Untold Facts

Plight of Muslims under terrorism

(The waging of ‘War on Terror’ on Muslims by the sole super power – the USA – have given its strategic partners - India and Israel – to kill, humiliate and dispossess the Muslim population under their control with the US public eying it with approval. Thus the USA is seen an accomplice in the murders and mayhem that goes on in Israel and India. +Usman Khalid +)

Never before was the situation for the Muslims in India so awful as today. An accused in terror attack in Mumbai 26/11 Fahim Ansari wants bail to come out and search a lawyer who can defend him. Reason: his lawyer Shahid Azmi has been shot dead by Chhota Rajan gang in the name of “patriotic killing.” His move suggests that he accepts the judicial system. Despite its shortcoming he still trusts it to exonerate him ultimately. Azmi himself had gone through the rigmaroles of the judicial system and had successfully overcome hurdles including five years in jail when he completed junior college education and graduation. He knew that the system was biased against the minority and yet he did not lose faith in the institutions of the country. They redeemed him only to be killed as he was fighting for many others like him who were incarcerated. The Sachar commission has already documented that the highest number of inmates everywhere in the country is of Muslims.

Another accused is Saquib Nachan booked for local train blast at Mulund 2003. He has petitioned the SC to investigate all the cases of terrorism since 2002. There is something terribly wrong with conduct of investigation and the judicial system. According to him the Muslim youths are languishing in prisons across the country without trial. He has spent seven years in prison and others have also gone through the same length of time and even more.

The suffering of Nachan and Ansari or the late Azmi must also be viewed as an off shoot of the global strategy of Americans in the region. The gravitational pull that India and Pakistan exercise over the Americans is reflected in local bomb blasts in India.

Of late President Obama has authorized operation Af-Pak; and Marjah in Afghanistan has been baptized in fire. The fall out of this can and does affect situation in India. Muslims as a community in India are unconnected to the war on terror either in Afghanistan or Pakistan or even in Kashmir valley. The Af-Pak strategy and the Pakistan’s strategic depth into Afghanistan primarily bring the US into the subcontinent. Every drone attack or ground advance beyond the Khayber pass means more bomb attacks in Pakistan and its spill over into India.

If Pune blast is a consequence of this it proves foreign secretary Nirupama Rao right because she had pointed out at the possibility. “We have to be constantly alert to this possibility.” However if we have not got the clues and found any lead in the matter, it would give away our weakness in the investigation of the matter. In a hurry, as it often happens, to show some breakthrough to the bosses or to affiliates in ideology, it is also possible that more people like Ansari or Nachan would be made to wear the cross like some of the accused in Malegaon blast of 2006 whose only “crime” was to carry placards depicting Laden and denouncing the unjust war of George Bush on Iraq. The entry of terrorism thanks to America has destroyed what Alexander Pope rejoiced, happy the man whose wish and care a few paternal acres bind, content to breathe his native air in his native town.

Author: Mustafa Khan
Malegaon, Maharashtra

India’s belated turnaround

The Indian proposal to Pakistan for open-ended talks at the level of foreign secretaries to discuss all outstanding issues is a belated admission by New Delhi that its refusal to engage in a dialogue with Pakistan more than a year after Mumbai has been hurting Indian interests more than it is harming Pakistan’s. Reflecting this recognition, Indian officials have uncharacteristically been quite civilised in their language and tone towards Pakistan recently, and especially since the proposal was made.

India has so far shown reluctance to agree to the Pakistani proposal that the old format of “composite dialogue” should be revived, but the last word has not yet been said. When the two foreign secretaries get together later this month, the major task before them will be to prepare the ground for a meeting between their prime ministers at the sidelines of the SAARC Summit in the Bhutanese capital of Thimphu on April 26 and 27. If things go according to plan, a formal resumption of bilateral dialogue will be announced at this summit.

Manmohan Singh’s willingness, if not keenness, to start the dialogue process with Pakistan was evident also at the Sharm el-Shaikh Summit last July, at which he agreed to de-link the issue of talks from that of terrorism. But Manmohan Singh was made to backtrack by the unexpectedly strong backlash which came not only from the opposition BJP but also from within his own party and the Indian foreign policy and security establishments.

More than half a year since then, the Manmohan Singh government has now launched another diplomatic initiative to resume dialogue with Pakistan. He has a difficult balancing act to perform. He has to convince Pakistan that the talks will be not only about terrorism but will cover other issues of interest to it, while assuring domestic public opinion that the focus will be on terrorism and that progress on other issues would be linked to action by Pakistan on punishing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack.

According to Prime Minister Gilani, India has been forced to the negotiating table because of world pressure. This is a mistaken view. True, Washington has been urging Delhi to relieve pressure on Pakistan’s eastern borders to enable the Pakistani army to concentrate more on the fight against terrorists on its western borders. But Delhi’s readiness to resume talks, despite its unhappiness over what it sees as lack of action by Pakistan against terrorists who seek to target India, is founded in India’s own calculation that its wider interests and goals are better served by restarting a dialogue with Pakistan. There are several reasons for this.

First, India recognises that its “coercive diplomacy” towards Pakistan has failed. In 2004, when India last resumed talks after a terrorism-related suspension, it extracted a price: a commitment from Musharraf that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. This time, India initially demanded a bigger price: a dismantling of the “infrastructure of terrorism.” Since then, India has been scaling down its demand. On Feb 3 Foreign Minister S M Krishna said that Pakistan’s readiness to accept Ajmal Kasab’s confessional statement as evidence to prosecute the planners of Mumbai was a constructive signal and that India “should be quite satisfied with Pakistan taking a few steps to investigate the Mumbai attacks.” This is a far cry from the demand made in 2008 by M K Narayanan, then India’s national security adviser, for “destroying” the ISI.

Second, India has been rattled by the recent US readiness to take the Taliban on board in an eventual Afghanistan settlement and by Karzai’s offer to hold talks with their top leaders. India was virtually alone in opposing the endorsement given by the London Conference to the plan to win over the Taliban. Besides, there is the emerging recognition by the international community that Pakistani concerns about Indian domination of Afghanistan are not without foundation and will have to be taken into account.

Delhi’s fear is that it would be marginalised if a peace process which eventually gives the Taliban a share of the power were to take hold. One of India’s great strategic minds has now even proposed that Manmohan Singh should invite Karzai and Zardari for a trilateral summit on Afghanistan.

Third, India is keen to enter into talks with the “moderate” faction of the APHC on the grant of autonomy to Kashmir. But since Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who heads this faction, lacks broad support within Kashmir for such a deal, he is reluctant to take the political risk of negotiating with Delhi without at least the tacit understanding of Pakistan that Musharraf was prepared to give him.

