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.

 

Bangladesh,  Olympics and national pride

Daily Sun

August 26, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

The Prime Minister’s feelings of national passion when she saw the small contingent of Bangladeshi athletes walk into the stadium touched a sympathetic chord in a lot of people in the country. In a TV Talk Show, participants were in consensus in expressing that like the Prime Minister, their hearts too fluttered when they saw the Bangladesh team in the stadium flying the Bangladesh flag. 

With the risk of offending some of the readers, the expression of national passion over the small contingent of Bangladeshi athletes in London was misplaced. The cliché that it is more important to take part in a game than to win  does not reflect the frustration that is there that we should acknowledge. We have never won a medal in the Olympics and the way things are, our national passion notwithstanding, we will perhaps not win one in the lifetime of many of us. 

There was a story that made its run on the internet on Yahoo! Sports page on this frustration. The story was captioned “Bangladesh is the largest nation in the world to never win a medal but it has four athletes in London.” The story went on to mention that Bangladesh is the eighth biggest country in the world “but its Olympic futility is so bad it makes one wonder if a statistical mistake has been made.” 

When the hearts of the Prime Minister and many Bangladeshis in the country and abroad beat faster with national pride, perhaps they did not know that since 1984 when Bangladesh first started sending participants to the Games, not one was allowed to participate based on merit. They were all there, including the 4 in this year’s games, because of the wild card system that allows some countries to send participants who have not qualified on merit. 

The Yahoo story mentioned that the gymnast who represented Bangladesh had dual American and Bangladeshi citizenships who entered the games because an Indian gymnast was unable to participate because of improper paperwork on part of the Indian authorities. The story nevertheless states that this gymnast from Bangladesh, Syque Caesar, is an athlete with potentials “having won an NCAA teams title at the University of Michigan and won parallel bars gold at the Central South Asian Championships.” 

Bangladesh has close to 8 million people living abroad. Of this number, many have made countries like USA and Great Britain their home. It is in these places that there may be hope for Bangladesh that someone like Syque Caesar would end the drought for Bangladesh and give the 8th largest country in the world its first medal. The hope of a Bangladeshi born and raised in Bangladesh winning an Olympic medal seems a forlorn one. The Yahoo story’s pitch was also in the fact that despite its huge population, Bangladesh is hardly a sporting nation and the game that is the national passion, namely cricket, is not an Olympic game. Even in cricket, the story goes on to underpin the fact that Bangladesh is “ranked 9^th out of the 9 teams that play the game at the highest level.” 

Therefore, sad as it is, our participation in the Olympics should not be a subject for arousing national pride. As a nation, we may not be much in terms of winning a medal in the Olympics. However, we have a lot to be proud in many things we have achieved. A nation that has won independence the way we have, we need not un-necessarily bring such issues as Olympics to make a show of our pride as a nation. In 1971, pitched against the world, Bangladesh achieved freedom by coming together as a nation. The call of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman united the people of Bangladesh in such a way that not even threat of death and genocide of the Pakistani military forces could deter them from their fight for liberation and independence. 

In recent times, we have seen the government using national pride to get the people behind the government without unfortunately uniting the nation. At least two choices are before us to make an assessment of its use of national pride and whether this is helping the government and the country. The Prime Minister has used Bangla for this purpose; in her attempt at making it an official language of the United Nations. Then again when the World Bank cancelled the loan for the Padma Bridge, the government fell on national pride to get the people behind it. 

The Prime Minister must be felicitated for choosing to speak in Bangla at the United Nations during her statements at the UNGA sessions. Her father also did the same. In fact it is his precedence that she has been following. However, the Prime Minister has gone ahead and demanded that Bengali should be made an official language of the United Nations based on the fact that it is spoken by almost 160 million people of Bangladesh and 130 million in West Bengal or Paschim Bangla.

The demand can hardly be faulted on emotions. Nor can it be faulted on numbers. However if numbers and emotions were to guide decisions in international relations then we would have quite a different world than the one we are living in.   In demanding that Bangla be made an official UN  language, important issues have not been considered as emotion was allowed to precede reason. Bangladesh is still one of the world’s most impoverished nations where in current international relations, it is a minnow. Then, in taking Paschim Bangla on board, there have been no consultations with them. Yet they have been taken for granted! 

