electoral fortunes. The opposition BJP has likewise responded politically, emphasizing that they had better protected India while they were in power. The two major parties are using the carnage to drum up nationalism and the Pakistan card to appeal to the masses for votes. India, as victim of the carnage, must have everybody's support to deal with the issue but has to act with wisdom and its leadership, on both sides of the aisle, must leave aside politics and rhetoric and deal with the root causes of terrorism. The goal of the war on terror must not be a military solution or in this case must not end at putting Pakistan on dock. The goal should be to focus on the causes the terrorists use for their acts. Finger pointing and politics aside, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for creating an agency similar to the Homeland Security in USA, hoping that like the latter has been able to stop terrorist attacks after 9/11, this new agency in India would succeed likewise. It may not work that way in India for one reason: India has a large sprinkling of home grown terrorist organizations that are Muslim, Hindu and region based where USA has only external terrorists to handle. Without taking away her justified accusation of Pakistan for assisting terrorists against her sovereignty; India has to accept responsibility for not addressing the problems that have given rise to home grown terrorism. The Kashmir issue is on top of the list of the problems, created in 1947 when the 77% Muslim majority princely state acceded to India against the agreed principles of accession because of its Hindu Maharaja. Instead of resolving the Kashmir problem politically, all Indian Governments subsequently have alienated the majority Kashmiri Muslims from the rest of India. Human rights violation there has been recorded by organizations such as Amnesty International. India's treatment of Muslims in rest of India also has left a lot to be desired. Frequent riots targeting Muslims are both communal and political. The rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India often escapes serious attention, as is the case of violence against other Minorities such as the Christians. In February 2002, the massacre of over 2000 Muslims in Gujarat where the BJP led state government actively abetted the Hindu fundamentalists, has been labeled by independent investigators as genocide. In fact, because of his role in the riots, Chief Minister Narendra Modi was denied US visa after the riots and denied again in 2008, with the Coalition for Genocide urging the US State Department for a lifetime ban on him. As a power now emerging on the world scene among the top few, India needs to show political wisdom in dealing with her minorities to contain widespread home grown terrorist groups whose causes, unless resolved, will continue to draw overseas terror groups like pins to magnet as well as create home grown terrorist groups. Blaming Pakistan, even when correctly blamed, will appease the masses and win votes but will not even scratch the problem of terrorism. Pakistan's denial on involvement has serious flaws. With exception of perhaps one, all those who perpetrated the Mumbai carnage are Pakistanis and concrete evidence is coming out about involvement of Laskar-i-Taiyyba that operated legally in Pakistan till it was banned after 9/11. President Asif Zardari's offer to send his ISI Chief has been downgraded, suggesting that he is not fully in control of either his military or his intelligence. His hold on power is tenuous and he needs USA's full support to hold on to power. It is therefore unlikely that he would sanction a terrorist attack in which his ISI would have a major planning role, leaving implementation to a terrorist outfit like the Laskar-i-Taiyyba. That would suggest, given the evidence piling up, that Pakistan's ISI may have been involved behind the back of the President or that within the ISI; there are rogue elements that may have helped plan such an operation. The Indian Government has done the correct thing by handing an official note of protest to the Pakistan High Commissioner in India. India has also asked that Pakistan should hand over 20 most wanted fugitives hiding in India including the Mumbai underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. Pakistan has offered a joint probe. These leads must be allowed to bring India and Pakistan into serious contact to establish the truth behind the Mumbai carnage to pinpoint responsibility. Given the history of distrust between the two, where they have fought full-scale wars, it is not conceivable that they would be serious to establish the truth. In this instance, with Pakistan's complicity rather obvious in a prima facae way, it would require serious encouragement and pressure. Here the US and particularly the new administration can make the qualitative change. With Barak Obama in charge, expectations are high that the war on terror would be fought unitedly and not by dividing the world into “you are either with us or against us”, or into “axis of evil”. World opinion is firmly and unequivocally against terrorism and a lot of what good eventually comes out of the Mumbai carnage will depend on how the new President of US deals with India and Pakistan in the context of the Mumbai carnage. In his efforts, he should keep a few things in mind. First, the US has tremendous leverage over both. Second, the Mumbai carnage can bring India and Pakistan to the table to resolve the causes of terrorism in South Asia given the right motivation. Pakistan's President Zardari's position vis-à-vis the US is palpably evident, having just been given a US$ 7 billion life support by the IMF. India after signing the civil-nuclear deal needs the US to achieve its economic goals together with a host of other reasons. Third, despite all the blame game, the two sides have not moved towards a crisis situation such as an India-Pakistan war as happened in 2001 after the attack on the Indian parliament. Finally the carnage did not provoke a Hindu-Muslim riot as many apprehended. The doomsday predictions in the media over the Mumbai carnage seem to have dissipated paving way for India and Pakistan to deal the terrorism issue seriously. The ground is now favourable for US to use her considerable influence on the Pakistan Government and her intelligence to delink from any sponsorship of terror groups and then to isolate and obliterate such groups, urge India to consider the grievances of the minorities, particularly the Muslims, and rising Hindu fundamentalism to deal with domestic terrorism in the country. India will soon start to build dozens of nuclear reactors for power generation that would be very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This should be an additional motivation for India to contain her homegrown terrorism. Condolizza Rice could start this process during her current visit to India and pave the ground for the new administration to deal with it later. The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Executive Director, Southeast Bank.

