On BAIRA’s threats to the Government

Daily Sun
September 30, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

What is happening in this country? Thousands of crores of Taka are swindled from the banks and nothing happens. When there is widespread demand to bring the Hall Mark people to face the law; the Government at first called the public outcry as “nonsense” and then gave the alleged swindlers 15 days to repay. The alleged swindlers have now asked 20 years to do so and the Government is silent! When people close to the party in power and some indirectly in control of the Security Exchange Commission swindled the public of thousands of crores, most of it money of poor and ordinary people, the government’s response was to protect the swindlers leaving those who were swindled to rue for themselves. 

The Ministry of Expatriate Affairs did something exceptional recently against this trend. For a government facing censure from the public for being soft on those who are allegedly cheating and swindling the poor and the unfortunate, it did something pro-poor and pro-the unfortunate.  It signed an agreement with the Malaysian Government under which it will send Bangladeshis to work in Malaysia on a government to government basis, sidelining what the Minister called “dalals”, a stinking Bangla equivalent of “agent” or “middle-man”. What was music to the ears of the millions of our unfortunate fellow citizens who hope to go abroad to work, the Minister said that each Bangladeshi to be sent to Malaysia under this programme would pay Taka 35-40,000 each and would be able to serve in that country for 5 years, enough to pay back the money they would have to loan to go abroad and bring money back in the bargain. 

The Bangladesh Association for International Recruiting Agents (BAIRA) held a meeting against this decision of the Ministry of Expatriate Affairs that would keep them out of the new arrangement. They threatened the Ministry that if they are not allowed to take part in the new arrangement, they would stop sending manpower to the other countries.  BAIRA also stated that the Taka 35- 40,000 that the Government has agreed as the amount to be paid by the workers is high. BAIRA said that if their members are allowed to enter the export of manpower to Malaysia, the costs would be between Taka 10 and 15 thousand.  

BAIRA’s figures on costs are difficult to believe.  Investigative reports on export of manpower have documented that on an average our workers paid nearly Taka 2 lacs to manpower agents to go to Malaysia in the past while the government charged Taka 84,000.  These reports have also revealed that compared to workers from other South Asian countries, Bangladeshi workers pay substantially more for working in the Middle East. That is not the end of their miseries. Bangladeshi workers often find on their arrival in their destinations that they are paid much less than what the manpower agents promised them. Many of these workers go abroad selling their meager possessions or loaning money at exorbitant rates of interests from money lenders. When they find that they are not paid their promised salaries, many run away from their jobs to find better paying jobs to pay back their loans. 

 In Saudi Arabia, there are over two lac Bangladeshi workers who are running from the law as illegal immigrants. The Prime Minister took up this problem with the King of Saudi Arabia in April 2009. On return home, the Foreign Minister stated in the media, that upon the Prime Minister’s intervention, the issue would be resolved. It has not been. In fact, in the meantime, the conditions of Bangladeshi workers in Saudi Arabia have worsened. Even where Bangladeshi workers receive their agreed salaries, they are often subjected to discriminations. Workers from Bangladesh are paid substantially less than workers from other countries working in the same type of jobs in the Middle East.

There is no dearth to loud claims from the government and the manpower agents of their great contribution to our economy through foreign remittance of our workers abroad that they help send.  There is sadly no concern from anyone, the government, the manpower agents, about the unfortunate realities in the lives of our workers abroad. In fact, quite a good number of these workers regularly die in their places of work as a result of the tensions they are subjected to once they find that the manpower agents who sent the abroad have cheated them. 

We send the third largest number of workers after Saudi Arabia and UAE, to Malaysia. The Malaysian experience for our workers has been very sad and unfortunate.  No one who went to Malaysia was able to go there paying the amount that BAIRA has sated it its press conference. They paid much higher charges. Many of them were also cheated.  Manpower exporters in collusion with their collaborators in Malaysia used “call visas” to send thousands of Bangladeshis to Malaysia who became illegal immediately upon arriving in the country. Call visas are not work visas that are issued to employers in Malaysia to let them import manpower from overseas but only after completing many formalities that takes a long time before they can actually bring manpower to the country.