With the Padma Bridge loan too, the government has tried to use national pride for people’s support after messing negotiations with the World Bank.  Its insistence not to remove 3 officials including a Minister against whom the Bank had reasons of suspicion of corruption led to the mess up. Strangely, the three were eventually removed but by then the World Bank’s confidence on the nation was gone. The government’s attempt to arouse national passion after the WB cancellation failed to take on board half the nation that does not support the ruling party. The Finance Minister’s   attempts to placate the WB to reactivate it; the Communication Minister’s negotiations with Malaysia for loan and the Prime Minister’s call to the nation to build the Bridge from domestic resources gave the picture of a government lost in a mess it created itself. 

National pride based  a cause in which the nation believes as one is a very strong force  to stand against the greatest of odds.  The Prime Minister and her colleagues should spare themselves some time and consider why they have failed to carry the nation with them on the PB, the move to make Bangla a UN language and on even the Prime Minister’s passion on the Olympics. Since becoming the Prime Minister, she has made every attempt to write the opposition off by all the means available to the government forgetting that they carry half the nation with them. At the same time, the causes she has taken to unite the nations up have also been poor ones.  

The Prime Minister has failed in arousing national pride primarily because she carries, thanks to her own choice, not the nation but the supporters of her own party which unfortunately for her, is half the nation or at this fag end of the her party’s AL rule, perhaps much less.

The writer is a  retired carrier diplomat and Ambassador  to Japan.

Former President Ershad’s intriguing trip to New Delhi

As I see it
The Independent
August 25, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

President HM Ershad’s recent visit to New Delhi was an intriguing one. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs explained that the visit has been undertaken by the former President as part of the Indian government’s “ongoing engagement with a democratic and multi-party policy of Bangladesh.”  On the face of it, the MEA’s explanation seems perfectly in line with the democratic credentials of India. Yet, the explanation somehow also leaves a lot unexplained in the context in which India has conducted relations with Bangladesh’s political parties in the past. 

For instance, the Indians did not show such democratic finesse when then Indian Finance Minister and now the President of India Pranab Mukherjee  visited Bangladesh as a Special Envoy of Prime Minister Manmohon Singh soon after the AL had taken office in January, 2009. They turned down a request from the BNP for a meeting of the Leader of the Opposition with him on the ground that his tight schedule did not permit him to accept the request. Pranab Mukherjee who was on a one day trip nevertheless found time to meet General Moyeen U Ahmed, then the outgoing Army Chief and also to open a new building in Dhaka University that the Indian had funded!

Historically, the Congress and the Awami League have special relations based on the events of 1971. The relations have withstood the test of time and whether in power or out of it, the two political parties have had the best of relations over the years. Thus when the AL came to office with a massive majority in January, 2009 and the Congress also in office in New Delhi, the stars of Bangladesh-India relations came into perfect alignment for a paradigm shift in the stagnant relations between the two neighbours.  

In fact, it was Sheikh Hasina who made the first move. She offered to India total commitment to its security concerns. She not only vowed not to allow Indian terrorists/extremists to use Bangladesh as a  sanctuary and springboard for its terrorist activities in Assam and other northeastern states, she delivered to the Indian security 7 top ULFA terrorists that has broken the back of the decades old ULFA insurgency in Assam. Bangladesh also granted India trial run of land transit, for long an Indian dream. Sheikh Hasina granted these concessions to India without even being requested and without seeking anything from India. 

The Indians reciprocated by upgrading  Sheikh Hasina’s   visit  India to a “state visit”  by a breach of protocol because such a visit is extended only to a head of state and not  to a head of government. In that visit, in a 56 paragraph Joint Declaration, the Indians promised a lot of concessions to Bangladesh on key issues of interest to Bangladesh, namely water, trade and border related ones. Indians also offered Bangladesh a US$1 billion soft loan to be spent mostly for development of infrastructure to implement the land transit.  

