Cabinet expansion misfires: Hard truths surface about the AL led government

The Holiday
19 September, 2012

M. Serajul Islam 

 

The Cabinet Secretary must have been confused (or flabbergasted?) to find himself in the limelight in the cabinet expansion/reshuffle drama. The Prime Minister put him on the spot for phoning Tofael Ahmed (TA) and Rashed Khan Menon (RKM) and seven others to convey the decision to join the Cabinet as if he was appointing them as Ministers. She advised the journalists who were curious why TA and RKM did not join, to call him and find out the answer!  

There is one thing that must be admitted about the Prime Minister. She does not believe in beating about the bush. If she dislikes an issue or any one, she shoots straight. She does not believe in making anything unpleasant she has to say, sugar coated. Even when she does not use unpleasant words, her body language reflects her inner feelings when she wants to convey unpleasant opinion about an issue or any one. Honesty in thought, action and even body language are the fundamental strengths of her character. Even her worst enemy has to admire her for these qualities. 

In this instance, the Prime Minister knew that the journalists would ask her questions about TA and RKM after the swearing ceremony of the new Ministers was over. Indeed they did. The Prime Minister tried to calm their concerns by suggesting that the expansion was a routine matter and everyone should take it as such. However, when questions were raised about TA’s decision to decline the offer to become a Minister, the Prime Minister could not restrain herself in expressing her true feelings. 

The Prime Minister was literally correct when she told the journalists that she did not call TA and others to be present at Bangobhavan to take oath as Ministers. Nevertheless there is no reason except in a state of insanity to believe in the literal meaning and that the Cabinet Secretary on his own asked these individuals to join the Cabinet. Her body language left no one in any doubt that she was simmering inside because TA and RKM declined to join.  By her sarcasm, she tried to divert the affront that the refusal conveyed; for these were affronts pure and simple. The refusal also revealed some unpleasant realities about the Awami League and the ruling alliance or the Mahajote. 

Clearly there was nothing routine about this expansion/reshuffle. The expansion has come when the government is moving into the final year of its five years’ tenure. At this time, it should be busy reaping the benefits of its tenure to flag its successes for winning the next elections. An expansion at such a late stage logically suggests that the government is not succeeding with the existing cabinet to reap the results to ensure its return to power and that it needs extra hands in the Cabinet to revive the falling image and ability of the government. In deciding the expansion, the government even did not consider that the number of Ministers would rise to 53 making the Prime Minister’s council of ministers, minus the powerful Advisers, as heavy as that of the BNP that it had sarcastically and severely criticized as “elephantine” when forming the government. 

The argument about deteriorating governance as a major reason for the latest expansion is also strengthened by the fact that there are serious concerns and criticisms these days in everybody’s mind about this government. If such concerns and criticisms were coming just from the opposition, one could dismiss these as propaganda or exaggerated. The criticisms are coming with more severity from within the ranks of the Awami League and from leaders of the AL’s alliance partners. In fact, the criticisms of the Finance Minister in Parliament by TA, RMK and Hasanul Huq Inu have been so severe that even the Opposition leaders would not have been able to match them if they had been in parliament and taking the floor. 

In fact, the Finance Minister by his recent actions,  has himself flagged for the nation that this government is functioning in a manner that cannot even be called rational let alone successful. He called a scam in Sonali Bank where Taka 4000 crores has been siphoned off by fraud as “nonsense” and a media invention; then apologized for such an incredible statement and then said he has been considering resigning for the last nine months! It is not just the Finance Minister who has given evidence of the sorry state of affairs of governance. The same sad failure is spread over the main Ministries of the Government again not by the assessment of the Opposition but by the senior members of the AL and its alliance partners. The Finance Minister has flagged the serious lack of coordination among the Ministers and their Ministries as one of the reasons for the deterioration of governance. 

A major criticism against the government is its anti-democratic stance of governing with un-elected Advisers in place of the elected Ministers. This criticism has also been flagged by the senior members of the AL who are not in favour with the Prime Minister and leaders of the Mahajote more forcefully than the opposition. In clear violation of the rules, these Advisers sit in the Cabinet Meetings and some are seen regularly in the media making policy statements on Ministries with scant regard or respect for the Ministers. The Prime Minister however prefers the Advisers and underscored this by refusing to ask her Adviser Dr. Mashiur Rahman to resign despite serious pressures even from her own party. 

The criminalization of the public educational institutions is another major evidence of deterioration of governance under this government. The student’s wing of the party has literally taken over these institutions. The recent disturbances Jahangirnagar University, BUET and Dhaka University are alarming. Past governments allowed their respective student’s wings a lot of leverage to indulge in various activities not conducive to maintaining the educational environment of these institutions.  Under this government, the Chatra League has been allowed to control the public universities more effectively than the Vice Chancellors and the Provosts of the residential halls.  

In the most recent conflict in Dhaka University, the Chatra League beat up the leaders of the Chatra Dal in broad daylight outside the office of the Vie Chancellor. They did not care that their acts were being filmed by the private television channels to be shown to the public.  Yet when the Vice Chancellor was asked by the journalists about the incident, he told them that he was unaware of the clashes and could have missed witnessing unless he was in deep slumber as he was in the office at the time!  Newspaper reports also mentioned that the Chatra Dal leaders had gone to meet him after he had given them an appointment. The Vice Chancellor by his action has  thus proven that he dares not do anything that could earn him the displeasure of the Chatra League underscoring the utter depth to which the once “Oxford of the East” has fallen. 

As the proverbial weather bird, President Ershad has been first not just to underscore the falling fortunes of the AL led Mahajote; he has already stated publicly that in the next general elections the Jatiya party would not be a part of the Mahajote. In fact, he has high hopes of becoming the official opposition in the next AL Government (assuming that BNP would opt out on the Caretaker issue) although of late, he even fancies himself of being the next Prime Minister! The left elements in the Mahajote, apart from acting as the opposition in parliament against the Government’s failures, have recently held parleys among themselves concerned that with the government failing, whether it would be appropriate for them to continue in the alliance. 

Added to these pressures against it, the AL led government is also under pressures from abroad in a manner than no past government ever faced. On issues of Dr. Mohammad Yunus, the Grameen Bank, the Padma Bank loan, human rights, etc, the Government has gone on the wrong side of governments/institutions that are crucial to its development efforts. What is simply astounding is that the Government has chosen to annoy these powerful governments and institutions for reasons that everybody except those in the inner circle of the Prime Minister thinks are suicidal for the country. 

The unfortunate state of affairs concerning governance however did not happen suddenly. The deterioration has been gradual and extends not just to areas touched in the preceding paragraphs but also over law and order; failure to deliver power and keep prices of essentials down as it had promised in its election manifesto. Before the opposition could expose the deterioration, the signs were flagged by sections within the ruling party. Fingers were pointed at the exclusion of four experienced leaders TA, Abdur Razzak, Amir Hossain Amu and Suranjit Sen as reasons for the failure of the government to deliver. Thus there was pressure on the Prime Minister from the very beginning to take these leaders into the Cabinet and not to depend on inexperienced Ministers in key and critical Ministries. While the Prime Minister herself recognized that her inexperienced Ministers were failing to deliver having mentioned many times in her Cabinet meetings that they were being watched on their performance, she refused to bow to the pressure to bring TA and his colleagues into the Cabinet. 

