Editorial
Again, it is the people who freed Padua
IT IS perhaps befitting that, on a December day, the people once again put up resistance against occupation, albeit on a small scale, of their land, and were successful to force the intruders into beating a retreat. The intruders belonged to a disciplined force and were equipped to the teeth with heavy weaponry, while the people were untrained and unarmed, just as in 1971; in the end, their determination and dedication prevailed. Ironically, the intruders were members of the Border Security of India, a country that extended a helping hand as the people took up arms to liberate Bangladesh from the occupation of the Pakistan army. Ironically still, the government of the Awami League, the party that presided over the independence struggle was unable to clearly stand by the people.
According to a report front-paged in New Age on Thursday, 300 or so Indian border guards, along with about 200 Indian nationals, crossed the border and took position at about 7:00pm on Tuesday and occupied some 230 acres of land close to the Pratappur camp of the Bangladesh Rifles on the Padua frontier in Sylhet. The intruders had stayed put, despite protest against and, request for withdrawal of, the occupation by the Bangladesh border guards until about 1,000 villagers from surrounding villages came out in protest on Wednesday night.
While the standoff ended somewhat peacefully, it could have very easily led to loss of lives and limbs, especially given the fact that the BSF has been killing Bangladeshi civilians on flimsiest of excuses and without any provocation. In other words, the inability or unwillingness of the ruling quarters to look their Indian counterparts in the eye and call spade the spade once again put the life of the ordinary people in jeopardy. Fortunately, the better judgement dawned on the BSF personnel. They kept their fingers off the triggers, as did the BDR.
It will be foolhardy to believe that the chapter is closed, just because the ongoing Bangladesh-India joint land survey of the disputed territory resumed. The BSF, after all, is not known for its compliance with bilateral agreements and international covenants, especially when it concerns Bangladesh. Its personnel have made killing of Bangladesh nationals, intruding into Bangladesh territory and opening fire at BDR outposts a habit of sort.
Whereas it is inconceivable that the BSF has continued with its highhandedness and atrocities without clearance from some level of the Indian government, the successive governments of Bangladesh have appeared rather feeble in asserting their objection to its unwanted and unwarranted actions. Worse still, the incumbent Awami League-led government has thus far seemed over-eager and over-enthusiastic about the essentially empty assurances of resolving bilateral disputes that its Indian counterparts have dished out from time to time.
Although the incumbents have trumpeted the visit to New Delhi by the prime minister early this year as the beginning of a new chapter in Bangladesh-India relations, the joint communiqué that came out at the end of her meeting with her Indian counterpart looked heavily tilted in India’s favour. Moreover, the so-called ‘agreement’ between the two countries on their respective border guards ‘to exercise restraint’ (needless to say, the BDR has done so all along) has not translated into any tangible change in the BSF’s attitude or action.
It is not inconceivable that the AL-led government’s characteristic reluctance to speak up against New Delhi has allowed the latter to disdainfully disregard the concern of the people in Bangladesh. The Padua episode could be an indication that people may have started to believe that it is up to them to stand up and resist BSF excesses and that the government will not come to any effective help in any way. If the incumbents do not see in it significant erosion of the people’s trust in them, one wonder if they ever will.