That was the honeymoon period of Bangladesh-India relations that lasted till the return visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Dhaka in September, 2011. In that period, there was a flurry of visits of Bangladesh Ministers to New Delhi hinting at great moments to come in Bangladesh-India relations. The Foreign Minister and two of Prime Ministers Advisers helped build up great expectations in Bangladesh that India would turn the country into the regional economic hub where a great economic future awaited it. In that honeymoon period, the Indians were not bothered about the “multi-party polity” in Bangladesh led by the BNP that was concerned that the government was handing over critical concessions to India without any reciprocity. India was concerned that any overtures to the opposition would offend the Awami League and put at jeopardy realization of its interests. 

The Indians failed to live up to its part for the paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations that Sheikh Hasina initiated. During the visit of Manmohon Singh to Dhaka, the Indians were unable to sign the Teesta water sharing deal because of Mamata Banarjee’s objection. At the same time, the Indians also failed to meet Bangladesh’s concerns on Tippaimukh Dam and the killings on the border by the BSF. In retaliation, Bangladesh withdrew the offer of land transit that just needed an exchange of letters for final and complete implementation. The Indians subsequently also failed to ratify the  land boundary agreement that was projected as a major positive outcome of the Indian PM’s visit to Dhaka because of the BJP’s objections. 

The disappointing Dhaka visit of Manmohon Singh signaled a change of attitude in the Bangladesh Government that came under severe pressure from the opposition BNP. In fact, sniffing a potential political advantage, President Ershad also started talking in the media in the same vein as the BNP. In fact, the BNP’s rhetoric was more toned down than that of the Jatiya party. The Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister’s two Advisers also went to the background and were no longer placating the great advantages that Bangladesh would receive from India’s cooperation in transforming the country into a regional economic hub. The Prime Minister on a number of occasions went public in expressing disappointment at India’s failure to deliver on commitments. The Bangladesh Government was no longer showing the same obliging attitude towards India as was there up to Manmohon Singh’s visit to Dhaka. 

Unfortunately for the AL led government, the declining trend in Banagladesh-India relations also coincided with the mess that it made of governance, a lot of which has been self-inflicted.  On the issues of Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the WB, the Government annoyed its traditional allies in high places and positions un-necessarily. On issues of human rights, it also annoyed friends in Europe and elsewhere.  On domestic issues, it failed to deliver on election promises on electricity, food prices; corruption and law and order that have all but withered off the massive popularity with which it came to office.  In addition to all the above, the AL set the country on a collision course by the 15^th amendment under which it intended to hold the next general elections with Sheikh Hasina as the Interim Prime Minister. 

The Indians need time to keep their commitments and promises to Bangladesh. In fact, for New Delhi, the spanner from MB was unexpected. If she had not objected at literally the 11^th hour, the Teesta agreement would have been signed during Manmohon Singh’s Dhaka visit. The Indians are themselves concerned for their failure because they have seen in Bangladesh a genuine commitment to better relations with India not just in the AL but also in the BNP that has publicly acknowledged the benefits of good relations based on reciprocity. India needs continued security commitment from Bangladesh and land transit to integrate in fragile northeast with the mainland. Unfortunately, they now see that AL is no longer in control in Bangladesh and thus not in a position to continue to give to India, these two needs vital to its national interests. 

Thus the Indians are looking beyond the AL for securing their long term interests in Bangladesh. Of course their best option is still the AL.  Unfortunately they now are not confident in the AL any longer and thus making overtures towards the “multi-party polity” of Bangladesh. Pranab Mukherjee’s meeting with Khaleda Zia in May this year and his comment thereafter that India wants relations with Bangladesh (and not with a political party) is therefore very significant.  It is also significant that when Bangladesh was under pressure from the United States and the World Bank, India neither offered to help nor did Bangladesh go to India seeking help concerning its problems although India has considerable influence with both.