India would also like autonomy talks with “moderate” Kashmiri leaders to proceed in parallel with backchannel talks with Pakistan on a “non-territorial” settlement of Kashmir which were initiated under Musharraf. The deal he was negotiating with Manmohan Singh would have sanctified the division of Kashmir along the Line of Control in return for self-governance in different parts of the divided state. Manmohan Singh sought to revive these talks soon after Musharraf’s ouster from power. This was the “good news” Zardari promised to the nation in his first press conference after taking over the presidency.

Left to himself, Zardari would have followed in Musharraf’s footsteps. But after the Kerry-Lugar fiasco and the NRO judgement, he is not in a position to bypass the foreign ministry and the military establishment in policy-making on issues of national security. In a welcome departure from past practice, the government’s response to the Indian offer of talks has been prepared after careful deliberation involving all the institutions concerned.

The position taken by Foreign Minister Qureshi on Musharraf’s backchannel deal with Manmohan Singh on Kashmir is particularly welcome. On Feb 7 he rejected repeated claims made by his predecessor Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri that the Kashmir dispute had been close to settlement through backchannel diplomacy under the Musharraf regime. Qureshi said that if the previous government had been negotiating with India on any such proposal, it was a “secret” between some “selected individuals.” It had never been debated in the government and there was no record of it in the foreign ministry. If Qureshi’s statement means that the government has now decided to repudiate the deal that Musharraf was negotiating, it is probably the most sensible foreign policy decision that this government has taken.

Qureshi also said that though backchannel diplomacy was important, disputes between nations were always resolved through formal talks. Since this government has also named former foreign secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan as its envoy for talks with India, it owes an explanation to the nation on where it stands on the question of backchannel diplomacy. Was our emissary’s meeting with S K Lambah last November in Bangkok a “secret” between “selected individuals” like those under the Musharraf regime, or was it a part of formal talks? And if it was wrong for Musharraf to negotiate through the backchannel, why is it right for this government to do the same?

Qureshi was right, though, in cautioning that a Kashmir settlement was unlikely during the tenure of the present government. That is not a tragedy because a settlement in the present international environment would be based on the status quo, which is what the Kashmiri people have been fighting against all these years. They have suffered a lot but they can wait because time is on their side.

After a long period of militancy, the movement for azadi has now entered a new phase. It has become a deeply rooted and broad-based political movement that cannot be suppressed indefinitely through brute force. Our policy should aim at generating international pressure on India to allow this movement to operate at the political level, while promoting links between the people in the two parts of the state through increased trade and travel across the Line of Control. The rest will follow.

Author: Asif Ezdi

The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service.
Source: The News Pakistan

Indo-Pak parleys

Probably it is due to Gen Kayani’s recent candid assertion to the NATO commanders that his prime concern was defence of Pakistan’s eastern borders (against India) rather than fighting the war on terror on the western front that has prompted the international community in pressurising India to resume talks with Pakistan. Pakistan must, therefore, view the Indian offer in its correct perspective and not fall prey to it. We certainly want better relations with India but not at the cost of Kashmir and water. India would try to talk as usual all about the sun and the moon but not on Kashmir and water, exasperating and frustrating Pakistan to the extent of quitting the talks.

No one among today’s politicians is shrewder than Z A Bhutto in diplomacy. But even he could not make Swaran Singh utter a single word on Kashmir in his 22-day-long parleys in Murree in May/June 1965. At the end of the unsuccessful marathon Swaran Singh triumphantly confided to the pressmen that his sole aim was to gain time which he had done. So did Shastri to Ayub Khan at Tashkent, and made him walk away from the talks just out of frustration as Shastri wouldn’t talk about Kashmir. Kosygin, sensing the abrupt deadlock, asked Ayub if he was a chess player. Ayub, sort of nonplussed by such a question, said: “No, why?” “Because it is his (Shastri’s) move and that you must sit at the table till he moved”, was Kosygin’s cool reply. Ayub resumed his seat but was mercifully relieved when Shastri left to meet his Maker.

Gandhi kept on talking for hours on end on cabbage to a bewildered Mountbatten, who had invited him for the first time for a serious discussion on the future of India. Indians are past masters in the art of frustrating others during parleys and talks, and we must, therefore, make it quite clear to them that we want to talk, but about Kashmir and water.

Author: Col (r) Riaz Jafri
From, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

DAMN THE DIALOGUE

(There is palpable anger in Pakistan over the dams that India has built in Kashmir over the rivers whose water belongs to Pakistan under the Indus Basin Water Treaty. The headlines in Pakistani newspapers say, “Pakistan being made a desert by Indian Dams in Kashmir”. But India is too cocky to care. Pakistani would like their government to show some guts and spine to protect Pakistan’s water rights. India would rather have a war because it feels it can win because Pakistan is fighting insurrection on its western border. Pakistanis realise that and are ready. +Usman Khalid+)

Since our independence 63 years ago, India has not accepted us as a sovereign State. This, therefore, precludes any possibility of being accepted as a neighbour, what to talk of being accepted on equal terms. The Indian dream of “Akhand Bharat” (Greater India) has turned into a nightmare. Their strategy of coercion has evolved from one form to another without check, transcending into a state of frenzy. They have done well on a number of accounts though. Occupation of Jammu and Kashmir was a success; annexation of Hyderabad and Junagarh was a success; waging of three wars on Pakistan and dismemberment of East Pakistan, with the world watching, was another success. Development of large Armed Forces, their nuclear capable Army, Navy and Air Force ranking very high in numerical ratings worldwide, was yet another success. These successes have allowed them to remain in a state of euphoria, encouraging them to explore new avenues in their specialization of hegemony. They are the pioneers of “Water Terrorism”, a term not known to the world earlier. They want to turn Pakistan, the breadbasket of the Sub Continent into a desert, and Bangladesh into a swamp.

Generous as they are, they want Afghanistan to say thank you, by building dams on their rivers flowing into Pakistan, by allowing a free run to their RAW but not so raw, by allowing their Military Trainers into Afghanistan and by getting into the Guinness Book of World Records by establishing a record number of Consulates and “Trade” Offices to export terrorists to Pakistan. The biggest so called democracy of the world, “Shining India” treats its minorities like “Dalits”, a low life form, something the west would probably never understand. Turning the Golden Temple red with the blood of Sikhs, custodial killings in Occupied Kashmir, mass graves, dishonouring women, Babri Mosque, torching of Churches, the festering wounds of Naxals and Maoists are manifestations of their Human Rights record.