UPCOMING EVENTS: The Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS)

Ambassador Serajul Islam also co-founded the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS) along with two other former Ambassadors from Bangladesh. CFAS was founded on the intent to develop awareness that foreign policy issues are not necessarily issues that need to be kept away from the public and handled in secrecy. Such issues often need to be aired publicly and foreign policy formulated objectively to serve the best national interest and this can be done by taking public opinion on board. In this context, the CFAS intends to work with the relevant committee of jatiya sangsad, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, other Government Ministries dealing with Bangladesh’s external relations; political parties, interest groups and eventually with the public through meetings, seminars, publication of reading materials and eventually town-hall types of meetings with ordinary citizens to integrate and articulate their views on crucial foreign policy issues.

The following are upcoming CFAS events that may be of interest. To view past CFAS events, visit the CFAS events page.

November 22, 2008: Future Directions of Bangladesh Foreign Policy

The Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, CFAS, in collaboration with the Daily Star will hold the Second Round Table on the “Future Directions of Bangladesh Foreign Policy” with the political parties, business groups, media and academia as stakeholders, on Saturday, November 22^nd at 10 am at the conference room of the Daily Star. The first Round Table was held with the retired Ambassadors in May this year.

January 2009: Dialogue on Bangladesh-India Relations

CFAS will also hold a Dialogue on Bangladesh-India Relations in January, 2009. The objective of the Dialogue is to bring out a paper for presentation to the next elected government of Bangladesh and will be the outcome of discussions between a team of experts from Bangladesh and India. A delegation from India led by Ambassador Abhyankar, former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, with Ambassador Dev Mukherjee, former High Commissioner of India to Bangladesh as a member, will visit Dhaka for holding preliminary meeting with CFAS on 23^rd November, 2008.