It is in this context that India’s recently stated policy that it wants relations with the “multi-party polity of Bangladesh” and the invitation to HM Ershad makes sense. The Indians have of course another reason to have invited him despite his virulent anti-India campaign in recent times; to send a message to the Awami League that it should put its politics and foreign relations in order to continue to receive the same level of support that they have given it traditionally and historically. In fact, President Pranab Mukherjee gave this message loud and clear when he told HM Ershad that it is a free, fair and neutral election that India wants in Bangladesh; a clear rejection of the Prime Minister’s insistence to hold the next elections with her as the head of the interim government. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt

 

 

 

Hard Talk and hard facts

As I see it

The Indepndent

August 18, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

The Prime Minister’s aides/advisers should have advised her against the interviews on Hard Talk and the BBC Bengali programme. Stephen Succor had her where he wanted and exposed the chinks in her armour on issues of Bangladesh’s domestic politics; Dr. Mohammad Yunus/Grameen Bank and foreign affairs. On Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the comment of “blood sucker”, the Prime Minister’s response was astonishing. She said she never mentioned him by name that brought a response of disbelief from the interviewer! On the World Bank letters, those who read the interview of the World Bank Country Director would know better whether her response was truthful.  One the interest rates of Grameen Bank, the latter corrected her the day after the interview. 

The questions at Hard Talk no doubt were uncomfortable for the Prime Minister. However to her credit, she carried on with Stephen Succor’s questions and queries and gave her supporters the same encouragement she had when she dealt with the World Bank; a never say die attitude. She remained undaunted even when forced to give incorrect answers.  Nevertheless, the Prime Minister’s interview in Hard Talk revealed her mindset on Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank; that she is determined to grind both to the dust without caring for the consequences. Clearly she was not amused with the critical questions or the praises that Stephen Succor showered on the Noble Laureate and the GB.

 

Immediately upon return from London, she asked authorities to inquire whether the salaries/perks Dr. Yunus enjoyed after he should have retired on completion of 60 years should be declared illegally taken and returned to the government. The Cabinet also decided to strip the Grameen Bank Board members of their powers, members who have risen through poverty, to their positions and place these powers to a government appointed Chairman. The government’s latest actions against Dr. Yunus and GB brought reactions of disbelief in the country. Leading members of the civil society have demanded an explanation from the government. The US State Department has also expressed deep concerns about these latest moves.

 

In was however the Prime Minister’s comment in her/BBC, Bangla interview about the next elections  under a “Small Interim Government” to which she invited the BNP that has created widespread interest in Bangladesh. Many analysts have seen this as a softening in the position of the Prime Minister. They feel that she is inching towards accommodating the wishes of the opposition. Previously, she had insisted that the 15^th amendment did not leave her with any leeway to hold the next elections in any other manner but under an interim government to be headed by her and with Ministers that she alone would choose. She had also insisted that the elections would be held three months from the date of the last day of the current parliament’s tenure during which the members of the parliament would not be required to resign.

 

Either politicians have short memories or they take the public for fools. They keep on changing stances and contradicting themselves forgetting that people have memories too. Take for instance the Prime Minister’s suddenly contrived “new formula” under which she has offered the BNP to join the interim government. Earlier, she has said many times in parliament and outside it that after the 15th amendment of the constitution, there is no scope for her to do anything. Suranjit Sen who was co-chair of the committee for the 15^th amendment made it appear like it would be easier to change the scriptures than the constitution of Bangladesh. 

The same sacrosanct constitution now appears to be an instrument that the Prime Minister can change at will. Furthermore, the AL today is denying the BNP the same that it demanded of it in 1994-96; an interim government where BNP would not be a part. The BNP had offered the AL to hold elections under an interim government that would have 5 members from the ruling party and five from the AL with Khaleda Zia as the outgoing Prime Minister in charge of the interim government. The AL rejected that offer with contempt and its members of parliament resigned forcing the BNP to go ahead and hold the farcical elections of February, 1996 that the AL did not participate. One good thing nevertheless came out of that February, 1996 elections. It allowed the BNP to give the country the Caretaker Government through a constitutional amendment that the AL demanded and that brought the AL to power. 