Thus when Bangladeshis arrived in Malaysia on “call visas”, they had no jobs and many just had to turn illegal in order to earn the money they loaned to pay the manpower agents. Many of these unfortunate Bangladeshis eventually lost their lives or fell into the hands of the authorities and faced untold miseries. As the number of illegal Bangladeshis mounted, the Malaysians imposed many obstacles and at various times even threatened to stop recruiting manpower from Bangladesh.

Malaysia is heavily dependent on foreign workers. Bangladeshis have a good reputation as foreign workers. It is because of this good reputation that Malaysia has now decided to open its manpower market to Bangladesh and made the offer on a government to government basis so that the nexus of evil on both sides, between our manpower agents and their partners in Malaysia are not allowed to interfere in the business against the interests of the workers.  

The Malaysian initiative is one for which the Ministry of Expat Affairs deserve to be congratulated. It should dismiss the BAIRA threat because it is BAIRA that would need to make the Ministry happy to continue business in which they have been minting money at the misery of the workers.  The Ministry should realize its limitations because it would be impossible for it to send the huge number of workers to Malaysia on its own. It would have to allow the manpower agents to implement a major part of the agreement but in its terms. It should set the model structure for pay and conditions of workers by sending the number of workers it can handle so that the manpower agents are compelled to work within it and uphold the interests of the workers instead of making them the victims of their hugely lucrative business.  

In fact, the Ministry should negotiate with other manpower importing countries to enter into more government to government agreements to set the same model for manpower business as the Malaysian one (assuming one would be set) so that the workers whose blood and sweat gives Bangladesh those US$ 11 billion in foreign remittance so crucial to its economic development are not made the victims of the manpower business as they are at present. The manpower business does not have any legal framework. Thus we see many reports of our workers being cheated regularly but no instance of those who cheat being punished. There is also need to fast track cases in manpower business for protecting the interest of the workers. Finally, it is also important to bring the Bangladesh Embassies into the loop not for damage control but as an integral part of the structure where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Expat Affairs would work as  a team that it does not at present.. 

The writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador.

                                 

 

 

 

 

Padma Bridge Loan revival: Need for caution

As I see it column

The Independent, September 29,2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

The nation was relieved and happy when the Finance Minister gave the welcome news that the World Bank was near to making the positive announcement about financing the Padma Bridge based on negotiations in which “they have given to some of our demands and we have given to some of theirs.” When the WB statement was finally released, there was little in it to suggest that they gave to any of our demands while we agreed to all of theirs and more. In fact, the Bank agreed to re-engage only after the government fulfilled the three remaining conditions following the removal of the Minister, the Adviser and the senior bureaucrats. 

Nevertheless, the revival, even though conditional, is great news for Bangladesh. It ended a long period of uncertainty and senseless exchanges by the leaders of this government against the WB. In her anger, the Prime Minister accused the WB of corruption; her Ministers carried out a tirade against it in the media after it cancelled the loan. The government threatened to let Malaysia finance the project at costs that would have been considerably higher where those who came forward to build the bridge did not have any experience in bridge building! The Prime Minister also promised to build the bridge from domestic resources. She appealed to people’s national spirit to show the WB what Bangladesh is capable of doing. One senior leader of the party asked the Chatra League to engage in collecting money for the bridge, some Taka 2300 crores in all. As a consequence, a student was killed in Rajshahi. 

In fact, even a day or two before the WB revived the loan; the Prime Minister was insisting that her government would build the bridge for road transport and exclude the railway line to save costs leaving no one in doubt that she would not accept the WB if offered again. Her Adviser Dr. Mashiur Rahman while appealing to the media for his life and holding out on resigning said a day before the WB revived the loan that from what he has seen of the demands of the WB, he saw no reason for the loan agreement to be activated. His words hinted strongly at the difficult and humiliating nature of the WB’s demands. 