BJP president’s call to attack Bangladesh

Published in The New Age, August 23, 2008 Bangladesh needs to first put its own house in order and build up genuine bipartisanship over her relations with India for the country’s future, not just that of the BNP or the Awami League, are inextricably linked with her for, first, reasons of geopolitics and, second, the emerging realities of international politics, writes M Serajul Islam The statement made by Rajnath Singh, the president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that India should attack Pakistan and Bangladesh and destroy the terrorist bases in the two countries was a very serious matter. It was made by the president of a political party that was in government in New Delhi only recently and still has the potentials to return to power. For the president of such an important party of India to have made such a statement gives it a fair degree of legitimacy. In Bangladesh, the statement of Rajnath was not treated with the seriousness that it deserved. The reaction of the government was kept at the diplomatic level where a director-general of the foreign ministry was asked to call the Indian deputy high commissioner to whom a diplomatic note was given as a protest. The vernacular newspapers reacted but, by and large, one did not see editorials or columns written on this item. At least one leading English daily totally overlooked the news. The worst part of the entire episode was to see the benign reaction from the political parties. Lip service reactions came from by the major political parties, with the Awami League reaction falling way short of public expectations. In fact, not unexpectedly, it was the Jamaat that arranged a public rally to protest the Rajnath statement. It is however important for Bangladesh to look into the Rajnath statement dispassionately. The main focus of the Rajnath statement was Pakistan. Bangladesh was added as an extension to his (and India’s) frustration with ever-growing terrorist attacks inside India which are actively aided by Pakistan. In fact, the BJP president went to add Nepal and Sri Lanka also to the list of South Asian countries that were becoming hub of terrorist activities together with Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, Rajnath was specific in stating that the Indian government should take the international community into confidence and attack Pakistan and Bangladesh to dismantle terrorist camps in the two countries. So in the Rajnath statement, there was a definite threat against Bangladesh’s sovereignty and therefore a very serious matter that should not have been allowed just to pass by with almost passive reaction. Before going to that, one need to see the events in Bangladesh in the context of Rajnath’s statement about Bangladesh becoming a hub of Islamic terrorism since the BNP-led government came to office. The policy of denials In Bangladesh, Rajnath’s outrageous statement notwithstanding, the activities of the Islamic militants have risen by leaps and bounds since the BNP came to power. These activities culminated with the 500 bomb blasts carried by the JMB and fellow terrorists on August 17th last year. A year has passed by and although the key leaders of the JMB terrorists have been incarcerated, the way they are being treated has raised more questions than they have answered about the real intentions of the government in dealing with the rising Islamic terrorism in the country. When the JMB started their operations in northern Bangladesh, they were actively aided by the government’s intelligence agencies and political leadership. The US Ambassador Harry Thomas made the issue a major one among his responsibilities as his country’s envoy to Bangladesh, urging and pleading the government to curb the rising trend. His pleas were dismissed by the government as a creation of the media and anti-Bangladesh elements. The media, the opposition political parties and the NGOs, with graphic details, placed before the government undeniable proof of the rising Islamic militancy in the country. They too were scorned as unpatriotic and anti-Bangladesh elements. While the government went into a state of denial with this issue, the militants were encouraged to openly carry out their activities. As a result, Bangladesh became clearly identified abroad as a country harbouring and assisting the rise of Islamic militancy. When Condoleezza Rice came on a visit to India last year, the rise of Islamic militancy in Bangladesh was an important agenda of her discussions with the government of India. During that visit, following the briefing given to her by the Indians, Rice stated whilst in India that after Afghanistan, Bangladesh was the next country to watch in the context of rising Islamic militancy. Salig S Harrison, an author with extensive experience in South Asian affairs, wrote a very critical article in the Washington Post’s issue of August 2nd in which he has chronicled the rise of Islamic militancy in Bangladesh under this government even naming a secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs for actively assisting the Islamic militants for his alleged connections with them. The worries of India The developments in Bangladesh in the context of rising Islamic militancy have to be seen and related to the emergence of India as a global player. India today has aspirations for a permanent membership of the UN Security Council based on her fantastic economic development where it is now well set to emerge as a leading economic power of the world. It is also a nuclear power. The stakes for India are too high for her to feel comfortable with rising Islamic