In fact, it has been an open secret since the Prime Minister formed her first Cabinet leaving TA and his colleagues out that she were getting even with them for their role during the Caretaker Government. At that time, these four together with many others in the party had decided to support change of leadership in the top of the party including Sheikh Hasina, to democratize it. The Prime Minister did not forget or forgave these leaders for their role. In fact when Abdur Razzak was fighting for his life in a hospital in London, TA publicly regretted that the Bangladesh High Commissioner or his staff in London did not even visit him in the hospital! 

The earlier reshuffles, three before this last one, were also made in the face of widespread criticism of governance and inner pressure to bring back the so called reforists. The Prime Minister nevertheless inducted the less important among the so called reformists in the Cabinet before but simply refused to look upon TA, Abdur Razzak, Amir Hossain Amu and Suranjit Sen with favour. While Abdur Razzak passed away meantime, Suranjit Sen was inducted among the major “reformists” into the cabinet. When however he arranged his own exit on the allegation of corruption by his personal staff, she was more than happy to ask him to resign from the Railways Ministry. Although by some mysterious ways he managed to remain a Minister without portfolio after resigning, he has not been given any charge in the latest reshuffle, suggesting no doubt that the Prime Minister is not really unhappy at his present predicament.  

This time the expansion and reshuffle of the cabinet had again become because of serious deterioration of governance and stronger voice of dissent within the party. Although, the Mahajote showed discontent with the deterioration of governance, those still with their limited influence in the party were not bothered with the alliance partners. With Jatiya Party decided to leave the alliance, it really did not matter whether the parties led by  Hasanul Huq Inu and RKM stayed or not in the Mahajote for their ability to assist the AL in the next elections is very limited.   

It was in fact TA who was the main reason for the latest expansion and reshuffle of the cabinet. No matter who called TA to join the Cabinet, the decision to make him a Minister was one the Prime Minister made because of pressure from her senior colleagues to keep the rank and file in the party happy; rank and file who are disillusioned with the government and believe that TA would be able to help bring the sinking ship to the shores. The Prime Minister’s reaction in the media left little doubt that she is not in talking terms with TA and agreed to offer him the Cabinet post reluctantly because of pressure  and that she was not really unhappy that he did not join the Cabinet, the affront notwithstanding, for she can now blame those who had put pressure on her in his favour for what TA did to  the party’s image that has surely been dented by TA’s action. 

Talk show guests have had a field day analyzing the expansion/reshuffle. A Professor who is a regular guest in talk shows and an unabashed critic of the government went over the rails congratulating TA and RKM for their courage to rise above personal ambitions for democracy. He said that they refused to respond to the Prime Minister because she had offered the posts like the owners of dogs throw crumbs at dogs taking for granted that such offers would be gleefully accepted!  He apologized for the crude analogy but was quite convinced that the refusal was a great victory for democracy.  Many were excited with the refusal for like the Professor, they too thought that it was a victory for democracy.  

For many, disillusioned with the government, the refusals were indeed news to be excited about for TA and RKM  have done what seemed like impossible; that politicians belonging to the ruling party and its allies would ever have the courage to stand up to the Prime Minister. They also agreed that the Prime Minister should have personally talked with TA and RKM to ensure that they would accept the offers before the Cabinet Secretary called them to be told that they were being invited to become Ministers. In case of TA, his position and importance in the party clearly demanded that the Prime Minister herself should have shown this minimum courtesy to him.  

Clearly TA was treated shabbily by the Prime Minister who left no one in doubt that she has still not forgiven him. In the end by her insensitive action, the Prime Minister enhanced the respect of TA in the party and the nation together with also flagging what everyone knows, that there is major dissension within the Awami League and that TA is leading a significant faction in the party at odds with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, by her insensitive handling of the expansion/reshuffle, has   acknowledged this deep division in her party. In a way, she has made the same mistake she made in handling the case of Dr. Mohammad Yunus. By pursuing her personal dislike for the Noble Laureate; she has ended in making him more popular at home and abroad at her expense. In humiliating TA, she has enhanced his position, honour and importance in the party and the country; again at her expense. 

Nevertheless, the refusals are hardly going to help democracy in any way   all the felicitations and congratulations to TA and RKM notwithstanding. What the expansion/reshuffle drama has underscored is that the AL is still firmly in the grasp of the Prime Minister who is still in no mood to share her power with anyone. True those who are appointed as Ministers are informed by the Cabinet  (in fact it is the Joint Secretary and not the Cabinet Secretary who does this job normally) but only to be asked to be at the Bangobhavan at the appointed time for the oath. That such individuals would receive their calls from the cabinet without any prior knowledge of their appointments expresses a mindset where the elements of respect and courtesy are totally absent; where instead there is a clear statement that the Prime Minister does not care for these individuals; a mindset described by the Professor on the talk show for which he apologized. 

This mindset that has surfaced clearly from the expansion/reshuffle drama has also explained by way of collateral damage that the government is in a poor state in terms of governance and the country even worse in its never ending march to establish democracy. The BNP should not gloat from these truths that would no doubt help it to fight the AL; it should take the lessons on the mindset of the Prime Minister so that when its turn in power comes, it does not make the same mistake and suffer the same predicament.  

Then only would the resignations of TA and RKM serve any useful purpose for the cause of democracy the way the Professor thought the refusals would. It is still too premature to conclude such an outcome. This apart, the expansion/reshuffle is not going to serve any useful purpose. Already, issues emerging about those inducted as Ministers indicate that this was one expansion/reshuffle that the Prime Minister would have been better off not undertaking.

 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan  

 

 

 

 

 

Anniversary of Indian PMs visit: Bangladesh awaits India to deliver

Published in The Daily Sun


The first anniversary of thedisappointing visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka has passed last week without any acknowledgement from the Bangladesh government. Not surprisingly though because India has failed to deliver on their commitments on the Teesta and the land boundary agreement (LBA) even a year after that visit despite repeated assurances from Bangladesh government that India would deliver “soon”. Still, the best the Indians can do is to keep on telling Bangladesh that delivery is round the corner.

The paradigm shift for improvement of Bangladesh-India relations for which Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina gave India full commitment on security and offered it trial run on land transit has not just become stuck on India’s failure to deliver on its commitments; it has
placed the ruling Awami League in an
adverse political spot in the domestic politics of Bangladesh.

Never before in the country's
history has a government faced such problems at home and abroad as those facing
the present government. India’s failure to deliver on commitments has contributed
its share to put the AL led government in its current predicament. When Sheikh
Hasina made unilateral commitment to India on the latter’s vital security needs
and a provided it a trial run for land transit, it was expected, or so the
Prime Minister’s negotiating team told the nation, that India would help make
Bangladesh the regional connectivity hub with vast economic prospects together
with meeting Bangladesh’s expectations on water sharing, trade needs and land
boundary demarcation and on other outstanding issues.

The Prime Minister sent two of her
Advisers to New Delhi last week because she is running out of patience and time.
Their visit has been described by New Delhi as one undertaken to discuss issues
related to the Tippaimukh dam. Dhaka described the visit as routine.
Nevertheless, it was neither. The Advisers went to New Delhi to convey the
growing signs of impatience in Dhaka. The Prime Minister met her Indian
counterpart only recently in Tehran on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Summit where Manmohon Singh advised her to wait. Thus Dhaka knew that
New Delhi is still in no position to deliver. Yet the Advisers went to New
Delhi to put pressure on India and to be seen in Bangladesh that it is doing
its best to force India to deliver.