Dr. Mashiur Rahman was both right and wrong. He was right in assuming that the loan would not be revived because from the exchanges he read between the Government and the WB, he saw no reason for the Bangladesh government  to succumb to the demands of the WB. He was of course wrong to assume that the Prime Minister and the Government would not accept the conditions. In what can only be called a somersault, the Government removed the Minister; the Adviser and the 2 bureaucrats to meet the first of the 4 tough conditions set by the WB for its re-engagement; a first time that the WB dared to demand a sovereign country to remove a Minister (an Adviser of Ministerial rank and senior bureaucrats) for a loan and succeed with such an outrageous demand. 

The government then  also agreed to meet the WB’s remaining  demands, namely,  “(ii) appointing a special inquiry and prosecution team within the Bangladeshi Anti-Corruption Commission to handle the investigation; (iii) agreeing to provide full access to all investigative information to an external panel of internationally recognized experts so that they can give guidance to the Bank and co-financiers on the progress, adequacy, and fairness of the investigation, and; iv) agreeing on new implementation arrangements that gives the Bank and co-financiers greater oversight of project procurement processes; “ to reactivate the loan. Thus the agreement reached in Washington between WB and the Government is dependent on the   satisfactory implementation of the three remaining conditions as stated in the pen-ultimate paragraph of the statement: “The Bank has agreed that, upon satisfactory implementation of the agreed measures by the Government and with the support of the Bank’s governing bodies the Bank will engage anew in the Padma Multipurpose Bridge.” 

The Finance Minister and others congratulating themselves for the loan revival should therefore spare few moments and read the WB statement carefully. The Bank has not only made its re-engagement conditional, it has flagged its seriousness on the allegations of corruption that has already delayed the project by 10 months. That seriousness has been scribed in the final paragraph of the statement: “The World Bank remains vigilant to any signs of corruption in the Padma Bridge project, and our determination to take a strong line against wrongdoing will never waver.”  

The second and third conditions in the Bank’s statement are significant. It has taken away the independence of the ACC and with it a little of the country’s sovereignty. The international panel of experts will now have full access to the progress of the ACC’s investigation and report to the WB that will decide on its “progress, adequacy and fairness.” The Bank did not waste any time to stamp its authority over the ACC on the issue of corruption.  It has already expressed its intention to sit with the ACC team when it questions those accused of corruption that will include former Minister Abul Hossain and Dr. Mashiur Rahman. The fourth condition will give the Bank and its co financiers control over procurement process leading some analysts to conclude that the Padma Bridge will be a turnkey project based upon the Bank’s authority and control over it.  

The decision of the Bank to re-engage will now mean that their allegations of corruption will  be resolved either way.   What if the allegations turn out to be correct? A pro-AL guest said in a recent TV talk show that one of the areas where the WB relented was to accept the demand that the Prime Minister made; that once the new agreement was signed, the WB would not again withdraw funding. It was a poor defense against those who are suggesting that the government accept humiliating conditions to reactivate the loan. If the allegations of corruption  are found incorrect, then the question of the WB withdrawing the loan would be irrelevant, what the Prime Minister demanded and the WB accepted notwithstanding. If however the allegations are correct, then the issue would not be whether the WB would withdraw from the project or not; the issue would be whether the Prime Minister would have the moral right to remain in her position. 

Therefore the government and the ruling party should tread with caution in complementing themselves at this stage for there are hurdles ahead that would need to be crossed before claiming credit. The government must now, first, cooperate with the WB for a fair and transparent inquiry to the corruption allegations to prove it is correct and the Bank wrong, and second, demand a formal apology from the WB after proving its stand. Even though the past cannot be written off and the humiliation that Bangladesh suffered regained; it would be a moral victory for Bangladesh. The government now owes to itself to clear the allegations of corruption because if it cannot prove the WB wrong, its own credibility to the people would be gone given the fact that it has now accepted a number of humiliating conditions to reactivate the loan.