Their Miss Worlds are a world away from the thousands of their like, who are being herded like cattle and sold in the region for a shameful life into oblivion. With her ambition for a Blue Water Navy, a distant dream, she has excelled in “Naval Warfare” to dazzle the World. All this with great success, the World sees their Oscars and not what is shown in the Slum Dog Millionaire! Imaginative as they are, with Bollywood and its stunt masters as their Gurus, they have of late excelled in the art of drama. Whether it be the storming of their Parliament, the Samjhota Express, a train that runs between India and Pakistan, shooting down of an unarmed Naval Aircraft on a training mission or Mumbai attacks, they turn reality into fiction – Oscars for them again! Followers of Chankya and Kutalya, they have a history full of deceit. I knew General Deepak Kapoor was deaf, did not know he was dumb too. Taking on China and Pakistan together and sorting them out in 96 hours, some imagination!

India rumbles on, with her cap full of feather: Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim, a little set back with the LTTE in Sri Lanka but that is just a slight hiccup. A nuclear deal with the US; more with UK and France; successful missile tests; nuclear submarines; another aircraft carrier; contracts for an enormous fleet of state of the art aircraft; and scantily clad American cheerleaders at IPL cricket matches - all is hunky dory. From the Cold Start through Escalations and Stand Offs, all was well - fully coercive, but with no scope for talks. Why this change of heart all of a sudden? A host of theories are making the rounds but I will not dwell on them, for the time being.

Talk we must, but from a position of strength. We need to give up our attitude of appeasement which has crept into us during the last three decades. They threaten us with Surgical Strikes, increase infiltration when they like, turn off the water tap when they like. They outline the Cold Start Doctrine and want to turn our country into a wasteland. Surely, our “Aman Ki Asha” is taken as a sign of weakness as our self proclaimed intellectuals, experts and human rights activists talk of Kashmir and Balochistan in the same context, cementing this perception. Let us talk about Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachin, your interference in FATA and Balochistan and the cost of our fighting the Global War on Terror. Let us talk of the “help” that you are providing by trying to tie us down on our Eastern and Western Frontiers. Let the dialogue be Composite and fruitful and not another sham. And stop threatening us, with your Gunboat Diplomacy, please; for your Cold Start could be met with a “Hot Start”, much too hot for your liking. You try and kill us with thirst - Damn your Dialogue. ++

Author: Sohaila Salam

India’s success and Bangladesh’s failure

We have conceded everything that India wanted but we have not managed to receive anything in return except the warmth of India’s friendship. One wonders whether this friendship is between the peoples of two neighbouring countries or between the two parties that have come to power here and in India, writes Professor M Maniruzzaman Miah

THE prime minister Sheikh Hasina was in the Indian capital on a four-day state visit, from January 10 to 13. She was invited to visit India by Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India. For quite sometime before her visit began, media propaganda in respect of the success she would attain there reached its crescendo. It appeared as though all the outstanding problems between Bangladesh and India would be settled during her visit because of the personal ‘chemistry’ between her and the Indian policymakers, as one minister remarked. Those who have been keeping track of the Indo-Bangladesh relation since 1972 know it very well what a tortuous course it has gone through. However, three days before the prime minister’s visit began, Ashraful Islam, the Awami League general secretary and a minister, and the day before Dipu Moni, the foreign minister at a Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies discussion meet, threw cold water on people’s high expectations. By that time one would hazard the guess that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs got to know from the visit here of Nirupama Rao, the Indian foreign secretary, how things were going to shape up in the Indian capital. Anyway, it was Bangladesh prime minister’s maiden visit to Delhi after her assumption of office as prime minister for the second time. It was expected, therefore, that she would be given a very warm welcome. And so was it. At the Rashtrapati Bhaban she was accorded a ceremonial red carpet reception. The Indian president awarded her the prestigious Indira Gandhi Prize for peace, disarmament and development.

Besides, she met quite a few influential ministers and high-profile personalities including Sonia Gandhi and former prime minister IK Gujral. On the face of it, she was treated very warmly and well. What Bangladeshis would like to know, however, is the outcome of it all. To be more precise, if a balance sheet of our gains and losses from the visit are made what it would look like. All the events that took place during the prime minister’s visit have been listed and covered in the joint communiqué that was released to the press on the conclusion of the visit. What does the joint communiqué say?

The 51-paragraph communiqué does not perhaps warrant the finesse of a seasoned diplomat to make out what actually it is. Summarily speaking, as one can see, it has two major parts, the accords signed in Delhi, and the main body of the communiqué itself. The accords signed comprise three agreements, one memorandum of understanding and a cultural exchange programme. The agreements include one on ‘mutual legal assistance’ another on ‘transfer of sentenced persons’ and the third one on ‘combating international terrorism, organised crime, and illicit drug trafficking’.

Interestingly enough, the full text of none of these has been released to the press till now, although more than three weeks have passed by since the return of the prime minister to Dhaka. In the absence of such a text, it is not very clear as to what type of criminal matters for legal assistance or transfer (not mutual, why?) of sentenced persons or organised crimes are meant in these accords. May we be permitted to note here that before the Chittagong Hill Tracts agreement was signed in 1997 several thousand rebels of Chittagong origin were engaged in organised crimes of looting, arson, killing, extortion, etc from Indian soil assisted by whom, one wonders! Even now on our south-western border, groups of large number of people under the banner of ‘Bangasena’ or ‘Bangabhumi Andolon’ whose avowed purpose is to slice away a chunk of Bangladesh territory are active. Then, there are a large number of Bangladeshis who fled and reportedly have found shelter in Kolkata from where they still continue extortion threatening over telephone to pay a handsome amount of money to their agents here. Will they come under the agreement of transfer? Perhaps not, for the simple reason that they have not been proceeded against or sentenced.

Our Indian friends want, as it appears, one or two rebels belonging to the United Liberation Front of Asom, who might have been interned somewhere in this country to be handed over to them. Reportedly, one Rajkhowa, an ULFA leader, is in Indian hands under very mysterious circumstances. Another, one Anup Chetia, according to newspaper reports, is perhaps the other person to be handed over to the Indian authorities.

There is nothing wrong in mutual exchange of rebellious people rising against the country’s integrity. But in all fairness, it should have been a two-way traffic. One wonders whether those Bangabhumi-wallahs and the extortionists or terrorists operating from Kolkata or somewhere in West Bengal would be brought to justice and those among them who are Bangladeshis will be handed over to the government of Bangladesh. Also whether or not the commitment made that they won’t allow their respective territory for training, sanctuary and other operations by domestic or foreign terrorist organisations will be fulfilled in letter and spirit.

As mentioned above, one agreement relates to ‘combating international terrorism’. That the presence of international terrorist outfits in Bangladesh may be there cannot perhaps be gainsaid. However, their operational strength is so weak that they have been and they can still be, we believe, controlled by the Bangladesh government itself. Internationalising the issue may pose security problem for us, as some would look at it. We think we need extreme caution to handle the matter.