Of the two Advisers, Dr.
Mashiur Rahman is in the centre of a major
controversy involving the World Bank. There is an issue
of credibility concerning him. Although he has not been formally charged of any
wrong doing, in the Bangladesh media he has been named as one that the World Bank
would like to resign to reactivate the loan for the Padma Bridge. With a cloud
hanging over his good name, he should not have been sent to negotiate for the
government. In conduct of relations between governments at the ministerial
level, it is enough to rule out anyone from negotiating for his government even
if there is a slight doubt about his/her credibility. The one hanging over Dr.
Mashiur Rahman is a serious one.

The other Adviser in the team that
went to New Delhi, Dr. Gowhar Rizvi was constantly in the
media harping upon the benefits of cooperating with India prior to the visit of
the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka. When a pall of gloom descended upon Dhaka after,
first, Mamata Banarjee withdrew from Manmohon Singh’s delegation, and second,
Teesta was withdrawn from the talks, Dr. Gowhar Rizvi cheered the nation stating
that no harm was done by either of these to the
visit. He gave a positive spin in the media to what was certainly
anything but positive that Mamata Banarjee would come on a separate visit to
Dhaka later He together with the Foreign Minister informed
the nation that the Teesta water sharing agreement would be signed during the
PM’s visit no matter what.

In retrospect, both Advisers need
to do some soul searching and look into their past negotiations if they want to
help themselves and Bangladesh. Dr. Gowhar Rizvi needs to reflect that while he
was informing the nation that Mamata Banarjee would be invited to Dhaka that
she would happily accept, the latter had already made up her mind to deny
Bangladesh the Teesta deal and to use Bangladesh as a bargaining chip with New Delhi.
He also did not seem to be aware that someone had given instruction to the
Foreign Secretary to summon the Indian High Commissioner while the Indian Prime
Minister had landed in Dhaka to be told that Bangladesh would not exchange the
letters to give India land transit on a permanent basis.
Clearly there was a serious
disconnect among those who were conducting relations with India. It was hard to
tell whether there was any coordinating mechanism in the so-called negotiating team
leading to the visit of Manmohon Singh to Dhaka. Therefore when the visit ended
in a fiasco, it did not surprise many in Bangladesh. It exposed the
over-eagerness of the Bangladesh negotiating team to please India that many
found difficult to comprehend. In
particular, many were curious why Dr. Mashiur Rahman thought it would be
“uncivilized” for the Bangladesh Government to charge India fee for using land
transit.

The Government of Bangladesh would
also need to accept a few hard facts. First, its negotiating team failed to deliver
because they were negotiating from a conviction that they could trust India and
did not bother to check the history of Bangladesh-India relations and facts.
Second, the Advisers who led the negotiations had no prior experience in
diplomatic negotiations and had no institutional support to guide them. They
negotiated by deliberately keeping the Foreign Ministry outside the loop for
which Bangladesh suffered as the MFA had the facts and figures and could have
helped the Advisers in their negotiations if they worked as a team that they
did not.

Unfortunately, the Government is
still going about doing business with India with the same mindset and strategy.
The dispatch of the Advisers to New Delhi shows that it still does not see the
need to change its negotiating team although bipartisan view about the team is
that it does not have confidence of the nation. Meanwhile, at least one member of
the team has also become controversial.

Meanwhile both the issues that the
AL led Bangladesh Government needs to be delivered to get out of its current
predicament have become inextricably intertwined in the dynamics of India’s
domestic politics. When Sheikh Hasina had made the unilateral concessions on
India’s security needs and given it land transit on a trial basis, times were
better and our negotiators should have move moved quickly
to seek reciprocity instead of harping the Indian song to the people of
Bangladesh and wasting valuable time.

They should have also talked with
Mamata Banarjee and other stake holders instead of trusting New Delhi blindly. In retrospect, while the Advisers were singing
Indian praises and counting chickens from connectivity, Indian domestic
politics was changing with our negotiators blissfully unaware. Our negotiating
team, enamoured by the courtesies and warm words of New Delhi, did not feel the
need to look at Indian domestic politics. In the end, as the Indians had done
with the Indira-Mujib Agreement of 1974; it merely used the excuse of domestic
compulsions to retract on its commitment.

The two Advisers and the Foreign
Minister should now do themselves a favour. They should look back upon their
roles and ask themselves on what basis they made the promises to the people of
Bangladesh on India’s good will. If they
are sincere to themselves, they will find out that despite the Prime Minister’s
loss of patience and the difficult predicament of AL on the “India factor”, India
really did not make the commitments categorically on either Teesta or the land
boundary agreement. Our negotiators
assumed that India had made the
commitments for reasons they alone can explain.

India now wants to deliver the
Teesta deal and ratify the land boundary agreement because it desperately needs
the land transit and continued cooperation on security where Bangladesh has
withdrawn land transit and no longer as enthusiastic on security cooperation as
before. Unfortunately, in the last one year, the dynamics of India’s domestic
politics have weakened the hands of New Delhi to deliver on either of the two major
commitments to help the AL Government out of its present predicament on the
“India factor”. No wonder then that
neither in Dhaka nor in New Delhi the anniversary of Manmohon Singh’s visit to
Bangladesh was news for any optimism.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.






Anniversary of Indian PM’s visit: Bangladesh awaits India to deliver

On ministerial coordination and resignation

As I see it Column
The Independent

The Finance Minister is under much more pressure that he realizes
although of late he has admitted a lot about his current unfortunate
predicament. One wonders why his family,
relatives and friends do not advise him to be careful and cautious about what
he says in the media. It did not do him or his position any credit when after
making the stupendous mistake of calling the Sonali Bank scam “nonsense” and a
media invention and stating that Taka 4000 crores is not any amount to cause a
scare, he apologized publicly for his incredible actions but not before his own
party flattened him with criticism they normally reserve for the opposition. He
ended his histrionics in the media by admitting that he has been asked (by the
Prime Minister) not to “open his mouth” in public and that he must be the most
hated man in the country!

With such being the predicament of the Minister in charge of the
critical portfolio of Finance, one really has also to wonder why he has not resigned.
As an honourable man that should have been his only option. Resignation under
this government however may not be as easy as one would want because the Prime Minister
dislikes the idea. If there is any
pressure upon her to remove a Minister, the Prime Minister simply hates to act
even where national interests are linked with such pressure. The Ministers on
their part also show no inclination to resign on their own, despite what they
say or wish in public, to save their reputation.

Drama by ministers over resignation, sad as it is, however
provides the public some comic relief. If ours was a betting country, book makers
would have made good sums of money for themselves and their clients by betting
on whether Abul Hossain would resign when for seven months, his resignation
issue had the nation gripped in intense tension and focus. They would also have
had Dr. Mashiur Rahman to take bets on; whether or not he would resign eventually.
The drama by Suranjit Sen Gupta over the
bag full of cash in his APS’ car could also have been a betting issue.

The Finance Minister’s chances of resigning on his own thus will
remain merely a wish because with the Opposition strongly demanding his
resignation, the Prime Minister would simply not allow him the luxury! There is
however a much serious issue of governance that is being lost and the country’s
interests are being affected adversely in this mindset of the Prime Minister
and the behaviors of the Ministers. In an age where information in any part of
the world in instant information in the rest of the world, the Prime Minister’s
mindset and the way the Ministers conduct themselves are no secret. Surely,
impression about this government and its Ministers outside the country cannot
be positive as a consequence.