At the time of filing this report, the signals out of Washington are disconcerting. A WB statement from Washington said: "Media reports have quoted senior Bangladeshi government officials misrepresenting the World Bank’s position concerning the Padma Multipurpose bridge project.” The WB reminded the Bangladesh Government that the loan will be activated only after the agreed conditions for revival were implemented, particularly the Bank’s concerns on issues of corruption that remains paramount. Unfortunately, the ruling party leaders and government officials are more concerned with playing to the gallery and are not focused upon the seriousness of the WB’s concerns or the conditional nature of the loan that could jeopardize it again.  

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

 

 

 

China –Japan Conflict over Diayou-Senkaku islands

Defense and Diplomacy Page

Daily Sun, September 26

M. Serajul Islam

 

An anti-Japanese rage of anger funneled by nationalistic fervor is blowing in China over the former’s action to buy 3 islets from private owners in the island chain that the Chinese call Senkaku and the Japanese, Diayou. Japan’s provocative action led China to send a flotilla of naval and fishing vessels to the island chain that brought the two neighbours closer to a military conflict for the first time in its tumultuous bilateral relations since diplomatic ties were established in September 1972 surpassing the tension of 2010 over the same island chain. 

 The island chain, located in the East China Sea, is uninhabited; potentially rich in hydrocarbons and fisheries and is claimed by both the neighbours and by the Republic of China (Taiwan). Historically, China’s claim over the island dates back to the 14^th century. However, after Japan’s surrender in the Second World War and its occupation by the United States, the islands came under US control. In 1972, the United States handed over the islands to Japan as a part of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement.  

China however did not give up its claim over the islands but preferred not to enforce it militarily.  Japan also did not physically possess the islands. Both sides preferred a status quo over the island chain till the 2010 incident when the status quo came close to be broken but was reinstated. China was more concerned at consolidation of the fruits of the communist revolution and thereafter in its economic development. In that development, Japan became a major partner of its erstwhile foe with its FDI after 1979. In fact, China’s economic miracle has been largely the result of FDI coming from Japan, Hong Kong, USA, South Korea and overseas Chinese. 

China embraced Japanese investment wholeheartedly and the benefits of economic cooperation with it following normalization of relations. Nevertheless, once ties were established, China brought into the bilateral relations the past, particularly the Japanese invasion and occupation during the Second World War. The Nanking Massacre of 1937 in which by Chinese claim, 300,000 men, women and children were butchered by the Japanese Imperial Army became a major issue of contention where the Chinese demanded a full and formal  apology for the invasion and the massacre. The Nanking War Crimes Tribunal tried and some of the perpetrators were also executed.    

Unfortunately, the 1970s was also the period when there was a resurgence of nationalism and national pride in Japan. That resurgence was encouraged by the economic miracle in Japan that made it the second strongest economy of the world.  Under the resurgence,   small and vocal minority in government and society in Japan argued that the Nanking massacre  was exaggerated and what happened was necessary for military reasons. In fact, the denial of the massacre became the basis of the resurgent Japanese nationalism that was supported by the new generation that saw no reason for accepting the pacifism that was imposed upon Japan by the United States and accepted by a post-war leadership that felt guilty for Japan’s militarism that they thought brought pains to Japan and those who were victims of Japanese militarism. 

Thus while China demanded formal apology from Japan for its wartime crimes, the demand fell on deaf ears. In his 5 years as Prime Minister from 2001-2006, Junichiro Koizumi epitomized the Chinese predicament. He not only refused to apologize; he instead ignited Chinese contempt and hatred for Japan by making yearly visits to Yasukuni  Shrine in Tokyo where 13 Class A war dead are enshrined whom China considers  war criminals responsible for committing atrocities during Japanese occupation of China. Junichiro Koizumi’s successors refrained from the yearly visits to the controversial shrine, but they have not rendered the official apology that China demands to resolve the historical conflict. 