This time too, the BNP has rejected the Prime Minister’s offer precisely for the same reason for which the AL had rejected its offer in 1994-96. The AL had rejected the BNP’s offer on the element of trust. It felt that it was simply inconceivable for AL to participate in an election where the interim government would be headed by Khaleda Zia. That trust element has deteriorated many times over since then. Therefore it was for the obvious reasons the BNP has rejected the offer to join the “Small Interim Government” and has reiterated its demand for a “neutral, non-party government.”  . Some analysts have however seen in the Prime Minister’s offer, a slight shift towards a resolution of the political impasse despite the clear hints from the ruling party that Sheikh Hasina’s position as head of the “Small Interim Government” is not negotiable. 

If the Prime Minister would spare herself a moment and reflected at history or her aides had the courage to flag it for her, she would see how strongly she has encouraged the BNP to tread the same path that she had led her party in 1994-96; to go out to the streets and fight for its demands. It does not need a crystal ball to predict the outcome of pushing the opposition to such a path. Only, this time the political situation in the country is more volatile than it was in 1994-1996. At that time the country had just come out of a decade long dictatorship and the whole nation was eager for the two political parties to settle their discords democratically.  

In the last two decades or a little less, the two mainstream parties have made politics more confrontational. The people have lost faith in their ability to lead a democratic government. In fact, the situation towards which the Prime Minister is leading the country could again bring the extra constitutional forces as it did in 2007. This time, however, a step in politics by these forces could spell disaster for the country. The threat of death now hangs over those who make an extra-constitutional bid for power. The armed forces would thus be putting their lives on the line if they enter politics either by scheming or due to the failure of the politicians. They could thus act more unpredictably and dangerously than they have with their past interventions.

The Prime Minister’s interviews on Hard Talk and BBC Bengali Service have hinted at dark clouds in the political horizon of Bangladesh. When she is in such a mood, her aides spin it out of control. A senior leader of the AL was thus quick to react to his leader’s mood. He said either the BNP accepts the terms of the Prime Minister or they could leave the country!  However, as has become AL’s political style in recent times of switching/contradicting  positions at will, the  AL acting General Secretary has said that” the door is open for negotiations. You will see development in this regard soon.” 

The New York Times and the Economist, at the height of the conflict between Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank and the Government had identified the Noble Laureate’s potential to become a political rival as one of the two reasons for the Prime Minister’s dislike for him. Ironically, the Prime Minister may be pushing the Noble Laureate to play the role that she suspected.

 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan

 

 

Whither Egypt’s Unfinished revolution?

Published in The Daily Sun

August 12th., 2012

The Egyptian revolution, that had attracted attention worldwide when all eyes were focused on Tahrir Square for the dawning of democracy not just in Egypt but in the region, is stuck between the hard rock and the sea or so it appears.  An elected President, Mohammed Masri, is in office. He has also appointed a Prime Minister and a Cabinet. However, a parliament elected democratically in January this year has been dissolved by the military and the judges backed it on technicality. 

Today, the military operating collectively as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) holds most of the state powers to suggest that Egypt is yet quite a distance from winning its democratic credentials. Many outside Egypt who watched the revolution unfurl in Tahrir Square that brought down President’s Mubarak’s 3 decades long hold on power in less than 3 weeks time are puzzled by the present political situation in Egypt.  

Egypt democratic transition has now become a cat and mouse game between the SCAF and the deeply divided civilian parties/groups where the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has emerged in the dominant position. The revolution at Tahrir Square as a part of the Arab Spring was a movement of the youth who had passion but not vision; nor organization. The movement achieved its “critical mass” only after the MB lent support to it. Nevertheless it was only after the military backed away from President Mubarak that one of the most powerful and longest serving dictators in modern history was compelled to hand power in such quick time. 

The cat and mouse game the MB is now playing with the SCAF is a strategic one in which it is showing the maturity and experience it has achieved in its 84 years of existence. During most of this period till it formed the Freedom and Justice Party after the ouster of President Mubarak, it was a banned organization because of its fundamentalism and acts of terrorism that included an attempt to kill President Nasser. Nevertheless, in those many decades, the MB never lost the confidence that someday it would dominate Egypt’s politics. It built a strong base and network among the people, becoming deeply involved in the social and humanitarian works and services.