It is not unexpected that the two prime ministers ‘underscored the need for both countries to actively cooperate on security issues.’ And both leaders reiterated the assurance that the territory of either would not be allowed for activities inimical to the other and resolved not to allow their respective territory to be used for training, sanctuary and operations by domestic or foreign terrorists. This is no doubt a welcome assertion. Let us hope that this would be followed in letter and spirit by both and some of the issues referred to above will not recur anymore and people involved in anti-Bangladesh terrorist activities in India will be handed over to Bangladesh.

‘It has been agreed’ that India will be allowed the ‘use of Mongla and Chittagong seaports for movement of goods to and from India through road and rail.’

It has been ‘agreed’ that Ashuganj in Bangladesh and Silghat in India will be ports of call for inland water traffic.It has also been ‘agreed’ that Agartala will be linked with Akhaura by rail line which will be laid out by Indian finance to be received as grant.

Thus, India will have through passage from any point in that country to Chittagong port and onward to Akhaura by railway up to Agartala in Tripura, that is, transit route from any point in India to another point of the same country, a facility which she has been asking for since quite sometime past. During the earlier period of Awami Rule, transit facility to India could not be granted because of fierce opposition from the people here. Incidentally, to facilitate rail link to Agartala which could have been otherwise cut off from India, Radcliffe in 1947 awarded the Muslim majority areas like Badarpur, Karimganj and Baroigram junctions in the district of Karimganj albeit people of these areas voted massively in favour of Pakistan in the plebiscite prior to Redcliffe award. Thus, what India got as a narrow passage 63 years ago has now got a wide area as transit route to the same place.

But what does the communiqué tell us about some of the burning issues bedevilling our relationship like the Border Security Force of India killing innocent Bangladeshis along the border, sometimes mutilating their body before returning and at others not returning at all, or the yawning trade gap between the two countries or the issue of water-sharing and a host of others. On border killing by India’s BSF, the phraseology used is ‘check cross-border

crime’ and ‘both prime ministers have agreed that the respective border guarding forces exercise restraint.’

By the above not only shooting down Bangladeshis like game birds day in and day out (818 over last 10 years, 94 last year), the Bangladesh Rifles has been bracketed with the BSF. One wonders whether this is just and fair because there is no record of the BDR killing innocent Indians at normal times.

As to the trade gap, India has agreed to reduce the negative list of items to be exported from Bangladesh and also to remove the tariff and non-tariff barriers. Those items have not been listed though in the communiqué but as to the removal of non-tariff barrier, lo and behold, some businesspeople have already been denied visa to visit India. On top of that ‘haats’ have been agreed to be set up on the border, although the modalities are yet to be put in place. It may be recalled that border haats were established after liberation but later on were closed as they became uneconomic.

On Teesta water sharing, it has been proposed that a meeting of the Joint River Commission would be held soon to come to an agreement on the issue. One may recall that a memorandum of understanding was agreed upon between the two governments in 1983 but was never translated into a full-fledged agreement understandably because of non-cooperation from the upper riparian. The memo, as it appears, agreed to allocate 36 per cent to Bangladesh, 39 per cent to India and 25 per cent as environmental flow down the river.

Before any agreement is reached, the two sides must reach unanimity on the flow upstream, an allocation of a minimum of 25 per cent of flow as environmental flow for the sustenance of the river itself and an agreement for joint monitoring of the river flows along its course upstream of the Indian barrage. Unless this is done it will have the same fate of the 1996 Ganges Treaty due to which a large number of distributaries have gone dry and are still drying up

gradually in spite of the fact that

70 per cent of the dry season flow

of the Ganges is contributed by Nepal.

As to the Tipaimukh dam, our prime minister says that her counterpart has assured her that India won’t take any measure that would put Bangladesh in any difficulty. Madam prime minister, may I be permitted to say that the same assurance was given to Khaleda Zia on the Farakka issue when she met the Indian prime minister PV Narsimha Rao in 1992. Such assurances have never been actually followed by action.

India has agreed to give dredger to us for dredging our rivers. Do people know that dredging has been necessitated by sedimentation on the river beds in turn, resulting from low flow from upstream?

We have also assured India of our support to her seeking a permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council.

There are many things more which space does not permit us to go for. Summarily speaking, we have conceded everything that India wanted without getting practically anything in return except the warmth of relationship and friendship of India.

However, one wonders whether this friendship is between the peoples of two neighbouring countries or between the two parties that have come to power here and in India. We say so because the communiqué notes that ‘… Recent elections in both countries presented them with a historic opportunity to write a new chapter in their relationship.’

Everyone in this country with minimum common sense will look for friendship between two countries based on sovereign equality and mutual respect for each other’s needs for development and general welfare and perhaps not between two political parties that may come to power fortuitously at the same time.

By Professor M Maniruzzaman Miah

Professor M Maniruzzaman Miah is a former vice-chancellor of Dhaka

The Flip Side of Kuldev Nair’s Bangabandhu Story

Kuldev Nair’s explanation about the hanging of Mujib killers could be attributed as reductionism and simplistic at best. Kuldev Nair is an Indian and wants Bangladesh’s unquestioned support to India, anything less according to him got to be a Pakistani mentality. AL’ s newspaper The Daily Star in Dhaka one would notice uses a similar approach that any criticism of India even if it is valid got to be from Bangladeshi’s original Pakistani mentality(Muslim mentality).

No wonder due to Nair’s background he suffers from a tunnel vision and that he sees thing only in black and white. We Bangladeshis saw Mujib in two personalities. Nair saw Mujib as a kind and generous person to the Indian Congress syndicate and to the AL godfathers, Nair failed to see the tyrant Mujib who only in three years time killed over 32 thousand of his countrymen in extra judicial killings and like Hasina today also allowed the AL and the SL the looting of the treasury, down to the label of the “bottomless basket case.” It was as if Mujib owned the country and only his socalled AL children had the right to enjoy it. In Mujib’s time, the Mujibbadis quickly became the tender seekers; permit commissioners, the looters of the blankets to sell them in the Indian markets. People didn’t forget the robbers of banks using live ammunitions and what about the famine of 1974 that Amrtya Sen called a man -made disaster was the outcome of Mujib’s failed years. His Forth amendment to turn the country into a dictatorial regime is recorded in history as the climax of Mujib once a Suhurwarthy’s muscleman, turned the father of the nation. This is the flipside of the Bangabandhu story a Congress supporter or a Mujibbadi will fail to see.