It is this deeply rooted anti-Japanese sentiments  that Japan’s provocative action to buy the 3 islets has incensed. There are nevertheless a number of new elements in the recent conflict over the island chain. International politics has in the meantime shifted dramatically. Regional realignments are again taking new shape. The initiatives taken by the United States last year, particularly its decision to relocate 60% of its naval fleet in the Indian Ocean has raised fears in China of a new “Return to Asia “policy by the US. Such fear in China has potentials of negative repercussions on the United States that while wanting to contain China from expanding its influence in the region cannot also afford to be seen as taking an openly anti-China policy without endangering its economy that is deeply susceptible to China’s ability to influence it. 

The US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was in Beijing for his first visit after taking charge of the Defense Department last week. The outcome of his visit flagged some of these new realities.  The Chinese, aware that the visit was being watched more intensely in Japan than anywhere else, used the visit to show the US visitor more of the anti-Japanese sentiments. The Chinese Defense Minister used the visit to underscore that China would go to any length to assert its sovereignty over the island chain; even to military conflict if need be.  The US Defense Secretary, who witnessed the anti-Japan riots/demonstrations and rhetoric of the Chinese leadership, did not react. Clearly, times have changed and the United States that is obliged to defend any external aggression/threat on Japan as an attack/threat on its own territory by the USA-Japan Defense Treaty of 1960 did not show its willingness to take stand by its treaty obligations preferring the two sides to resolve their differences mutually. Nevertheless, it is still far from abandoning Japan and has only recently installed a defense missile system there. 

Thus the way the actors are playing out their hands signal that there is no imminent danger of a military conflict over the Diayou/Senkaku islands. China, that has now surpassed Japan as the number 2 economy of the world with distinct possibility of becoming number 1 in the not too distant future, is using the conflict to assert its new status as the dominant regional and a leading world power. It is also using it to find out how far the USA would be willing to back Japan based on the Defense Pact of 1960. On these options, the conflict has helped China to assert its regional dominance through the silence of the United States to react to the threats to Japan. 

The curious issue is why Japan started this conflict by buying the 3 islets. Perhaps, it did so to find out where it stood in the emerging regional equation, fearful that it is losing its power and stature in the region. If it is so, then the outcome of the recent tension is not likely to favour it. It has failed to evoke the type of response from the United States that would have given it strength vis-à-vis China and the region. In the bargain, it has given China a chance to show its emerging strength in regional and world politics.  

China showed that strength by the riots and demonstrations that had tacit official approval in more than 100 Chinese cities where Japanese companies and interests were attacked. The riots/demonstrations together with USA’s lack of interest to be drawn into the conflict would no doubt encourage Japan to revert to the status quo and try and settle the conflict in the negotiating table instead of provoking China further towards a military conflict. 

As Japan’s number one trading partner, China also has the economic leverage to influence Japan to opt to settle its claim in the negotiating table. More importantly, Japanese companies have thousands of billions of investments in China that have already been targeted strategically by China. China also has significant influence in the Japanese bond market. It could use these leverages to convince Japan towards negotiation.  Thus, the latest outbreak of conflict and the developments to date have clearly been to China’s advantage. Despite the fears in some quarters, China has no reason to go for war because the Japanese have already been pushed back on the defensive. 

The writer is a retired Secretary and  Ambassador to Japan

 

 

Republicans play foreign affairs and fall on defensiveRepublicans play foreign affairs and fall on defensive

Daily Sun
September 23, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

Foreign policy is the Republican Party’s weak link in a Presidential election that is showing signs of shifting positively towards the Democrats following the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, North Carolina earlier this month. In fact, Mitt Romney showed his weak hand at the Republican Convention a week before the DNC when he said that the Russians are USA’s number one enemy leading many to conclude that he showed the same shallow understanding of foreign affairs as Sarah Palin  she had said that she could see Russia from Alaska during the last presidential election! 