Thus while the Government waits for the World Bank to decide on
the Padma Bridge loan; it did not do much to help Bangladesh’s case when the
Finance Minister in one of his regular contacts with the media blurted out that
the World Bank’s Integrity Division is working against Bangladesh with “jihadi”
conviction. Common sense should have required of him not
to make such a statement when the Government has all but prostrated itself for
the loan. Likewise, the way he has reacted in public over
the Sonali Bank scam has become known to all with whom he would be interacting
in world forums that he does regularly. Surely, he does not do his case or that
of the country any good when interacting abroad after the mess he makes of his
conduct at home almost on a regular basis.

It is strange that this Government fails to realize how important
it is to ensure that those who conduct relations abroad on its behalf must have
impeccable credentials to be effective. In fact, it is unthinkable that any
government would send abroad a Minister or an Adviser about whom there are
questions on credibility where there is a demand for his resignation in the
country or from abroad. Yet recently, it sent an Adviser to India who has
become controversial because the Word Bank has asked for his removal to
reactivate the Padma Bridge loan.

While acknowledging the fact that no one is guilty unless proven
so, the point the government seems to miss is that there is no scope of even a
charge that impinges upon the character of a Minister/Adviser to be set aside
to let him conduct negations for the government abroad without resolving the
charge. Civilized governments do not do so. Unfortunately, for some
inexplicable reason, there seems to be the mindset in this government that it
is always right and whatever else the pubic or the rest of the world may think
to the contrary is secondary or of little importance. Surely such a mindset
cannot bring positive results for the country. What is unbelievable is that it
chooses to turn a blind eye to the results before its eyes as a consequence of
this mindset.

The Finance Minister in the face of relentless attacks from his
party and the opposition over the Sonali Bank scam blurted out what in
retrospect was a sad reality about this government’s style of governance. He
regretted the absence of coordination among the Ministries of this government
that he thought affected adversely upon its performance. Inadvertently perhaps,
he highlighted what is a major yardstick for judging the deterioration of
governance of this government. Ministers, particularly the important ones, have
left no one in doubt that they just do not believe in the Rules of Business and
Allocations of Business; two fundamental documents that gives to each Minister
and his Ministry a clearly defined area of duties and responsibilities. In
fact, as far as Ministers’ conduct go, this government can be described as a
believer in free style governance where Ministers need not worry when they
interfere as they regularly do, in affairs of another Ministry if it is done to
get the attention of the Prime Minister or to please her.

The Finance Minister himself is no exception to this interference.
He should spare himself a moment and read the statements on Bangladesh’s
foreign relations that he makes pretty regularly where the rules require
clearance and/or consultation with the Foreign Ministry. He simply does not
feel that in making his statements on the country’s foreign relations, he has
any need to consult the Foreign Ministry.

This government is clearly exceptional on the issues of
resignation of Ministers and Advisers and coordination among Ministries. No
other Government has messed up these issues the way it has. Strangely, it is also
blissfully unaware that its strange way of conducting the business of
government is sadly adversely affecting its performance in a major way. The
Ministers/Advisers are just too busy pleasing the Prime Minister. They could
not be bothered reflecting upon their strange ways which explains why the Minister
of Finance could describe a scam worth Taka 4000 crores as concern over
“nonsense”, prostrate himself and the country before the Word Bank for half
that amount and still remain in his position!


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





On ministerial coordination and resignation

US Presidential election: rich versus poor and middle class Daily Sun

Julian Castro, the 37 year old Hispanic Mayor of San Antonio, as a key note speaker at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina placed before nation plainly what could be the defining theme in this year’s presidential election. He said that the Republican candidate Mitt Romney visited a university in Idaho on his campaign trail where he advised students on starting small businesses. When a student asked him where he would get the capital to do so, Mitt Romney’s reply was instinctive:“borrow money from your parents”. His father had so much money that he thought everyone else wanting money had a rich father to turn to!

Julian Castro’s target was theaffluent background of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party leadership todefine this election as one between the rich America and the poor and middleclass America. The Republicanspassionately stand for less government interference in the lives of Americansto appeal to the average conservatives. However, its leadership activelysupports less government for a reason different from the average conservative.They do so to protect their wealth and well being from being taken away by moretaxes to help the middle class and the poor. The Republican leadership argues that ifpeople are poor, it is their bad luck and should not expect that the Governmentto help them out. In fact, the Republicans see any measure to help out the poorand the needy as socialist or more government control over individuallives and therefore despicable.

It is this mindset that has ledthe Republican Party to vow to destroy President Obama’s affordable healthcareprogramme that they derisively call Obamacare. The Republicans have made this amajor issue in the presidential election although it offers affordablehealthcare to nearly 50 million Americans whose only recourse to treatment whenthey are sick is prescription drug over the counter. Such apathy to the poorand the underprivileged makes the United States stand on its own among the developed nations where 1/6^th of its population have only God to lookup to when they need hospital care for their ailments without which they coulddie.

Those lucky to have insurance andmiddle class however are not guaranteed treatment when they reach the cap ontheir insurance. Terminally ill patients are sent home by hospitals to die athome because they have reached their insurance caps. People with pre healthconditions are not allowed health insurance even if they can afford one. PresidentObama’s affordable healthcare programme helps these unfortunate Americans. TheRepublicans want to destroy this pro-poor and pro- middle class programme that thelives of rich and the privileged are not affected to help out their lessfortunate fellow Americans. To get support, the Republicans argue that it wouldtake money out of Medicare that benefits the elderly.

The Democratic Convention isattempting to flag the concerns of the poor and the middle class, the majorityof the Americans, with this healthcare programme, its tax proposals, the womenvoters, the elderly and the war veterans. It gave a face to each of theseconcerns to reach respective constituents effectively. To put across thehealthcare programme, it brought to the convention the mother whose daughterwith congenital heart disease would now have hope instead of being left to diebecause the insurance companies would now have to pay for her operations thatshe and her husband could not afford.

To reach out to the mothers whoare expected to influence the outcome of the election, the Convention fell backupon First Lady Michelle Obama. She reached out to the mothers of America byputting her role as mom-in-chief ahead of all the other activities that she nowhas as the First Lady. She was introduced by a mother whose four sons are inthe armed forces to send a strong message of support to the veterans and theirfamilies and men and women in uniform and their families. She also gave PresidentObama a human face based on the values of the middle class whom time andposition has not changed.

The Convention brought toCharlotte Lilly Ledbetter who has become the icon for women demanding equalrights as men in work place for doing similar work. Her efforts led to theadoption of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that now ensures that it isillegal for employers to pay women less than men who have similar jobs andresponsibilities.

The Convention reached out to themen and women in uniform also through Tammy Duckworth, the war veteran who losther two legs in Iraq and now a candidate for a Congressional seat fromIllinois. Tammy Duckworth also flaggedfor the nation the failure of the Republican Convention to mention the Iraq andAfghan wars in which thousands of Americans laid down their lives and whereAmerica spent over a trillion of dollars o tax payers’ money that is one of themain reasons for US’ current economic predicament.

CNN’s Piers Morgan interviewedRepublican Vice President Candidate Paul Ryan on the opening day of theDemocratic Convention. He asked him whether the Obama administration could begiven some leeway for being given an economy by President Bush that was inruins. Paul Ryan acknowledged that PresidentObama inherited an economy in bad shape from his predecessor but held himresponsible nevertheless for his failure to revive the economy and reduce theunemployment figure. In particular, he harped upon the line that theRepublicans have taken on the high rate of unemployment that is currently at8.4% to register it firmly in the voters’ mind because no candidate ever madeit to the White House with such a high unemployment in recent history.