militancy inside Bangladesh which shares borders with India’s Seven Sisters where a number of separatist movements are active. Then there is the lingering suspicion in India about Bangladesh’s intelligence agencies’ connections with Pakistan‘s ISI. From the Indian point of view these are more than suspicions that they have communicated to the Bangladesh government over and over again that have been denied without convincing the Indians. These factors have created in the minds of the Indian government, their political parties and the public a feeling about the intentions of Bangladesh. There are two other factors here worth mentioning. The first goes back to Bangladesh’s war of liberation. The Indian view of Bangladesh’s liberation is that the country was liberated in 1971 as a result of India’s direct intervention in which many thousand Indian soldiers were killed. Thus the minimum that the Indians expect of Bangladesh is a country friendly towards her, particularly towards her security concerns. Second, in India, the opposition and the government fight each other tooth and nail on internal issues with the people likewise divided. However, on foreign policy and security issues the parties and the government seldom take opposing views. The people too almost always back their government on these issues. This is why on the Rajnath statement, the government of India has not spoken, Bangladesh’s protest note notwithstanding while in the press and media, his statement was well received. The ironies There was also an irony to Bangladesh’s reaction to the Rajnath statement. The most vociferous reaction came from the Jamaat, a party widely accused by the opposition political parties as one working actively against the country’s sovereignty. While the Jamaat organised a big rally to protest a genuine threat to the country’s sovereignty, the parties that claim as the patriotic forces allowed this threat to pass by. The foreign ministry that never lost any opportunity to attack India in the media in terms often undiplomatic on much lesser issues left the Rajnath statement to a diplomatic protest note and that too to be handled at a low level in the ministry. The lack of united approach Thus, while from the Indian side, the underlying message in Rajnath’s threat has been shared and supported by all shades of opinion there, in Bangladesh the threat has revealed the internal divisions in the country. Where there was a genuine reason for the country to have shown a united resolve and bipartisanship, unfortunately no such unity was witnessed. Even the media, normally quite alert on such issues, did not treat the implied threat in the BJP president’s statement appropriately. Bangladesh must look at the Rajnath statement and reflect upon the current international situation as well. After 9/11, the war against terrorism has become the critical issue of international politics. The concept of pre-emptive strike against countries and groups that support terrorism either actively or by default has become accepted despite protestations to the contrary. Bangladesh must therefore deal with the rising Islamic militancy better than the way she has so far. The BNP’s indulgence with the Islamic forces for electoral gains that has helped the growth of Islamic militancy in the country must end not by merely claiming in the media that Bangladesh is the only country to have arrested the kingpins of Islamic terrorism but by punishing those who have been arrested and revealing the names of those who have given them the encouragement to work right under the nose of the government for years till they were arrested, that too in dramatic fashions which was too good to believe. The government’s claims to the contrary, there are many in Bangladesh and abroad who are yet to be convinced that this government is sincere about dealing with the rise of Islamic militancy. Bangladesh needs to first put its own house in order and build up genuine bipartisanship over her relations with India for the country’s future, not just that of the BNP or the Awami League, are inextricably linked with her for, first, reasons of geopolitics and, second, the emerging realities of international politics. India’s unfriendly attitude and narrow mindedness are there that they have shown consistently in dealing with Bangladesh over a wide range of bilateral issues such as her water and territorial rights and trade issues. These rights and issues cannot be achieved the way Bangladesh has been dealing with India. The country must also look seriously into India’s interests such as her security concerns and her requests for land transit, use of her ports and purchase of gas and within those considerations develop an India Policy where the start must be by bringing all shades of political and public opinion in the country on board. The task is an immense one for at the moment the country does not have even the semblance of such a policy. The start to developing an India Policy could come from the country’s think tanks whose recommendations could then filter through the media to the government and the political parties who should put the nation’s interests ahead of political ones and help the country come up with an India Policy. The execution of that policy must invariably rest with the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has so far dealt with Bangladesh’s relations with India by way of reacting, without showing any pragmatic or professional approach. The BJP president’s remarks should wake up Bangladesh to these realities and the urgent need to develop an India Policy. The writer is a former ambassador of Bangladesh to Japan