The Republicans thus deliberately opted against introducing foreign affairs as an agenda in the elections till recently. They favoured fighting the Democrats on the economy where they think they can tie them down on a sticky wicket. They are conscious that foreign policy is the strong point of the Obama re-election campaign. In Vice President Joe Biden, the Democrats have a foreign affairs expert recognized nationally and internationally.  Joe Biden is a former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Of course, in the last four years, the President and Joe Biden have enriched their foreign affairs credentials substantially. 

In the current term, the Obama administration has ended the US involvement in Iraq and has given a road map in Afghanistan under which US combat troops would return home by 2014. The crowning glory of the Obama administration in foreign and security affairs has been the killings of Osama Ben Laden and the top leadership of Al Qaeda.  These successes are significant and the Republicans know that if they get involved with foreign affairs, it would damage the Romney-Ryan ticket. 

The Republicans however could not check the temptations of being drawn to foreign affairs when Israel decided to roll in the dice for Mitt Romney. It is common knowledge in Washington that President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu never became friends in their respective terms. Their “famously testy relationship” was revealed during the Group of 20 Summit in Cannes in November last year. Associated Press leaked a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozi and President Barak Obama before the start a press conference after the Summit in which the former said while talking of Benjamin Netanyahu: “I can’t stand him. He is a liar”.  The US President agreed and remarked: “You may be sick of him but me; I have to deal with him every day.” Although respective aides  declined to comment on the leak, it revealed what is now an open secret, that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have not established a good personal equation. 

That personal equation was recently tested when Benjamin Netanyahu called President Obama and had an hour long telephone talk to convince the latter that Iran has crossed the “red line”.  Recently gathered intelligence has convinced Tel Aviv that Iran is 90% of the way to developing the nuclear bomb and has long since crossed the “red line’ and therefore must be attacked to take out its nuclear capabilities. According to NYT, the US President declined to embrace Israeli Prime Minister’s proposal on the “red line”.   

Israel is concerned about a new Obama term particularly when in Tel Aviv; the conclusion is that the race for the White House is slipping out of the hands of the Republicans. As a result, the aides of Benjamin Netanyahu have set aside an earlier unwritten agreement with aides of President Obama that Israel would not interfere in the US presidential election. They leaked to the media that the US President has refused to meet the Israeli Prime Minister on the sidelines of the UNGA session in New York but kept his schedule to appear on the David Letterman Show. 

Mitt Romney instantly took the cue. He slammed the President for turning down the request for the meeting from an important and trusted ally. He flagged his close friendship with the Israeli Prime Minister highlighting their period together as consultant in the Boston Consulting Group in 1976 and the close friendship they developed subsequently. In fact during the Republican primaries last December, Mitt Romney had said that before making any disparaging statement on Palestine, he would get on phone with his friend Bibi (Netanyahu’s nick name) and ask him: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’  He was reacting to a disparaging remark by Newt Gingrich on Palestine to flag his closeness with the Israeli Prime Minister and support for Israel. 

The White House denied the Tel Aviv leak on the appointment in New York, stating that it received no request from the office of the Israeli Prime Minister. It was later revealed that the US President would have to remain in New York beyond his schedule for Benjamin Netanyahu to reach New York to meet him! In retrospect, Mitt Romney played the issue poorly. He gave voters the impression of his willingness to make his administration should he get elected subservient to Tel Aviv. It is important for any candidate in the Presidential race in the United States to be friendly to Israel because of the power of the Israeli lobby. However, the majority of the voters hate to be see their country dictated by Israel. Candidate Romney has stepped into this miscalculation no doubt because of his inexperience and that of his team in handling foreign policy issues. 

Mitt Romney team also made another miscalculation with his reaction to the killings in Benghazi in which the US Ambassador died in the hands of terrorists. He blamed the Obama administration’s weak foreign policy for giving the terrorists the upper hand that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues in Benghazi. In blaming the President, Mitt Romney again  exposed his  naivety on foreign policy because most Americans see such unfortunate incidents as part of the risk  the United States must undertake to remain as the number one power on the world political stage. The dignity and grace with which the President and Secretary of State handled the aftermath of the Benghazi incident enhanced their rating with the voters and went to show that the Romney-Ryan ticket is way short of what it needs to lead the US administration in foreign affairs. 