The Democrats are using thisacknowledgement by Paul Ryan that PresidentObama inherited an economy in ruins that he is now bringing back on rails toswing focus away from the current stateof the economy, particularly unemployment. They are using thecase of the automobile bailout that has saved the automobile industry as anexample that the President’s policies are working. The Democrats are trying tosend the message that the Republicans want less government to stop programmesto help the poor and the under privileged. Most importantly, they are trying tosend the message to the middle class that they stand for them while theRepublicans want to tax them more to make the rich richer.

If the Democrats can successfullysend across this message from Charlotte then only they would be able to getover the issues of the economy and unemployment to re-elect President Obama for another term. The speakers in Charlotte on the first day of the Convention made a very good case. Fingers are crossed but feelings are high that with President Clinton billed to speak on the second day, they would be able to make their case more effectively by energizing the middle class across the country.

In an election that is still too close for call, the Republicans failed to get any momentum from their Convention in Tampa last week. If the first day at Charlotte is any hint, the Democratic Convention could make the difference between the two campaigns.

The writer is former Ambassador to Japan.

On theSonali Bank “Nonsense”

As published in the "As I see It" column, The Independent

There is something eerie about the way this government isconducting business. Huge sums of public money just seem to vanish into thinair with the government not even bothered. Not too long ago, a committee formedby the government and headed by Ibrahim Khaled, Chairman Krishi Bank and formerDeputy Governor of Bangladesh Bank reported that well known individualssiphoned off thousands of crores of Taka by well laid out scams. To date, noaction has been taken against any of them.

The mind boggling scam in the Sonali Bank should have scared theGovernment out of its wits. Instead, theFinance Minister and the Governor of the Bangladesh Bank thought it fit tofight over turf instead in an unbelievable response to the scam! It seems as ifa few thousand crores is hardly a sum to bother this government. Nevertheless,the same government has prostrated itself before the World Bank for funds tobuild the Padma Bridge that is substantially less than what has been alleged tohave been looted in the Sonali scam! Something does not make sense.

The Finance Minister dismissed the scam as “nonsense”. In a roundtable discussion, he accused the media for blowing a “minor” issue out ofproportion to give the impression that the banking sector was breaking down. Inthe round table, he said “Here, my banking crisis – which is not a crisis atall. It is a matter of 3000, 4000 crores. Nonsense! But you [media] are harmingthe banking sector by publicizing it. Banking sector is confronted withquestions whether all of it had crumbled down."

Meanwhile, the Directors of Sonali Bank have cleared themselves ofany wrong doing. The name of an Adviserto the Prime Minister has surfaced as one who may have had a major role in thescam. This has helped take the heat off from the Directors of whom at least fourare former members of the student’s wing of the ruling party that is now agovernment unto themselves in turning the public educational institutions ofthe country into their fiefdom. Most of the other members of the Board of theBank have been appointed by the Government on political considerations.

The ease with which the Hallmark Group siphoned the money raisesserious concerns whether the country’s huge national banks are in safe hands. Evidenceof the fraud by Hallmark that came out in the media revealed that itwascommitted with consummate ease. It was only because of the insistence of anofficial in the Bank’s audit department that the scam was exposed. If thisofficial could have been won over by bribe to be a part of the good number ofinsiders who assisted the scam, then Hallmark would have digested the Taka 3547crores and ready to grab more.

According to Bangladesh Bank regulations, there are number ofmeasures to check such fraud in the private and nationalized banks. The bankshave internal audit and the Bangladesh Bank itself acts on a day to day basisas the watchdog over scams such as the one in Sonali Bank. It seems none ofthese safety nets worked in case of Hallmark that raises serious questions aboutinvolvement of many more Sonali Bank officials other than those against whomcharges have been brought after the scam was exposed.

The credit line that was exposed to Hallmark against projects thatwere never there raises serious questions on the conduct of the Bank’s topmanagement. The branches that gave Hallmark the credit lines did not have thefinancial power to do so. Hence the Managing Director of the Bank would need tobe questioned about his role. If he was not involved in the scam, then he couldsurely be faulted for his failure to check the fraud that people working underhim have committed.

The role of the Chairman and the Board would also need to bereviewed to determine whether they have had been any part of the scam. TheBoard is there to ensure that not just rules and regulations laid down by theBangladesh Bank are followed meticulously but also that the Bank officialsconduct their business on ethics and morality for they deal with money depositedmostly by the public in good faith. . Relevant officials in Bangladesh Bankshould also be question to explain the ease with which the scam was carriedout.

The government, however, seems to believe otherwise; that thesebanks are its property where rules and regulations together with ethics andmorality can be dispensed with at will. The Finance Minister’s “nonsense” thereforeassumes significance because in uttering his favourite word he failed tounderstand the significance and seriousness of dealing with public money! Byhis sarcasm, he has highlighted the factthat neither he nor the government can be trusted with public responsibility.That the government really gives a damn to the outrage in the media over thescam was underscored when it extended the contracts of the Chairmen of thenationalized banks, including the Sonali Bank after the media speculated thatthe latter was on way out. The extensions perhaps may have been thegovernment’s response to this speculation!

The Finance Minister’s reaction may have been intentional; todivert attention to politicization of the banking sector to which he hascontributed wittingly or otherwise. Earlier governments politicized the civilbureaucracy and stopped there. This government has made the civil bureaucracyan extension of the party but did not stop there. The public universities havefallen victim to this mindless politicization where party activists have beenappointed as Vice Chancellors. In such mindless politicization or to use abetter term, a spoils system gone haywire, the Awami League has given itsactivists positions of Directors in the nationalized banks. These positions donot give the incumbents any salary or any other privileges except an honorariumfor attending the meetings of the Board. Nevertheless, the Directors haveconsiderable power if they choose to exercise it. It is the Board that approvesall credit lines, importantly, the credit lines like those given to Hallmark.

It is common knowledge that Directors in private and nationalizedbanks routinely use their influence in favour of businesses in which they have directand indirect interests. They are also known to use such influence for personalbenefit. In fact, one of the major concerns of the Bangladesh Bank is to ensurethat the Directors of these banks do not misuse their positions for businessesin return for personal favours. Thus when this government appointed partyactivists, many with Chatra League background, to the board of nationalizedbanks, there was widespread concern inthe banking sector that they would misuse their position.

Ibrahim Khaled highlighted the danger of appointing former ChaatraLeague cadres as Directors of the nationalized banks when asked to comment onthe Sonali Bank scam. It is to this danger that the Governor of Bangladesh Bankalso alluded when he wrote to the Finance Minister to reconstitute the Board ofthe Sonali Bank. It is therefore extremely surprising that the Finance Ministerwho appointed these party activists asDirectors in the nationalized banks has failed to see the real danger to whichthe Governor and the Chairman of the Krishi Bank have tried to draw thegovernment’s attention. Unless immediate steps are taken to reconstitute theBoards of all the nationalized banks, the fears which the Finance Minister has sarcasticallydismissed as “nonsense” may in fact take down the whole banking industry whichaccording to many insiders is in real need of overhaul and restructuring.

