Optimism on the future of India-Bangladesh relations is ranging high following Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s visit to India earlier this month. The new high struck in the four-decade-long, roller-coaster diplomacy exemplifies the golden fact that all adversities in bilateral relations can be resolved if the political urge is genuine.
A veritable mountain of impossibilities was conquered. Issues once regarded as permanent fell by the wayside. The climax of the Hasina visit was the signing of three major agreements on security affairs, viz, the Agreement on Mutual Assistance on Criminal Matters, Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Persons and Agreement on Combating Terrorism, Organised Crime and Illicit Drug Trafficking.
The biggest clincher was Bangladesh agreeing to provide India port access at Chittagong and Mongla. Such a historic breakthrough would not have been possible without an Awami League government into power in Dhaka. The League has historically been inclined to developing friendly relations with India. Under the previous, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), India-Bangladesh ties often reached boiling point over security matters. On many occasions India accused Bangladesh of being a safe haven for anti-India groups and clashed with Dhaka over inaction which was both perceived and real. Inevitably, Bangladesh declared India’s claims as baseless.
Dhaka’s attitude only made India sceptic about the country’s intentions. Similarly, the bilateral relations witnessed a downward trend with regard to issues concerning connectivity. India needed transit rights to it’s north-eastern region apart from port access and successive governments since PV Narasimha Rao had ceaselessly articulated the benefits that could accrue to Bangladesh from this. But Dhaka always scotched the possibility saying it amounted to turning over its territory to India and surrendering its sovereignty. The major obstacle to resolving these issues had been the divided politics of the country. The Awami League is the left-of-centre party that led the country’s freedom movement with a rich past in working with India. In its previous term in power (1996-2001), the League government had sharpened a nuanced tilt towards India.
On the other hand, the BNP is right-of-centre and has many radical right-wing political parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami as its partners. The BNP-led coalition often utilises the Awami League’s India-friendly image to attack it as anti-national and the anti-India propaganda buttresses its claim to nationalism. Quite naturally, every change of regime in Dhaka significantly influences the country’s relations with India. Bilateral relations with India improved under the only Awami League government that preceded the present one. The Ganges Water treaty was signed during this tenure. But the two BJP regimes that New Delhi had to deal with since restoration of democracy in 1991 often saw the relationship hit rock bottom. The lowest was reached during the 2001-06 term of Khaleda Zia.
However there were also instances when the Awami League had to distance itself from India just to counter the BNP’s political attacks. For instance, Sheikh Hasina had to suspend the idea of providing transit rights to India after taking baby steps in that direction. She faced such strong anti-India propaganda attacks from the BNP that she feared her hard-won middle-class base could be swayed. In her current term also, she is challenged by the BNP’s anti-Indiaism. So, Sheikh Hasina needs to be commended for taking bold steps to withstand pressure from the fundamentalists of Bengladeshi society and polity. She has virtually put her entire political future on the line by seeking a solid political and economic relationship with India.Undoubtedly, Sheikh Hasina’s fondness for India has a certain compulsion. She has transcended all barriers because she recognises the economic aspirations of the new generation of Bangladeshis. She won the 2008 election on a landslide by holding out the promise of economic development, waging war against Islamic militancy and holding trials of war criminals. Being a poor country, Bangladesh has necessarily got to hitch its economic wagon on to the engine of India. In this respect, she has shown the greatest statesmanship among India’s south Asian neighbours. Sheikh Hasina realises that having a neighbour (India) which is the world’s fastest growing economy helps. Bangladesh stand to benefit immensely by linkage to India’s infrastructure and market.
Another important reason was the scepter of fundamentalism. The pro-Awami mandate was a mandate against right-wing Islam. So, Sheikh Hasina is determined to take drastic measure for combating militancy. Her government has banned the dreaded Harkat-ul Jihad Bangladesh (Huji) and arrested many of its cadre. Interestingly, the investigations vindicated India’s suggestion that many of the militant groups from Bangladesh had linkages with various international militant organisations, which was denied by the Khaleda Zia regime. The arrest of Huji cadre, along with Lasker-e-Tayyaba operatives from Bangladesh in connection with LeT’s plans to attack the Indian High Commission and American Embassy in Dhaka is a grim example. Under the present circumstances no country would be able to fight militancy by itself. It needs to cooperate with other countries. Partnership with India, geographically Bangladesh’s closest and also a country with the greatest experience in dealing with terrorism, was an attractive proposition. It goes to Sheikh Hasina’s credit that she succeeded in overcoming inhibitions for crossing over.
The issue of the trial of Bangladesh’s war criminals is also an important reason for Sheikh Hasina to seek India’s cooperation. By ’war criminals’ is meant those Bengalis who had collaborated with the Pakistani army during the country’s liberation war of 1971 and carried out atrocities on the freedom fighters. The trial of war criminals is expected to begin shortly. But this issue has antagonised a significant section, mainly the fundamentalist Jamaat -e-Islami, as many of its leaders are believed to have partied with the Pakistani regime. This urge for settling old scores is an old one and found expression even during Sheikh Hasina’s 1996-2001 term. But she was distracted by other problems and could not take it forward. The issue refused to die down however. During the Khaleda Zia tenure (2001-06), ordinary Bangladeshis were shocked to find the very men who had acted as agents of the Pakistanis taking over important posts in public life. The institutionalisation of the fundamentalist obelisk in Bangladeshi life was interpreted as a return of Pakistani influence. Naturally Sheikh Hasina got the benefit of the sentiment.
The other side of the anti-Pakistan coin in Bangladeshi politics is pro-Indiaism. The return of the ’war criminals’ issue to the centre stage is, therefore, good news for New Delhi. It requires no overstressing that Dhaka-Islamabad ties are presently at its lowest. Maintaining stability and security in the region is an imperative not just for Bangladesh’s economic development but also India’s much-marginalised north-east. It is also essential for the future of moderate politics in the two countries. Hence, India should do everything possible for ensuring the success of the new diplomatic thrust. Sheikh Hasina’s ability to remain in power hinges on the confidence of her people, which would naturally get eroded if the economic dividends of pro-Indiaism are not tangible in the short term. The onus, in this regard, lies with India.
Courtesy: The Pioneer, January 30, 2010. The writer is a specialist on Bangladesh with Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