The Romney campaign team hoped that attacking the President on Israel, the “red line” concerning Iran and the murders of the US Ambassador, all foreign policy issues, would help their cause. Instead the attacks boomeranged.  In fact, since the lack luster Convention of the Republican Party in Tampa followed by the very successful Convention of the Democrats in Charlotte, the candidature of President Obama has widened the gap substantially in all the polls taken since the Convention of the two parties till the time of writing this piece as the election enters its final phase leading to Election Day on November 6.  

To complete the circle of a very bad patch that the Romney-Ryan ticket is passing through  since the Conventions, a video taken  secretly of a Romney fund raiser dinner  where per plate went for US$ 50,000 showed Mitt Romney  stating that 47% of Americans will never vote for him because they are “victims” of dependency on the government. In an election where the Democrats are portraying him as a candidate of the 2% rich Americans with scant respect for the middle class and the poor, the video has made significant negative impact where the undecided voters are beginning to wake up to the fact that this election is one of choice; whether to back a candidate who speaks and stands for the middle class and the poor or to send to the White House a representative of the rich.

Candidate Mitt Romney would have to really make a major impact and President Obama a poor impression in the Presidential debates starting on October 3^rd to stop President Obama from getting another term in the White House. The task ahead for the challenger is getting tougher with each passing day. 

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

 

 

 

On Cabinet expansion that misfired

"As I See It" column
The Independent
September 22

M. Serajul Islam

In a parliamentary government, expansion/reshuffle of the cabinet is a normal and routine affair. The Prime Minister said so after the induction of seven Ministers to her cabinet. Nevertheless, sometimes expansion and/or reshuffle of the cabinet is anything but routine and are undertaken because of serious political necessities.  No one needed to be told that the latest expansion/reshuffle of the cabinet was not a routine one after Tofael Ahmed and Rashed Khan Menon declined the offers, the first time  Cabinet posts have been offered in public but refused , the Prime Minister’s rather lame explanation notwithstanding. 

Everything about the expansion suggested that it was not a routine expansion. The AL led government had just a year more to go of its five years tenure. This was no stage to expand the cabinet. Under normal circumstances, the AL led government should be gathering the fruits of its tenure to seek voters’ approval for another term in office rather than expanding/reshuffling the cabinet.  The Prime Minister felt, her public stance notwithstanding that she needed to strengthen her Cabinet to deliver the promises her party made to get elected; that her present set of Ministers was far from delivering. There was also pressure from within, particularly the rank and file, to bring Tofael Ahmed to the Cabinet because they were also concerned and frustrated at the failure of the Government to deliver its election promises. 

In fact, the evidence that her cabinet was not delivering was all around for everyone to see as clear as daylight. One did not have to go beyond the Finance Minister for evidence.  He made a mess of the economy where the banking sector was facing scandals serious enough not just to send him running for shelter but also to bring down the government.  Under pressure for his unbelievable behaviour , he publicly admitted that he had been considering resigning for the last 9 months and that he had been officially told to keep his “mouth shut” (by the Prime Minister) that made a mockery of the government. 

His actions brought the severest criticisms not just from the Opposition but also from his own party members. Leading members of the party were critical also of other key Ministers and Ministries. They expressed serious reservations about law and order, condition of roads and railways, corruption; the share market and the banking sector from where many thousands of crores of Takas just vanished into thin air. In fact, never before did a party in power face such criticism as this government.  To make it worse, the government was also at odds with its major development partners.  Relations were on the decline also with India upon which it banked a great deal for succeeding as a government. 