The Sonali Bank scam brings to memory the way the first AL Governmenthad nationalized the industries immediately after independence and had placedparty activists in key positions. These party activists behaved as if theindustries were theirs to plunder and loot that they did merrily thatcontributed in a major way to making the government unpopular. It is thereforesad that this Awami League led government is repeating the mistake and evenmore sad that the Finance Minister is dismissing as “nonsense” the warningsthat the media is sending to it for the good of the party, the government andthe country.

The writeris a former Ambassador to Japan.

The GB Ordinance: Three cheers for democracy, women empowerment and poverty alleviation

Daily Sun

Septembr 2nd., 2012

M. Serajul Islam

The government has chosen to issue the  ordinance on the Grameen Bank (GB) by-passing the Parliament raising question whether the country is under parliamentary democracy or otherwise . The ordinance has been described as a “black” law by the civil society and all except those who support the ruling party right or wrong. The irony is that such an ordinance has been passed by a government that claims to be democratic, pro-women and pro-poor when on even a casual look, the ordinance is anti-democratic, anti-woman and anti-poor. 

The actions of the Government of Bangladesh in the past couple of years concerning the GB and Dr. Mohammed Yunus have attracted adverse attention worldwide. Important world leaders  have been aghast at the actions, one after another, by the Bangladesh Government against the Noble Laureate and the GB. They have pleaded, plodded and even gone to the extent of putting direct and indirect pressure upon the Prime Minister and the Government to leave the two alone but to no avail. 

In fact, every time pressure has come from outside, new action have been initiated against Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the GB by the government. After she was embarrassed at the Hard Talk by Stephen Sackur on issues related Dr. Yunus and the GB, the Prime Minister ordered a NBR investigation against possible acts of wrong doing in the Grameen Bank affiliates headed by the Noble Laureate while he was the Managing Director. 

The latest ordinance came after a hearing in the US Congress had expressed concern that the Bangladesh Government was about to bring the institution directly under its control. A US State Department statement also expressed the same concern. A former US Ambassador to Bangladesh William B Milam who is now a Senior Scholar at the prestigious Woodrow Wilson International Centre in Washington wrote a damning piece in the Wall Street Journal recently where he recommended that the western donors and World Bank should withhold all aid and concessional assistance to Bangladesh to force the government to take its hands off the Grameen Bank.

The concerns have all fallen on deaf ears. None of the investigations against the GB and Dr. Yunus have fond any credible evidence of wrong doing leaving the international community to conclude that the Government is pursuing a vendetta against the Noble Laureate (NL) and the GB. The “original sin” that started the nightmare for the NL, the Norwegian documentary which “alleged misuse of a 1996 donation from Oslo” was quashed by the Norwegian Government almost immediately after it was made public.  

The government later constituted a committee to investigate the Prime Minister’s accusation that the GB was a “blood sucking” institution. The Committee’s Report cleared the GB of this major accusation and named two leading NGOs that charge higher interest rates than the GB. The Government has used lawyers/auditors to go through papers and documents in the GB to find evidence for credible charge against Dr. Yunus and the GB since removing him from the GB more than a year ago. 

 Nothing has come out of such single minded efforts of the government against the GB. In fact, the latest action of sending the NBR after GB revealed that it is the government that owes nearly taka 10 crores to the Bank that it has illegally collected! A committee headed by a former Secretary is now looking into the affairs of 54 affiliates of the GB to find out if Dr. Yunus could be connected to some financial or any other wrong doing in these institutions. The Committee has been given a three months time frame and is close to ending that time limit. There is no hint coming out of this committee so far that would suggest that it has found any skeleton in the cupboard left behind by the NB. 

Dr. Yunus, unfortunately for the Government, is unlike most of the people in public life in Bangladesh. The man is above corruption to a fault and has thus denied the Government the opportunity to finish him off in a manner that it wanted, in utter and total humiliation. Instead, the Government’s efforts have enhanced his honour, reputation and acceptance both at home and abroad. The ordinance is an attempt of the government to ensure that the GB, create from scratch by Dr. Yunus to a world class institution that is now accepted as a model for micro-credit in 76 countries of the world, comes under its absolute control where there would not even be a trace of the Noble Laureate.

The ordinance is as they cliché goes, the final nail in the coffin of a government’s actions that defy both reason and logic. The ordinance takes the power of appointing the Managing Director away from Board that represents its 8 million subscribers and gives it to the Government appointed Chairman who will henceforth exercise total power in the affairs of the Bank. It thus destroys the democratic foundation of the Board.  It takes power away from nine of the 12 members of the Board who are who are women who have challenged poverty and discrimination to successfully rise to a position where the world now feels proud of them.  

The GB ordinance penalizes these women because of their audacity to challenge the government to choose a MD that the 8 million members of the Bank who are women, want! It is thus also against women empowerment as well as anti-poor. The government has gone ahead and brought these changes while owning just 3% of the Bank’s paid up capital. The ordinance   thus can very easily claim to be the most powerful challenge to democracy, women empowerment and poverty alleviation introduced by a government that claims to be democratic, pro-women and pro-poor. 

Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Airlines, in a critical piece in the Opinion column of Times described the ordinance as a “seizure of the Grameen Bank” that “is a tragedy.” He asked the “international community to break its silence and stand up for the wonderful work of the Grameen Bank.” He argued if the World Bank can stop its US$ 1 billion for the Padma Bridge because of corruption, Britain should threaten to stop its promised aid of US$ 1.6 billion to stop the Bangladesh Government from destroying the Grameen Bank. 

The latest scam in the nationalized Sonali Bank where Taka 3500 thousand crores have been swindled right under the nose of the Ministry of Finance and the Bangladesh Bank could not have come for the government in a worse moment. It showed its efforts to nationalize the Grameen Bank, the only impeccably honest institution of its size in the country, as a move to bring down this world class institution to the level of the other nationalized banks that are swimming merrily in scams and corruption with the Finance Minister and the Governor of Bangladesh Bank fighting over turf!                                                                          

When history would someday judge this period, the actions  against Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank would no doubt be described as the time when insanity had taken grip of those conducting the affairs of the government. The Finance Minister showed a glimpse of this when in a recent event of the TIB he went off the rails and called Dr. Yunus a “liar”. He then pointed at himself, mentioned his name out loud lest  no one had any doubt who he was speaking about, and  said that he has contributed many times more to growth of micro-credit in Bangladesh than Dr. Mohammad Yunus! 

 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

 

Is India reaching out to Bangladesh?

As I See It Column

The Independent

September 1st., 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

The Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS) and the Independent had arranged a round table soon after the “state visit” of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in January, 2010. Foreign Minister Dipu Moni was the key note speaker in that seminar. She of course highlighted the visit as a great success. She was upset and angry when Reaz Rahman, former State Minister for Foreign Affairs under the last BNP Government said that the relationship that the Government was developing with India was with the Awami League and not with Bangladesh. 

In retrospect, Reaz Rahman had a very valid point that the Foreign Minister failed to appreciate; a point that is making to the surface in recent times. Immediately after coming to office, the Prime Minister made overtures to India that took many by surprise. She gave India total commitment on its security concerns. She said that Bangladesh would not allow its soil to be used for insurgency against India. As proof , Bangladesh security forces handed to the Indian security forces 7 top ULFA terrorists helping India to break the backbone of the decades old ULFA insurgency in Assam. In its last term in office, the AL led government refused to hand over a much lower level ULFA insurgent Anup Chetia despite Indian request from the highest level.  