Kuldev Nair a Congress supporter due to his tunnel vision failed to see that Mujib was elected leader by his people to wrongly call them ” they are my children.” His death proved that the killers adored the man who once wanted to promote democracy but now killed a dictator. Contrary to Nair Kissinger a better informed diplomat called Mujib the democrat turned a dictator as simply “a fool.” I myself as a biographer of Bangabandhu Mujib like to call him a very powerful South Asian Fascist similar to Musulani of Italy and Franko of Spain but unfortunately the AL calls him the father of the nation.

I hope next time Mr. Nair if not a pretentious Indian historian of Bangladesh politics should educate himself better about the internal dynamics of the country and the reasons why nobody else but Mujib’s own daughter who publicly confessed that her main motive to come to power was to punish her father’s killers initiated the trial of the killers.

References
http://ittefaq. com.bd/content/ 2010/02/09/ news0216. htm

Mujeber Chalera:
Gano Biswabiddyalay-BCL leaders attempt to grab land

Witnesses said BCL activists led by Mazhar and armed with lethal weapons broke down the boundary wall of the university at 7 am and hung signboard
www//The Bangladesh Today .com

Tayeb Hossain, “What thrill and what satisfaction one can find when someone is hanged for whatever reason that hanging could be?,” NFB Feb 2, 2010

Abid Bahar, AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF BANGABANDU AND BANGLADESH

groups.yahoo.com/group/dhakamails/message/4919?l=1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notun_bangladesh/attachments/folder/899393398/item/

Author: Abid Bahar, Canada
Source: News from Bangladesh

Joy Hind: Merging of Joy Bangla into Hindustan?

HC Karim
That there are two authentic news that the Bangladesh High Commissioner in Delhi Tareq Karim has published a brochure to mark P.M. Hasina’s visit to Delhi in mid January 2010 that had the slogan Joy Bangla along with Joy Hind.

Fear
At the first sight the conjoin slogans may not appear anything injurious as they may be taken to represent friendship between Bangladesh and India. But some in Dhaka have raised objections. The objection is about fear of containment of tiny Bangladesh by much bigger (HANGOR as the term used by BBC fame Serajur Rahman) India or Hindustan.

Nothing New
The revolutionary student leader of late 1960s Aftab Ahmad who coined the slogan JOY BANGLA, as he noted in his writing later on, was condemned right then even by many Awami Leaguers for that had the hue of JOY HIND. Somehow the top leader had accepted the newly coined Joy Bangla slogan and made that gradually a popular one for the autonomy movement of the then East Pakistan.

After 1971
After the independence, as was well known, Aftab Ahmad distanced himself and his group JSD from the Joy Bangla. Until the last he stood against Joy Bangla and then Professor Aftab Ahmad died for opposing Joy Bangla: being grievously attacked at his official residence of the University of Dhaka by the sniper’s bullets, it is reasonably alleged, of the same JOY BANGLA group.

Joy Pakistan
Until 1971 March Joy Bangla was a powerful slogan against the Pak Junta. Even so, the iconic leader in his 7th March historic speech ended the discourse, no doubt, with Joy Bangla but little less loudly followed by Joy Pakistan too. Quite obviously that was the period of fight for autonomy in the federal Pakistan framework. Nothing was there for Joy Hind.

Missed the Bus
Delhi missed the bus after they won the 1971 war. The P.M. of India, Indira wished at that stage to remain content with the victory for HAZAR SALO KA BADLA LE LIA (We have taken the revenge of one thousand years’ defeat). May be, she left the Joy Hind to realize in Bangladesh in some opportune time later. She had then eyes right over smaller Sikim. There was a quisling leader Lendup Darjee loyal to her so much so that she managed to take over and merge the independent Sikim in early 1975. Indira’s father Nehru earlier soon after 1947 did similar venture for the Jammu and Kashmir through similar maneuver, and though succeeded at the beginning for one amenable Sheikh, things did not, however, go as smoothly as Nehru had planned for total integration. After over six decades now Jammu and Kashmir not only remained divided but also the status has been hanging in balance. The presence of Indian federal troops in lakhs and so blood spilled of nearly ninety thousand civilians for the past two decades made nothing difference. The bus Nehru missed for full integration of Jammu and Kashmir like he did for Junagarh, Manvadar, Hyderabad, Goa etc. through forcible police action now runs for over six decades. The Bus Indira missed on the 16th December 1971 for full integration of Bangladesh looks like facing the same fate as of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947.

Gradual Assimilation
During the prelude during 1972-mid August 1975, the assimilation process of Bangladesh into Hindustan was somewhat subtle. The principles of the Constitution, the education policy, development planning, business and trades and even administration were all tuned to Indianization. The abandonment in Bangladesh of the multi-party system in January 1975 for lone party or BAKSAL dictatorship endorsed amazingly by the ‘democrat’ Indian P.M. Indira Gandhi was evidently taken by many patriots as the beginning of integration of Bangladesh with a guarantee for life long power for the Bangladesh leader.

Patriotic Army Revolted
The unarmed patriotic people had no scope to remove the dictator. The army had. Through a brief sniper action, they made a successful mutiny on the 15th August 1975. The mutiny abandoned the BAKSAL immediately afterwards, and then paved the way for restoration of pluralism and multi-party democratic order in the country.

Annulling Continuity
The government since the beginning of 2009 has engaged themselves in a game of annulment of the gains of the 15th August 1975 for the people enjoying for the last 35 years. First they have maneuvered the mutiny as a simple murder case through political executive manipulation into POLITICAL TRIAL (The weekly Economist 27 November 2009). Once the execution to death of the victims of the Political Trial or in reality, the judicial murder of the heroes of the 15th August change could be finished, with Delhi’s blessings, the hereditary state power line would be sure shot. The Joy Hind was thus appropriately coined on the occasion to keep Delhi pleased and happy.

Dangerous
Whether the likely game on Bangladesh would meet the same fate as that of the Jammu and Kashmir and that of Sheikh Abdullah family remains to be seen. But for Tareq Karim a seasoned retired diplomat and one of ‘special choice’ could have hardly coined the Joy Hind or Victory for Hindustan all on his own. Keen observers, however, have already maintained that the mid January visit of the Bangladesh PM to Delhi has already had yielded Joy Hind or big victory for India or Hindustan.