The AL’s allies in the Mahajote were also restless because of the deterioration of governance. In fact, Rashed Khan Menon of the Workers’ Party and Hasanul Huq Inu of the JSD  who were offered Cabinet posts were in recent times playing the role of the opposition in parliament as well as outside it exposing the failures of the government. The biggest of the allies in the Mahajote, the Jatiyabadi Dal of former President Ershad, had already made its intentions clear of leaving the Mahajote for the next general elections in the face of the AL led Government’s failures.   The Prime Minister thus faced real dangers of open revolt in the party and in the alliance that made it necessary to expand/reshuffle the cabinet to please the critics. 

These facts notwithstanding, the real focus in the expansion however was on Tofael Ahmed. It is an open secret that the Prime Minister kept him out together with the late Abdul Razzak and Amir Hossain Amu as punishment for their role during the Caretaker Government when they negotiated with the military intelligence for reform in the AL that was aimed at restricting her powers.  As the AL started failing in governance, there was widespread pressure from the party upon the Prime Minister to take back Tofael Ahmed and his colleagues into the Cabinet in the greater interests of the Party because of their importance and acceptance in the party and experience in governance. 

The Prime Minister relented slowly initially but only in case of those who played minor roles in the demand for reforming the party during the last caretaker government. Each time she took new Ministers; there were widespread expectations within the party that Tofael Ahmed, Abdur Razzak and Amir Hossain Amu would be invited into the Cabinet. That did not happen because the Prime Minister was not willing to allow these stalwarts in the cabinet. In the meantime, Abdur Razzak passed away without winning the Prime Minister’s heart although the trio did their best to please the Prime Minister. 

The Prime Minister did not relent on Tofael Ahmed when she made three earlier expansions/reshuffles although there was pressure on each of these occasions to take him into the cabinet. When the offer finally came, Tofael Ahmed reminded the Prime Minister by his refusal that he did not forget the humiliation he suffered in the last 4 years. His emotion choked voice expressed hurt and humiliation when he faced the media after his refusal. His emphasis that the offer came from the Cabinet Secretary exposed his sadness because he expected it to come from the Prime Minister. He thought and many in his party and outside agreed that he deserved more respect. Therefore there were few takers on the Prime Minister’s explanation that it was correct for the Cabinet Secretary to convey the offer to him and that his refusal to join was not an act of indiscipline. 

The Prime Minister’s attempt to be casual about the decision of Tofael Ahmed was however a poor way to deflect the affront that was hurled at her by the refusal. She knew as did Tofael Ahmed and in fact all others that the Cabinet Secretary was merely a clerk doing a routine duty of a conduit. The Prime Minister did not leave anyone in doubt that she and Tofael Ahmed do  not talk with each other that suggested that although she decided to take Tofael Ahmed in the Cabinet, she did so under pressure and that she was not ready to forgive him for his role during the period of the caretaker government. 

Tofael Ahmed is not an ordinary AL leader.  He has considerable hold and acceptance among party activists and members based on his qualities of leadership and long and illustrious career in the party. He did not refuse to join the cabinet on emotions alone. His decision was a cool and calculated one. He has by his refusal craftily flagged for the Prime Minister that he leads a significant section in the party who are not happy with her leadership of the party and the Government. By her impulsive and arrogant manner of dealing with the expansion of the Cabinet and in particular about inducting Tofael Ahmed, she gave the latter to  opportunity prove to her, the party and the country that she does not control her party in the manner she would like everybody to believe. 

In the end Rashed Khan Menon spilled the beans when he expressed his anger that the offers were made by the Cabinet Secretary. In expressing this sentiment, he clearly embarrassed those who joined; that the Prime Minister did not care for any of them. It also suggested that the idea to expand the cabinet was not taken by her; that she did so due to pressure from within the party where many were weary and worried that governance was so poor that without extra efforts, the party and Mahajote’s chances in the next election were very poor.

The expansion/reshuffle thus flagged the poor state of affairs of the Awami League, this Government and the Mahajote. In particular, it flagged the arrogant and unrealistic mindset of the Prime Minister. In fact, it is one expansion/reshuffle that she would have done better not undertaking because it has misfired upon her.  

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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