In dealing with the SCAF, the MB is working within the parameters of the new realities in Egyptian politics today. First, it is conscious of Egypt’s multi-cultural foundations; that although it is the largest and dominant political party, yet there is a substantial part of the Egyptian society that is secular and liberal who together with the 10% Christians in the country, have still serious reservations about the MB.  Second, the military in Egypt has tentacles deep in society, security and politics that have not been touched by the Egyptian revolution, not yet.  Third, the secular and Christian forces look upon the military as a balance to the MB and its fundamentalist politics. Finally, Egyptians are proud of their military for the wars it fought against Israel. It was the dreaded security forces created under President Mubarak’s direct control and supervision, and not the military that Egyptians feared and hated. 

The MB is confident that its time will come eventually to win the political powers usurped by the military and is in no hurry to confront the SCAF. MB Parliamentarian Osama Suleiman put across the view succinctly when he said: “The army is owned by the people. Civilian oversight of the military is popular will and nobody can stop popular will.”   In deciding to go slow, the MB is conscious of the Algerian experience. It does not want to give the military the excuse to crack down violently and derail the revolution. 

It thus has so far placated the SCAF by showing patience when the latter was taking its own time to hold the parliamentary elections last year and the pro-revolution forces were getting impatient. Instead, it used the time to join the nationalist Wafd party to form the Democratic Alliance with 40 other political parties. The alliance broke when the MB insisted on 40% seats for the parliamentary elections but by the time it broke, the MB had established itself as the leading political party. As a consequence, it went on to win 47% of the seats in the elections to the lower house of the Egyptian parliament. In early June, the SCAF dissolved the lower house and the courts upheld the action on technicality. Yet the MB remained silent.  

When the SCAF announced a constitutional declaration days before the Presidential election that was viewed by everyone as a subtle military coup and even a counter-revolution, the MB did not protest.  By the declaration, the SCAF turned the Presidency powerless and took over the powers of writing the constitution. The MB, confident of winning the presidency, did not want to give the military an excuse to delay or postpone the election and hence remained quiet over the “military coup.”.  It just wanted to win the presidency and the parliament through democratic elections and wait for appropriate time to wrest powers for both the institutions from the SCAF.  

Its strategy worked. After holding the country in suspense, the SCAF accepted the election of the MB candidate Mohammed Morsi as the elected President of a post-revolution Egypt by a thin margin of 51.7% against 47.3% votes won by General Ahmed Shafik that the SCAF and liberal/Christian forces in the country backed. The MB at first announced that the new President would take oath in Parliament to show contempt for the SCAF’s decision to dissolve the lower house or the People’s Council. Later it appeased the SCAF and the judges by taking oath before the Supreme Constitutional Court. The MB then focused on choosing the Cabinet to placate the political forces. It agreed at first to take 30% of the cabinet posts but later enhanced it 40%. The MB also agreed to nominate a Vice President each from among the women and Christians respectively. It appointed as Prime Minister who is not a member of the MB. 

In each of the steps the MB has taken so far ; its strategy has been to push from the top its 82 years of hard work in the Egyptian society to connect the power structure to its base. It achieving this connectivity, the MB’s objective is to widen its acceptance among the civilian forces that are apprehensive of its fundamentalist base. Towards that, the MB is also shedding a lot of its fundamentalist edges. For instance, the MB has compromised on the public sale of alcohol which is unimaginable in an Islamic state in view its importance to the critical tourist industry. Nevertheless, in reaching out among the political groups, the MB is also keenly aware of keeping its dominance. Even where it has placed a Ministry under a non-MB Minister, it has appointed a junior MB Minister to keep control. 

The next round in the cat and mouse game between the MB and the SCAF would be played when the constitution is written.  The Generals have made it clear about their intention to engrave into the constitution, a role for the military to their liking. The MB while trying to get greater acceptance among the people would be fighting the SPCA on the constitution and powers for the presidency and parliament till “civilian oversight of the military” is established. The game is going to be a long and protracted one but most Egyptians are happy that the MB and the SCAF have avoided confrontation mainly because of the matured handling of politics by the MB. 