Author: HB Khair

The “India Factor” in Indo-Bangladesh Relations

An understanding of the “India Factor” is essential for figuring out what went right or wrong in the recently signed Hasina-Manmohan MOU; and as to why Bangladeshis are again so polarized on the MOU. While pro-Awami Leaguers are gaga about the understanding between the two Prime Ministers, anti-Awami Leaguers, mainly BNP-JI supporters, simply consider the deal as a “total sell-off to India”. For the right or wrong reasons, the Awami League is called “pro-Indian” and BNP “Pro-Pakistan”, or as some people ridicule it as “Bangladesh-Now-Pakistan”. I bring in a personal anecdote to explain the prevalent “tribalism” in the polity of Bangladesh, which is not helpful in understanding domestic and international issues Bangladesh needs to resolve:

Recently one passionately loyal Awami League supporter abruptly asked me at a party in Honolulu, “Do you believe in Greater Bengal”? Before I could say “yes” or “no”, the apparently urbane Bangladeshi-American wife of an American diplomat came to the absurd conclusion: “O, you are BNP; you won’t support Greater Bengal”. Instead of telling her off to spoil the party, I simply told her I belonged to none of the parties in Bangladesh. This artlessness reminds us of George W. Bush’s now infamous quote, “You’re either with us or against us”.

At times rabidly loyal Awami supporters convey the wrong message to the detriment of their country, party and leader. Not only anti-Awami Leaguers consider the party “pro-Indian”, but some immoderate supporters of the party unwittingly also give similar impression about their party. BNP supporters on the other hand, knowingly or unknowingly, give the impression that they prefer Pakistan to India, if not to Bangladesh.

In view of the widening gap between the pro- and anti-Awami Leaguers over the vague MOU, it seems the not-so- insightful Awami leaders either do not understand the “India Factor” in South Asian politics or are too eager to appease India and its overseas sponsors. Although the West has been traditionally enamoured by Indian religion, art and culture, and of late by its “secular democracy”, market economy and economic growth; its neighbours in the Asia-Pacific and Muslim World are nervous about the ascending Indian behemoth.

Bangladesh should have given a second thought about the dire consequences of unilaterally giving so many concessions to India. Sheikh Hasina should have understood the implications of not addressing some pressing bilateral issues, such as the problematic Farakka Barrage; the proposed Tipaimukh Dam; the disputed Talpatty Island and corridor for Bangladeshi enclaves in India. The MOU should have also resolved once for all the so-called “Push-Back” of “illegal Bangladeshis into Bangladesh” from India and the presence of anti-Bangladesh militants in India who demand the so-called Swadhin Banga Bhumi to carve out Bangladeshi territory for Hindu refugees/immigrants from East Pakistan, presently living in India. We simply cannot believe the way PM Hasina defended her not raising the Tipaimukh issue to her Indian counterpart. She assured her people about the assurance of the Indian PM that “No harm will come to Bangladesh through the Tipaimukh Dam”. She has turned us speechless by admitting that she personally does not know anything about Tipaimukh Dam; whether it is an irrigation barrage or a hydro-electric dam, she is not sure about it. If this is diplomacy to protect one’s own country’s interests from a traditionally unreliable neighbour like India, then Bangladeshis have reasons to be more reliant on God!

India’s hegemonic behaviour in the past and its not-so-benign design to emerge as the new hegemon in the Indian Ocean are least acceptable to China, Pakistan, Myanmar, Indonesia and even Australia. The average Bangladeshi has tremendous misgivings about India as well. Keeping in view its long-term security interests, Bangladesh should not throw itself into the Indian orbit. Whatever one has managed to grasp from the MOU, it seems Bangladesh has unilaterally granted India access to its ports and an unimpeded transit to Indian goods and possibly soldiers to contain its rebellious North-East. It is not clear from the MOU if India is willing to give Nepal and Bhutan transit facilities to Chittagong and Mongla ports.

The Awami leadership seems to be too complacent and naïve to understand that what India might get away with, Bangladesh can ill-afford it. India might gain some leverage and respectability in the West by coming closer to America and Israel. Muslim-majority Bangladesh has more to lose than gain by coming too close for comfort to India; and to Israel via India.

Conversely, while the West is enthusiastic about India, it is at most lukewarm towards forging ties with economically and militarily insignificant Bangladesh. Consequently Bangladesh’s alienating China and its regional allies by almost giving a blank cheque to India seems to be an ill wind that blows nobody good. Bangladesh is oblivious of the fact that India, by strictly adhering to Chanakya’s advice, has hardly been friendly and helpful to any of its immediate neighbours (excepting tiny Maldives). On the same token, India may be the only country in the world having bad to very bad relations with all its immediate neighbours. In view of this stark reality, one is not sure if India will behave differently this time with Bangladesh.

One wonders as to why Sheikh Hasina and the admirers of her latest “gesture of good will” towards India are not cognizant of the “India Doctrine” at all. Cultivated assiduously by most Indian leaders from Nehru to Manmohan Singh (V.P. Singh and I.K.Gujral were possibly the only exceptions in this regard), this doctrine stands for two things: a) establishing Vrihat Bharat (Greater India) with a view to asserting Indian hegemony in the Indian Ocean and b) to extract maximum economic benefits and political leverage from smaller neighbours by intimidating them on a regular basis. As the act of not recalling Nehru’s not-so-hidden desire to undo the Partition of 1947 is a political blunder, particularly for Pakistan Bangladesh; so is forgetting about India’s annexation of Kashmir (1947), Hyderabad (1948), Goa (1961) and even independent Sikkim (1975).

Bangladeshis’ remaining grateful to India for the creation of their country is one thing; their paying no attention to India’s unmistakably meddlesome approach towards their country is altogether a different matter. Bangladesh should not forget about India’s harbouring, training and arming LTTE fighters to disintegrate Sri Lanka; arm twisting Nepal for befriending China; denying Bhutan the right to have formal diplomatic relations with China; and last but not least, promoting insurgencies in Pakistan through its missions in Afghanistan. Bangladesh has every reason to keep in mind India’s direct involvement in the creation and promotion of Bangladeshi dissidents and criminals on both sides of the border since 1975. One may especially mention the separatist Shanti Bahini, nurtured by India for more than two decades up to 1996.

One cannot believe the way the Government and its supporters are defending the MOU, which reflects the inept and clumsy handling of the bumpy Indo-Bangladesh relationship by the Bangladeshi team. Ignoring the global and regional implications of the “India Doctrine” and the omnipresent “India Factor” in Bangladesh politics amounts to abandoning the basic lessons of diplomacy. Bangladesh should pay heed to Reagan’s “Trust, but verify” approach to the Soviet Union, in regard to its relation with India. To succeed politically, politicians here must learn how to play the “India Card” to manage the “India Factor”, which is a life-blood for Awami League’s main adversaries – the BNP, Islamists and leftist groups and parties.

