Sunshine in Bangladesh
It is a mistake to believe that the large anti-India constituency in Bangladesh has disappeared with the return of Sheikh Hasina to power at the head of a 12-party alliance led by Awami League. India should avoid embarrassing her by periodically recalling what a great friend of India she is. Also blaming Bangladesh at this point of time for the infiltration and terrorist activities could prove to be counter-productive to India's long-term security interests. Instead we should focus attention on two critical aspects of border security - riverine terrain and topography of villages which tend to spill into each other's territory, say the authors
After the anger and pain caused by the Mumbai attacks last November two successive events have brought some cheer to India. First was the defeat of the separatist forces in Kashmir polls and then came the news that the 'pro-India' Awami League has swept the Bangladesh parliamentary polls. The poll outcome from Kashmir was on expected lines; Awami League's landslide win surprised political observers in and outside Bangladesh.
The open enthusiasm coupled with a sense of relief shown in India over the Bangla result is perhaps justified as it marks a 'positive' change from the patently anti-India policies followed by the previous civilian regime headed by Begum Khalida Zia. Her Bangladesh National Party (BNP) is totally shaken by its near rout in the 300-member Parliament (National Assembly) of Bangladesh.
And a sullen Khalida Zia could well spoil everyone's party. She has already declared a 'war' by rejecting the poll verdict as being rigged. Her allegation sounds vacuous when nearly everybody, including the large number of international observers who were present during the 29th December ballot, say that the elections were free and fair. Some say they were the fairest elections in Bangladesh in many years.
But that will not necessarily encourage Khalida Zia from reviewing her 'verdict'. Her intensely bitter and personal enmity with Shaikh Hasina, who heads the victorious Awami League, is such. It could also be because she expects her rival to initiate probe into the corruption charges against her and her sons, even though Hasina has ruled out any vindictive action. Anyone who counsels her to take a more 'positive' view of things runs the risk of being rebuffed by the Begum whose late husband presided over the destiny of the country as its president.
What should be receiving more attention in India is perhaps not Hasina's victory but how the 'history' will unfold itself with street violence designed to immobilise the new government about to be resumed with Begum Zia in the lead. That will be bad news for not just Bangladesh, which has just seen the end of two years of indirect military rule, but also for India. Delhi's expectations rest on the hope that Shaikh Hasina will be firmly in the saddle for her five-year term, counter opposition attempts to paralyse her government and act against terrorists operating from its soil against our north-east.
The next few weeks will therefore be crucial and require close monitoring by India to gauge the public mood in Bangladesh. India's hopes of restoring good neighbourly relations with its eastern neighbour will suffer a great deal if the BNP again works up its anti-India rhetoric to instil a fear among ordinary Bangladeshis about India preparing to 'take over' their 'Sonar Bangla'. One immediate effect of the BNP campaign would be that the Awami League would be stymied by the charge that it is not patriotic enough if it extends an overly hand of friendship to India and offers to sort out through dialogue all problems to each other's satisfaction.
In the circumstances it might be better if India does not embarrass the Awami League by periodically recalling what a great friend of India the party founded by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman has always been. It is a mistake to believe that the large anti-India constituency in Bangladesh has disappeared with the ouster of Begum Zia from power.
A section in Bangladesh, which cuts across party affiliations, is opposed to giving India any 'concessions' - like opening Bangladesh territory for transport of Indian goods from India's northeast to the hinterlands, and offering to sell natural gas to India. As Prime Minister, Begum Zia had successfully moulded public opinion into one of hostility towards India, something akin to Pakistan's. She pursued this policy with such resoluteness that when the Tatas went to her with the proposal to invest billions of dollars-the largest that Bangladesh ever received by way of foreign investment-- she said 'no'. A few expressions of regret over it were indeed heard in Bangladesh but not from the majority in the country.
The 'India factor' occupies a prominent place in the Opposition space in Bangladesh. In fact, as Khaleda Zia's predecessor in office, Shaikh Hasina herself was not averse to echoing some of the (mostly imaginary) fears about India in the minds of ordinary Bangladeshis. She was quite critical of India on the issue of sharing of Ganga waters. The Indian request for good transit has been pending very long; neither of the Begums has shown willingness to favourably consider the Indian request.
Khaleda Zia, aligned with the religious extreme right, willingly turned a blind eye to the use of Bangladesh territory for terrorist activities against India with ISI's involvement. She used to aggressively reject the oft-repeated charge about Bangladeshi immigrants entering India. But it does not appear that Shaikh Hasina would address these two Indian concerns with utmost urgency and to India's satisfaction, unless she wants to give more powerful ammunition to Begum Zia.
Suffice to say that building up pressure on Shaikh Hasina to take up matters of India's interest in right earnest from day one will not serve any purpose. If Begum Zia queers the political pitch in Bangladesh-and she seems intent upon doing it-Shaikh Hasina's first priority will obviously be preventing the situation from escalating into a chaos of the kind that would invite military intervention.
Indian interests are not going to be served at all if democracy in Bangladesh derails again. If Shaikh Hasina is a friend of India she can be expected to look at India's concerns-but only when it suits her politically. And it may mean months. More so since both the 14-party alliance led by Awami League (AL) and the 4-party coalition of BNP gave primacy to local issues of bread and butter in their manifestos. While Awami League promised a job to one member of every family, BNP bolstered its image with three square meals a day for every individual.
Not that ideological and religious orientation of the two alliances took a back seat during campaigning. Khaleda Zia did not mince words in her promise of pursuing "Islamic values" with hardcore fundamentalist orientation. The Awami League's attraction lies in its Bengali nationalist moorings and reliance on 'spirit of the Liberation War", which still has potent pull in Bangladesh. India also loomed large over electioneering not merely because it is the Big Brother but because, Silchar, Gauwhati, Kolkata, and far away Delhi are magnets not the poor in search of a livelihood. Well that is infiltration by another name and the route adopted by ISI foot soldiers, Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and Harkat-ul-Jehadi Islami (HUJI) for targeting India with impunity.
Blaming Bangladesh at this point of time for the infiltration could prove to be counter-productive to India's long-term security interests. Instead we should focus attention on two critical aspects of border security - riverine terrain and topography of villages which tend to spill into each other's territory. Palaniappan Chidambaram should wear his thinking cap to address the issue, which has become a part of PUC (paper under consideration) at his North Block office under successive home ministers of India.
M Rama Rao, -Syndicate Features
Central Chronicle--Column