The Government made these concessions unilaterally. It did not take into account the history of Bangladesh-India relations; a history where India has failed to keep its commitments and did not show   inclination to negotiate fairly with Bangladesh setting aside its  legitimate concerns  on issues of sharing of the waters of the common rivers; Tippaimukh Dam;  trade; killings of innocent Bangladeshi on Bangladesh-India borders, and a fair demarcation of the maritime and land boundaries.  

On her “state visit” to New Delhi in January, 2010, Sheikh Hasina also handed to India Bangladesh’s only negotiating card namely the land transit without again seeking reciprocity. India nevertheless offered a US$ 1 billion soft loan but geared it to build the infrastructure for the land transit. Thus together with the opposition BNP, there were independent views in Bangladesh outside the Awami League’s inner circles that felt that the AL led government had wasted its playing card in not seeking to negotiate with India on a quid pro quo basis. 

New Delhi was pleasantly surprised at the attitude of the Bangladesh Government because it gave concessions that India always wanted without even being asked. It was even more surprised that under the Prime Minister’s direction; her team of negotiators consisting of the Foreign Minister and her two Advisers were doing more for the Indian cause than the Indians were doing for themselves. The Indians accepted Bangladesh’s gestures and made moves to make Bangladesh happy by finalizing an agreement on Bangladesh’s terms on Teesta, signed the land boundary agreement and made serious concessions on trade; concessions it should have made long ago. 

Bangladesh withdrew the land transit that it had given to India on a trial basis after Mamata Banarjee’s spanner on the Teesta deal. BJP refused to support the ratification of the land boundary agreement signed in Dhaka during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. These developments stalled the paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations after the two sides came as close as they never for such a shift. On India’s side, New Delhi learnt important lessons in dealing with Bangladesh. First, it learnt that it needed to take its own stakeholders on board before giving the concessions Bangladesh wanted. Second, that it also needed to take the whole of Bangladesh on board for sustainable relations and not just the Awami League even if the party formed the government.  

The second lesson has been an important one. It has been brought home to the Indians that massive mandates in Bangladesh are highly undependable. It has seen how badly the AL wasted the massive mandate it received in the December 2008 elections by sheer bad governance in the same way the BNP had squandered its 2/3^rd majority in its last term. It also sank upon the Indians that despite their preference for the Awami League, they can achieve sustainable relations and fulfillment of their interests in Bangladesh only when they can convince the BNP. 

In fact, as India watched the AL Government becoming unpopular in Bangladesh, it also watched the subtle change in stance of the BNP. Negotiations with India since the AL Government came to power brought to the surface the benefits of good relations with India for Bangladesh, particularly the prospect of becoming the regional economic hub. As a consequence, the BNP has expressed the willingness to deal with India provided India relented on Bangladesh’s legitimate interests of water sharing, trade and land boundary.  

In fact, New Delhi was prepared to reciprocate to Bangladesh’s legitimate interests for the first time in the history of Bangladesh-India relations when the Indian Prime Minister visited Bangladesh. It was unable to do so unexpectedly because of domestic politics and not due to lack of political will of part of New Delhi.  In her meeting with the Indian Prime Minister in Tehran this week, Sheikh Hasina was again assured that India would sign the Teesta deal “as soon as feasible.”Unfortunately for New Delhi, neither Mamata Banarjee nor BJP are showing the inclination to favour New Delhi any time soon. The chances of either or both relenting in the remaining period of the tenure of the Awami League Government do not appear good. 

New Delhi is thus concerned about building relations with Bangladesh banking just on the AL.  Kolkata’s Daily Telegraph wrote in a recent report that for sometime, visitors from Bangladesh except those close to the AL, have been advising New Delhi not to “put all its eggs in one basket” because of the good possibility of a new government in Bangladesh after the next elections. New Delhi’s concerns have been aggravated as it watched the AL Government create problems and obstacles for itself at home and abroad for no good reason at all seriously compromising its prospects for returning to power. New Delhi is also worried at the AL’s insistence of holding the next elections in a manner that would force the BNP to stay out with the dangerous prospects for not just Bangladesh but encouraging disturbances that could pose serious threat to Indian security. 

In May this year, Pranab Mukherjee visited Dhaka and communicated India’s concerns to the Prime Minister of Bangladesh; to make peace with the opposition and bring back political stability in the country. He met the BNP leader Khaleda Zia and stated in the media that India is interested to build relations with Bangladesh and not with just one political party. It is in this context that HM Ershad recently visited New Delhi. Begum Khaleda Zia who was invited at the same time as President Ershad by  the Indian Prime Minister  during his visit  to Dhaka in September, 2011, is now likely to visit New Delhi soon.

HM Ershad returned from New Delhi and announced that the JP would contest the next elections alone. He also said that the Indian President had told him that New Delhi wanted free, fair and neutral elections in Bangladesh. These developments seem to hint that the New Delhi is not going to stick to the AL alone for conducting its relations with Bangladesh and would henceforth seek out the “multi-party democratic polity” of Bangladesh. It appears like the Indians are getting around realizing the good sense in the apprehension raised by Reaz Rahman in the CFAS/Independent Round Table. Nevertheless, the history of Bangladesh-India relations and the way the Indians have conducted relations would suggest caution in concluding that they are finally going to change to reach out to a democratic Bangladesh although recent developments on both sides have brought to the surface many positives for the future conduct of Bangladesh-India relations.

 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

 

 

HM. Ershad’s visit to New Delhi: Is India changing its Bangladesh policy?

Holiday

August 31st., 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

The recent high profile visit of former President HM Ershad to India was surprising and intriguing. He and the Jatiya Party have been playing the “India card” more aggressively since the disappointing visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka in September last year than the BNP. Then of course are his military background and the general belief in the country that as a politician he cannot be trusted that raises questions why the Indians treated him the way they did. 

Some political analysts have argued that he was invited by the Indians to convince him not to abandon the Awami League as he is threatening to. New Delhi feels that the AL is in a tight political corner with its general failure in governance and therefore would need the support of the Jatiya Party that has the potentials to emerge as a third force in the next general elections.  

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) however has given a different explanation, one designed to show India as the great champion of democracy, a country that is not interested in interfering in the politics of any of its neighbours. The MEA spokesman Syed Akbarruddin said that HM Ershad’s visit is “part of our ongoing engagement with the democratic and multi-party polity of Bangladesh” in an attempt to end speculation in political circles about the visit. 

On the face of it there is no reason to question the Indian explanation because Bangladesh is a multi-party democracy. However it is the way that New Delhi has conducted relations with Bangladesh in   the past that makes it difficult to accept the MEA explanation. In the history of Bangladesh-India relations, the Indians have always shown a clear preference from among the many political countries in the country. New Delhi has always preferred to deal with an Awami League government in Dhaka. When in opposition, New Delhi did not leave anyone in doubt in Bangladesh that it wanted the party to be back in office.  

The relations between Bangladesh and India have always been friendlier when there has been a Congress party in power in New Delhi and an Awami League government in Dhaka.  Even when there has been a non-Congress government in India, New Delhi has shown special friendship to an AL Government than a non-AL Government in Bangladesh. In fact, the common knowledge in Bangladesh is that India   and its political parties are not interested in any other political party in Bangladesh other than the AL. 