Politics to a great extent is all about people’s perceptions. If the average Bangladeshis continue to perceive the Awami League as “pro-Indian” (as many do), the Hasina Government will have difficulties in imposing a ban on religion-based politics and trying the War Criminals of 1971. Realpolitik or pragmatism demands that Bangladesh remain steadfast to the principle of positive neutrality. Putting all its eggs into the not-so-safe Indian basket might be too costly for not-so-rich and not self-reliant Bangladesh in the long run. As giving fillip to “Islam-loving” parties is counter-productive, so is antagonizing China and the Muslim World by coming so close to India, which has found new allies in the US and Israel.

Author:Taj Hashmi
Professor, APCSS, Honolulu, USA

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

BANGALNAMA: A HISTORIAN’S ACCOUNT OF HIS OWN LIFE EXPERIENCE

Not a Review

This item is not intended to do anything of book review that one might presume to be for it is likely to appear about the book under the title, BANGALNAMA (Memoirs of a Bangalee of East Bengal origin- BANGAL is a term used in pejorative sense, particularly by the English system educationally grown Calcutta based elites or by the so called BANGALEE BHADROLOK or Bengali gentlemen somewhat like the model of English Gentlemen) in Bengali version. It is not a review for two reasons, one, that the book I am taking on is not the first edition but of the second, May 2009, the first edition was published in 2007, both from Ananda, Kolkata; two, that I am honestly incapable for my limitations of making review of any worth of the highly scholarly historian’s memoirs, and, in fact, recollection of issues from the writer’s early memory intermixed with historical truths, many painful and vexing social realities, often very unpalatable even for many scholars in the field area.

Eminent Bangal

Professor Dr. Tapan Roychoudhury started his professional working career in the Delhi Archive in early 1950, he taught in the Delhi School of Economics and Delhi University after having had a Doctorate from the premier English University of Oxford. Though he also taught in the USA, Australia, but mainly for 20 years (1973 -93) in of the University of Oxford, England, the world renowned historian and author of many books on Indian History, now an octogenarian, enlightened me in many useful things and further broadened my mind, no matter even though at times my full comprehension failed me by reading through the book in somewhat colloquial Bengali language of his own style and of Barisal region. May be that was why for one reason he claimed himself as the ‘seventh generation Bangal’, and termed the memoirs BANGALNAMA, 419 printed pages plus 56 pages of historic multiple photographs, I finished reading through in the first week of January 2010, my first one in the year beginning in my bed ridden condition of illness but even so certainly enjoyed for a number of reasons that I wish to note below.

Not Autobiography

Just as the author has himself stated that the materials in the book and the facts he very much attractively presented were in no way his autobiography but illustration, not all, but significant events that he could recall decades after their occurrence at his late age at about eighty. To me the events and issues he cited well portrayed in depth historical and sociological aspects that he was highly qualified to do in his typical scholarly way.

Barisal’s Pride

Born in a few generation landlord family of Barisal (now southern Bangladesh) in 1926 he was fortunate in many ways not only in pecuniary terms having multi-storied homes at the Kirtipasha rural location, in Barisal town and also of some family members in the then undivided Bengal capital city of Calcutta. As a brilliant student that he marked his position in the Matriculation Examination in 1941 from the Barisal Zilla School under the Calcutta University. He was also fortunate to study at the Calcutta Scottish Church College and Presidency College, Calcutta, both being the most renowned and quality institutions for higher education. It was somewhat unusual to know from his description that despite being from well to do landlord family background it was not only he but his ancestors had as well been left leaning, anti- British and atheists but even so had icons/deities of Hindu religious belief in the decorated permanent structure of Chandi Mandop or home for deity worship. Of course, that was a time in Bengal, in particular, of SWADESHI Movement that was essentially anti-imperialist and anti-British. The climax was the1940s when the two major communities Hindus represented by the Indian Congress Party and the Muslims by the Muslim League came to head on collision for the Pakistan Movement not only in his locality Barisal but also in Calcutta and in the British India as a whole.

1943 Famine & 1946 Riots

Professor Roychoudhury recalled the 1943 Famine in Bengal in which nearly 3 million people died of hunger and the vicious Hindu- Muslim riots of Calcutta of August 1946 wherein thousands were killed on both sides. The frenzied killing of one poor mango hawker Usman, the only earning member of his family of disabled and widowed mother living in a shanty town, by Hindu mobs in front of him touched his heart so much that he mentioned it with heavy heart in the Bangalnama (p.153). In riotous killings and counter-killings he found no frenzied attitudinal difference between the uneducated illiterate lots and the highly educated Bengalis.

Communalism

His specific frank mention from his own experience about extreme Hindu communalism (p. 143) in Bengal in 1940s is an interesting fact that one would find in research findings of two other Calcutta based scholars, Dr. Shila Sen (1976) and Dr. Joya Chatterjee (2002), as well.

After 1947 Partition

On and after the partition of Bengal and British India in mid August 1947, they abandoned their ancestral home in Barisal and estate of Kirtipasha as that fell in the dominion of Pakistan and moved to settle in Calcutta; some stayed though in Calcutta from before as most of the Hindu Landlords of East Bengal would normally do as their second city home away from their land holding big Estates, but some stayed in Barisal, as well. For years initially in Calcutta, they bore hardships but their fortune improved as time went on in Calcutta away from Barisal. They would still get revenue earnings from the estate they left behind under the care of their employees and officers to look after the estate until in 1950 when all big estates in land holdings had been taken over by the government, not alone of the Hindu landlords but also of the Muslims in the same order of the Government of East Bengal (East Pakistan).

Taboos

There are many interesting events he recalled in the book. One is about his marriage with a widow older than his age, and all social taboos linked with widow remarriage that not only constantly bothered them in Calcutta and Delhi but also 6000 miles far away at Oxford in England during his life and job there.

Other Scholars

Very much in keeping with the acumen of a great historian he has brought and introduced in brief other contemporary renowned historians and other scholars in the essay.
Possibly quite likely being a left sympathetic historian, he was somewhat aversely critical about another renowned historian Romesh Chandra Majumder for his anti-Muslim attitude and yet belief in the TWO NATION THEORY ( p. 333), the theory that turned in 1940s a powerful tool and popular slogan among the Muslims of British India for the founding of Pakistan in 1947.
Nirod Chandra Choudhury has obviously come in there not only for both lived in the Oxford University city but also for many common issues they shared in despise, one being the BANGAL’s low ethical and moral standards. They were averse to the educated Bengalis of the Macaulay curriculum being selfish like the Macaulay’s own British people (pp.285-86 and 336).
The brilliance and some eccentricity of the renowned historian Jadunath Sarker has found place there in the work (pp. 185-88).
Many other scholars like Nobel Laureate Economist Amartya Sen and historians of repute not only of India but also of other advanced countries have found useful but brief spaces in the book that made it interestingly worth reading by inquisitive even non-historians.