Nothing dramatic is thus expected to happen in Egypt’s politics in the immediate future.  Nevertheless, the military forces will find it increasingly difficult to have their ways without questions asked and without accountability as the MB spreads its influence over the main political institutions.  In the MB, Egypt’s military has met more than its match that is reaching out to the people democratically to build its credibility and legitimacy. With such a cool and calculated approach , the military is bound to be shed most of the powers that it has assumed un-democratically. When it does is a matter of time. 

At the time of filing this piece, President Morsi has exercised his presidential powers by dismissing intelligence chief General Muwafi and Governor of North Sinai province together with major intelligence shakeup over clashes between the military and extremists in Sinai that left 16 Egyptian soldiers dead. General Muwafi  appeared to be emerging into the footsteps of General Omar Suleiman, the charismatic former intelligence chief of President Mubarak, and had the confidence of the US and Israel. The President and the SCAF came together in dismissing General Muwafi as a fall guy for the deaths of the soldiers in Sinai that angered Egyptians. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt

Time for Dr. Mohammad Yunus to make the hard choice

Holiday, Agust 10th., 2012

M. Serajul Islam

Stephen Succor has done both Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank harm, albeit unwittingly. If he had not hosted the Prime Minister on Hard Talk, then she would not have been reminded before a worldwide audience how much the world respects the Noble Laureate and feels angry and upset at the way he is being treated by the government in his own country.  Nor would the respect that the Grameen Bank commands in the world outside Bangladesh been flagged to her. 

Upon her return from London, both have been again put under the spanner. The cabinet has passed an order stripping the Grameen Bank stakeholders of their powers that they were exercising through the Board of Directors where most of the members are ordinary Grameen Bank members who have risen through poverty and discrimination to sit on the Board of an institution that has won the Noble Prize and is held in the highest esteem around the world. The Board’s powers will now be exercised by a government appointed Chairman! As for Dr. Yunus, the authorities will hold an inquiry whether he should return to the government his salary and perks that he has taken from the institution beyond the age of sixty as under the rules, he should have retired from the Bank at that age! 

In her Hard Talk interview, the Prime Minister said that she has nothing personal against the Noble Laureate. When asked why she called him a blood sucker of the poor, the Prime Minister’s response was quick. She retorted:  “How could he (Dr. Yunus) say I said it? Did I mention him? I didn’t. I said someone.” Therefore, if we are to believe the Prime Minister, the decisions of the cabinet must have been inspired by its desire to uphold the law that does not distinguish between a Noble Laureate and an ordinary citizen of the country. One just wishes that the cabinet would show the same courage on all that is happening around it and not just on Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank to show their concern and respect for the law. If they would have, then Bangladesh’s perennial concerns about good governance that is standing between it and threats of failing as a state, would be over. 

The latest initiatives regarding Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank no doubt point at the government’s intention to make both the Noble Laureate and the GB succumb to the complete domination of the authorities. Dr. Yunus’ reaction was to issue a statement in which he has appealed to the people to stand behind him and stop the government from destroying the institution for the poor. He said in his statement: “I am very disheartened to see that the poor is being deprived of the ownership of the bank they run and of the power to exercise their ownership.” The Noble Laureate seems to have submitted himself to his destiny. 

The Prime Minister and members of the government and the ruling party have said repeatedly that Dr. Yunus has turned the United States and the World Bank against Bangladesh. The fact is, as was clear at the Hard Talk, it is not just the United States that is surprised and concerned at what has been happening to the Noble Laureate and the GB, the rest of the world is equally surprised and worried. Nevertheless, as for Dr. Yunus and GB, the worries and the concerns of the world are simply not helping. The government is getting more and more determined to grind both to the dust and winning. In fact, praises at the world stage for Dr. Yunus and the Bank are encouraging the government towards punitive and destructive actions against both. 

