A foreign policy collision course?
Are Bangladeshi diplomats allowed to go and meet Indian leaders and ask them not to join in an alliance with the BJP, which is also a radical fundamentalist party?
-
Do we need an Indian prescription?
Like the light bulb jokes, there are quite a few jokes on what a diplomat says and what a diplomat means. A diplomat has to be diplomatic in stating what he thinks, as one slip of the tongue and one loose word may cause havoc in the relationship between two nations.
But when a diplomat stops being diplomatic and openly expresses his mind on contentious issues, and clearly takes sides on high-ly sensitive political matters, you would consider that the relationship between the two countries is not running on standard mode.
A few days back, the foreign secretary of India, Sujata Singh, visited Bangladesh. Her activities during her visit raise questions about the relationship between India and Bangladesh.
The manner in which the Indian diplomats have dispensed with their basic diplomatic courtesy, and are openly promoting the agen-da of the Awami League, raises the question as to whether the Bengali people living in Bangladesh have completely lost their sense of national pride to allow such intervention in their political affairs.
The great nation of India has helped Bangladesh get liberated from Pakistani rule. Many Indian soldiers lost their lives in the war of 1971 to save Bengali people from genocide. And Bangladesh has to be forever indebted to India for helping us to be free from the brutal Pakistani regime.
Nobody can blame India for supporting the AL regime. Sheikh Hasina’s government has obliged to everything India has ever wished from Bangladesh.
But the will of the Bangladeshi people is generally pointing towards a different direction. Systematic corruption, nepotism, share market scams by the government-faithful, the release of cold-blooded murderers through the president’s special order, complete oblivi-ousness to people’s sufferings, actively dividing people into pro and anti-liberation categories to gain electoral advantage, and a few other issues have caused Sheikh Hasina’s popularity to plummet.
The loss of her popularity was apparent when the heavyweights of her party were handed heavy defeats in all the city corporation elections in the last two years. Her government failed to win a single important local election in two years. Even when the opposition boycotted, each of her candidates lost to rebels of her own party.
Secondly, Bangladeshi people have never re-elected the same government twice in a row. This is due to the fact that both the main parties of Bangladesh, the AL and BNP, are so institutionally corrupt, that for people, the only way to create some checks and balances is to uproot one government in the ballot every five years so that the next government takes time to create its own corruption structure.
By now, the AL has created the most dominant party in the history of the country. The party controls each and every institution in-cluding bureaucracy, police, military, judiciary, and mainstream media through party-faithful people in key positions.
They have now formed a strong syndicate that systemically plunders wealth generated by people’s economic activity in both gov-ernment and in non-government sectors. Non-partisan people are intimidated and seriously concerned about a second term of the AL, although they don’t think BNP is a viable option either.
In this backdrop, the AL has planned an election under its own power structure which even a street dog in Bangladesh knows will not be held freely as the government has the know how, willingness and capacity to manipulate it, and for them the stake is too high to lose. And rightfully, the main opposition parties have boycotted the election asking for a caretaker government which was the norm in Bangladeshi politics over the last 20 years.
So, the opposition led by BNP has called for countrywide blockades and resorted to violence upon people by derailing trains and hurling bombs on the innocent civil population across the country.
The government has also put virtually every senior opposition leader other than Khaleda Zia in jail. Already, countrywide violence has taken more than 100 lives through police fire or vandalism. Economic activities of the whole country have come to a halt due to the relentless violence of the opposition.
Everyone in Bangladesh realises that if this election is carried out, Bangladesh will fall into a permanent trap of violence and self-destruction.
In this backdrop, Sujata Singh visited Bangladesh and shuttled from door to door to make a case for the AL and to have an election under them. Though she, and India, have all the reasons for supporting Indian interests, the sad part is that they have dispensed with all diplomatic decency in achieving that.
She visited ex-president Ershad and she was quoted as saying: “If Ershad‘s party does not join the upcoming election, Jamaat-e-Islami may rise.”
The people of Bangladesh have every reason to ask why Singh would intervene in what is absolutely an issue for Bangladeshi people to decide on. Jamaat-e-Islami is a party similar in nature to BJP, a radical fundamentalist group. It has blood on its hands due to its participation in the genocide during the Liberation War, but the question is, can India intervene in Bangladeshi politics to such a degree?
Are Bangladeshi diplomats allowed to go and meet Indian leaders and ask them not to join in an alliance with the BJP, which is also a radical fundamentalist party?
India as a nation is entitled to look after its own interest in regional politics, but how befitting is it for an Indian diplomat to say to Er-shad: “Sheikh Hasina is doing a great job” (so you must stand beside her and join her plans)?
Can any state say it is free after such open intervention in politics by its regional big brother who has treated her with contempt, apa-thy and total disregard and never tried to build a relationship based on equal opportunity, mutual benefit and respect?
In truth, the lack of diplomatic behaviour is not solely the fault of Indian diplomats. Ill-trained and unprofessional Bangladeshi media professionals have also been found overenthusiastic to ask questions to diplomats that force them to give answers that will be beyond diplomatic decency.
Bangladesh is a nation of 160 million hard working people who just want to have a decent living wage and respect as humans and a nation. Bangladesh and Bangladeshi people are by design non-aggressive. It is a nation that is historically a part of the great Indian identity.
But very few people in the world and even India know how Bangladesh is at the receiving end of Indian policies that have created droughts in half of the country, and killed the livelihood of millions due to withdrawal of water from 123 rivers violating international rules, and how poor cattle traders are killed and abused by BSF in trade that earns foreign currency for the Indian economy.
Similarly, very few people know how many Indian workers work in Bangladesh without proper visas and very few people in India ap-preciate how our consumption of Indian goods helps the economy of eastern India to thrive.
Bangladeshi people are genuinely concerned over India’s open interference in our internal politics and strategies, which is hindering our ability to choose our own destiny free from foreign influence.
Bangladesh does not pose any threat to India, but constant intervention in Bangladeshi local politics to promote Indian interest has put Indian foreign policy in a conflicting course with Bangladeshi people’s will. Such short term strategies will definitely harm India’s long term regional ambition through declining moral authority and hardened anti-India feelings across the population, at least in Bangladesh.
- See more at:
A foreign policy collision course? | Dhaka Tribune