Therefore the sudden interest of the Indians in reaching out for the democratic polity of Bangladesh does not seem to fit with the trend they have followed in Bangladesh-India relations over the past 4 decades the two countries have been conducting relations. In fact, when Pranab Mukherjee visited Dhaka in February, 2009 as a Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister, he declined a request of the BNP for a meeting with Begum Khaleda Zia on the excuse that he was hard pressed for time. He however had time to meet the Army Chief General Moyeen U Ahmed and also spend a few hours in Dhaka University on that day long trip to Dhaka! 

On analysis therefore the argument that the Indians invited HM Ershad to give him a message from the highest political level in India to remain with the Grand Alliance to help the Awami League win the next elections appears to be a better explanation of the visit than the one given by MEA. However, upon his return to Dhaka, the former President stated in the media that the JP would go for the next elections independent of the Grand Alliance that belies the argument that the Indians wanted the JP to remain with the Grand Alliance. If they did, Indian request from the highest political level to remain with the Grand alliance, if given at all, seems to have had no impact upon the former President. 

Then a few other things that the former President Ershad has said in his media briefings that suggest that the reason for inviting him to New Delhi is more subtle than what many are speculating and may be more in line with MEA’s explanation but not for simply reaching towards the democratic multi-party polity but for different reasons. HM Ershad said upon his return from the Indian capital that New Delhi wanted the next elections in Bangladesh to be free and fair. One newspaper report on his media briefing mentioned in that New Delhi also wanted the next general elections in Bangladesh to be “independent” in addition to being free and fair. 

If the former President has been truthful in what he said, then there is reason to believe that the Indians are subtly changing their Bangladesh policy. If the Indian President and Prime Minister have told the former President that they want the next elections in Bangladesh to be free , fair and independent then they are not really backing the Awami League that wants to hold the next general elections in Bangladesh under an interim government to be headed by Sheikh Hasina  that the BNP has dismissed, a move that everyone else except the hardcore AL supporters believe would neither be free nor fair. 

In fact,   when Pranab Mukherjee visited Dhaka in May this year, he gave early hints about the subtle change in New Delhi’s “Bangladesh policy.”After the meeting with Begum Khaleda Zia, Pranab Mukherjee said that India is interested in relations with Bangladesh in sharp contrast to his view about the opposition in Bangladesh when he was in Dhaka as a Special Envoy. The conclusion that many in Bangladesh have drawn on this statement was that New Delhi was sorting out its options in Bangladesh, no longer confident that the AL would be returning to power in the next general elections. 

Kolkata’s Daily Telegraph has given an analysis that seems closer in explaining why HM Ershad was given such a high profile visit supporting the change in New Delhi’s “Bangladesh policy”. In a report on the eve of the visit it wrote that New Delhi has been getting from “nearly all visitors barring those sympathetic to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina” a warning “to India against “putting all its eggs in one basket”; a warning that Dhaka may have a new ruling alliance other than the Awami League after the next elections and that it is time for New Delhi to prepare itself to deal with political parties other than the AL. 

The Indians, in fact, realized that a change in its “Bangladesh policy” would be necessary as soon the paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations that started with the unilateral concessions to India by Sheikh Hasina hit the hard rock on India’s failure to sign the Teesta water sharing agreement. On return from that visit, New Delhi realized that the spanners injected by Mamata Banarjee and the BJP would not enable it to give Bangladesh theTeesta Deal and the land boundary agreement that although signed in Dhaka but needed ratification by parliament, in the short term. It also realized that without giving these commitments, the AL led Government would be unable to give India continued support on security. As for the land transit, the Bangladesh Government  angrily withdrew that as retaliation for India’s failure on the Teesta. 

For New Delhi, it never came so close to clinching its interests in Bangladesh as it did on the eve of Manmohon Singh’s visit to Dhaka. If only the Teesta Deal would have been signed, land transit would have been a done deal and India could have felt confident of long term and sustainable support of Bangladesh on both issues crucial to India’s national interests, namely security and land transit.  

The recent communal riots in Assam with charges of ethnic cleansing where the Bodos killed a good number of Muslims raised the scepter of renewed rise of terrorism on the Bangladesh-India border. On Bangladesh-Myanmar border, the Rohingyas are again being subjected to ethnic cleansing where Bangladesh’s decision to close its borders have created new possibilities of terrorism and insurgency. The Indians are viewing these developments with concern and need the same commitment from Bangladesh as it had received in the period leading up to the visit of Manmohon Singh to Dhaka. 

At a time when New Delhi feels it needs Bangladesh’s support and cooperation the most, the government in Bangladesh is unable to show the same enthusiasm towards India for failing to keep its commitments. While India has watched this change in Bangladesh Government, its ability to do the needful is not in the hands of the government. New Delhi would need time to resolve the issues with Mamata Banarjee and the BJP to keep its commitments with Bangladesh. 

At the same time, New Delhi has also watched a change in Bangladesh in the AL and the BNP. As a consequence of the positive side of the negotiations that Bangladesh and India has carried out till relations stalled after Manmohon Singh’s visit, the BNP’s anti-Indian rhetoric has considerably toned down. It is now willing to deal with India on a quid pro quo basis having seen the prospects of Bangladesh becoming a regional economic hub. India has taken note of this change in the BNP. There has been highest level exchange of letters between New Delhi and the BNP. In fact, Begum Khaleda Zia has also been extended the same invitation as was extended to the former President HM Ershad and in fact is close to making the trip to New Delhi. Clearly, New Delhi is talking with the BNP not just at the highest level but also at the operational level. 

At the same time, New Delhi is no longer confident that the AL led government is in a position to meet Indian needs and interests not just because of India’s failure on commitments but more importantly because on its own failure in governance where its popularity has gone down significantly in the country and at the same time, it has chosen for some unbelievable reasons to annoy powerful countries; leaders and institutions abroad. The Indians are particularly worried that the AL is adamant to create serious political conflict over the issue of the next elections that is making it chances of returning to power uncertain. The Indians feel disturbances over the elections would cause the type of political situation in Bangladesh that would in consequence pose serious threats to its own security. 

Unfortunately for New Delhi, it does not seem like the Awami League is any longer listening to India as it used to before the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka that was a honeymoon period in Bangladesh-India relations and from India’s point of view, the best ever.  In that period, the Bangladesh Government was in the giving mood and considered friendship with India at any cost as its most important goal in governance. The Foreign Minister and the two Advisers of the Prime Minister who were constantly in public view praising India during the honey mood period have quietly slipped into the background. 

In such a developing political scenario in Bangladesh, India is sorting out its options aware about the dangers of putting all its eggs in one basket. It has used President Ershad to give a message to the Awami League that it can no longer take for granted that New Delhi in future would look upon it as its only option. New Delhi has also sent the message to the Awami League that it should resolve the un-necessary problems that it has caused in domestic politics and that it should make all out efforts to hold the next elections in a manner where the opposition would also participate. At the same time, it has also sent the message to the opposition, particularly the BNP that it would be willing to deal with it if it comes to power through free, fair and independently held elections.

If indeed, New Delhi deals with Bangladesh as its MEA has explained and as developments hint then the Indians could be assisting Bangladesh’s tryst with democracy find its course. The world has failed to encourage the AL that its course of action in domestic and international politic would bring more conflict for Bangladesh and push the country towards disaster. The Indian policy for reaching out towards the multiparty policy of Bangladesh could bring the AL back to its senses for notwithstanding the recent developments,  the AL still has enough common sense to know that losing New Delhi is something that they cannot really afford. It just needs to be hit on the head. The visit of HM Ershad and Khaleda Zia’s to follow has been designed to achieve this  objective.  

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.