Therefore it would not do Dr. Yunus much good, in fact any at all, by appealing to the people in the country or abroad to come to his and GB’s assistance. It is time that Dr. Yunus is reminded about the truth in the saying that God helps those who help themselves. It is time for him to stand up and fight. Of course, he would not be able to make any headway if he stood alone and tried to fight the government. Fighting the government would in fact be fighting the ruling party and would have to be a political choice that the Noble Laureate must make.  

His major mistake in the past has been his intention and announcement to form a political party before the emergency in 2007 and then to quickly retract on that intention after the emergency. He missed a major opportunity at that time by his lack of focus and perhaps by his disinclination to make the hard choice for himself and the country. That ill conceived intention has also been one major reason for his current woes and those of the Grameen Bank. 

Times have changed. When he had expressed his intention to float his party, there was widespread disenchantment among the people with both the mainstream political parties. Dr. Yunus was then heading the Grameen Bank that had 8 million members spread all over Bangladesh. Had he carried through his intention to form the political party to fight the mainstream parties, he could have made an impact. He could have used his GB network to reach the people. Civil society groups who were desperately seeking a third force in politics would also have joined his efforts in politics. Because of his failure to make the hard choice, that chance was lost.. Today he finds himself just an individual, albeit a famous one but in any case without any institutional support. 

It is time for him to build that support if he wants to save himself and his institution for no matter what the Government says about the Grameen Bank, at the level of the people, no one has any doubt that the institution is his creation and he has been unfairly thrown out of it. For Dr. Yunus, it is time to touch base with reality; the reality of Bangladesh’s politics. Wittingly or otherwise, he had challenged both the mainstream parties by his desire to form a political party and incurred the displeasure of one of them that now forms the government. If he wants to clear his name and claim his creation, he has to fight it out politically. He should take heart at the outcry in his favour after the latest government actions against him and the GB that have been articulated by Dr. Kamal Hossain, Dr. Mirza Aziz and Dr. Hossain Zillur Rahman who have demanded an explanation from the Government. 

His first step should be to reach out to the civil society. It is good to see that he has been coming out into the open recently and the media is no longer afraid to cover him.  In fact, he should make good use of the media with a clearly thought out policy. He would be surprised to find that there is tremendous amount of goodwill for him among the people. The government’s efforts to humiliate him notwithstanding, the people are proud of him. He has to turn that goodwill for political gains. The only way to turn that goodwill for good purpose is to enter politics formally. 

Of course, it is too late for him to form his own political party. He of course cannot join the Awami League because the party would not want him anyway, not as long as the Prime Minister is heading the party. It would also not be appropriate for him to join the BNP given the realities of the politics of the country. He could of course join one of the many parties that are around that have none of the baggage that the two mainstream parties are carrying at the moment. 

That would give him the platform to talk of politics of the country that is hardly going the way the people would like. The frustration that people suffered under the last caretaker government has returned with the discussion everywhere for a third force in politics. In such discussions, no one really sees the possibility of such a force in politics emerging to challenge either of the two mainstream parties and going to power on its own. Nevertheless, with a third force with Dr. Mohammad Yunus in it could emerge as the party to hold the balance between the two mainstream parties and create the pressure upon both to mend their ways. 

Such a force could negotiate with either of the mainstream parties its own agenda of clean and people oriented politics and be a part of the one that accepts its agenda to contest the next elections. In her Hard Talk programme, the Prime Minister has sent the message to Dr. Mohammad Yunus. She has asked him, unwittingly though, to show what he is worth, not to the outside world but to the people of Bangladesh. It is time he made his hard choice and took up the Prime Minister’s challenge. His greatest asset is his charm and his ability to reach out to the people at level of world leaders as well as the ordinary folks trying to break the shackles of poverty. 

Dr. Mohammad Yunus may be surprised to find that his greatest reaching out could still be awaiting him, among the people of Bangladesh. He may not become the next Prime Minister of Bangladesh but by making the hard choice, he may gain the political power necessary to save his image, the Grameen Bank and in the bargain, bring some positive changes in the politics of Bangladesh that the country desperately needs.

The writer is a retired career diplomat and former Ambassador