History and Geography in gist

Another interesting aspect of the book include tidbits of history and geography that he noted down with the insight of a historian from his long traveling experience through many European cities and towns, in the USA, Latin America and Australia.

Author: H B Khair

Hasina-Singh summit ends with zero-sum outcome

With all the grandiose designs that India harbours to re-shape the geopolitical destiny of the continent of Asia, any Bangladeshi leader is bound to have a heart- sinking feeling of imminent danger while meeting its counterpart in Delhi. That is what has made the just concluded visit to India of PM Sheikh Hasina a sensitive and dreadful one.

But, the second- time- Prime Minister seems to have weathered it quite well, without conceding much to our voracious neighbour, and, bringing home even much little in return. On a more positive tone, she looked cool, composed, curious and someone in control over things; perhaps upon knowing that there was no ice-breaker to change things substantively.

That is why, contrary to wild fears of her capitulating to ‘unreasonable’ Indian demands, the visit ended up with a zero-sum outcome. In game theory, a zero-sum outcome is described of a situation in which one participant’s gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other. If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they sums to zero.

That also explains why the visit kicked off with a subtle snub, the Bangladesh PM not being treated as per the deserved protocol upon her landing at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport on January 10.

Much to the surprise of observers, the PM was received at the airport by Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Preneet Kaur, and Foreign Secretary, Nirupama Rao, which looked debasing for a leader representing 150 million people. This ‘pauperized posture’ was least expected when the visit has been showcased as a ‘ground breaking’ one by many pundits and policy makers in both countries.

Observers felt dismayed by this intentionally created protocol hiccup, especially due to the visit occurring following the Bangladesh PM’s risky and gutsy venture in December 2009 to hand over to India one of Delhi’s most wanted fugitives, Arabinda Rajkhowa, chairman of the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), along with the outfit’s deputy commander-in-chief, Raju Baruah, and at least five other senior aides.

Also, in a synchronized gesture to curry Indian favour prior to the visit, India’s Bharti Airtel (BA) was accorded on January 9 an approval from Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) to buy a controlling 70% stake in Bangladesh’s Warid Telecom that has 2.7 million customers, with 5.3% market share. In return, the BA has reportedly declared to invest $300 million on upgrading Warid’s network.

Although a summit between two leaders does not achieve much unless it aims to do so prior to the leaders’ face to face interactions, the visit displayed the serious intent of Sheikh Hasina to accord higher priority to India in regional politics. The very fact that she has chosen Delhi ahead of Beijing as her first regional destination speaks volume about her mindset and loyalty.

For, upon coming to power in 1996, Hasina decided to visit Beijing first in order to neutralize a lingering negative image of the regime of her father who faced serious internal oppositions due to a ‘distinctly pro-Indian’ foreign policy stance, something many analysts characterized as being devoid of the required tact and the talisman that were much needed in balancing a new nation’s foreign policy.

But that sincere intent got rebuffed in kind in the wake of this visit. Not only Delhi failed to rein in its forces at the border, its BSF went virtually berserk against unarmed Bangladeshis. Within hours of the PM’s landing at Delhi airport, two Bangladeshi cattle traders were killed by BSF on January 10 in Chapainawabganj and Benapole. Then, on Januray 12, while the PM busied herself in parlaying with various segments of state luminaries in Delhi, BSF killed another Bangladeshi cattle trader at Benapole border and took away his body.

Unfortunately, the summit made no dent in obtaining an assurance to rein in such human rights abuses by Indian border forces. Especially since the AL’s coming to power early this year, there were 308 incidents of attacks by the BSF on innocent Bangladeshis at the border, resulting in 96 people killed, 79 injured, 25 kidnapped and 92 remaining as yet lost. Such occurrences sour people to people ties and impact bilateral interactions.

Despite that, PM did her best to show a tolerant and brave face to her Indian hosts, according to people who travelled with her and the imagery seen in TV and newspaper exposures.

In the game of diplomacy, often each side is aware of the inner minds of the other. This was no exception and the Indian moves were palpably heuristic. Such consternations notwithstanding, the PM did obtain a promise from Delhi of US$1 billion worth of line of credit in infrastructure building, which experts say remains contingent upon Bangladesh’s consent in collaborations in developing railways and other infrastructures to facilitate transportations of Indian goods and services from the mainland to the landlocked North Eastern provinces via Bangladesh.

In return, however, she had conceded little substantive, deferring the decision to allow India the permit to use the Ashugonj port to subsequent discussions. This was a deft move. It also implied two particular things for certain. First, India must show that its power generation project in neighbouring state of Tripura will meet the dual requirements of both nations, and, Delhi’s promise to allow Bangladesh the promised corridor to Nepal and Bhutan will be complied with.

All these made the visit look grand on paper but virtually ritual in substance, especially it yielding little in terms of immediately- accruable economic benefits. The huge army of business delegation that had accompanied the PM in order to foster greater economic ties between the two neighbours felt frustrated by the Indian decision to allow only 47 items of commodities from the voluminous negative list of Bangladeshi products, despite Bangladesh insisting for years to obtain duty-free access to Indian market of a selective 232 products in particular, in order to reduce the Himalayan trade imbalance that lies heavily in Indian favour, overshooting well past $3 billion mark lately.

As well, the long-awaited Teesta water sharing deal did not receive any serious significance in the summit level discussions, according to sources. They say, although the two PM discussed the pending border demarcation matter relating to yet unmarked 6.1-km stretch of the 4,096 km border, ‘enclaves’ and ‘adverse possessions’ (pockets in each country with nationals of the other) ‘ and have exchanged lists of such enclaves once again’no progress has been made in that particular front either, excepting promises and assurances to continue further discussion at bilateral levels.

Yet, there was no dearth of solace and smiling on either side, despite the visit being virtually a ceremonial one in nature. The Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee termed the Bangladesh PM’s visit a high point of relations between the two countries, observing, ‘This is a historic visit; it marks a new era in Indo-Bangladesh relations.’ He added, ‘For the first time, Dhaka understands our concerns and we understand theirs.’

That mutual understanding has ripened since the army-backed caretaker regime jumped into the Indian bandwagon in 2007 to jointly fight radicalism and extremism. And, that is what has led to the conclusion of three agreements on January 11 by the two PMs. The agreements relate to (1) mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, (2) transfer of sentenced prisoners, and (3) combating international terrorism, organised crime and illicit drug trafficking. The two Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) include (1) framework on exchange of electricity, and (2) cultural collaborations.

Viewed closely, the signed MoUs too seem loaded with lots of ifs and buts. For instance, under the collaborative arrangement to import electricity, Bangladesh would buy 500 MW of electricity from India to start with, and, by 2012, the cap can be raised to 1200 MW. Official sources say, Bangladesh’s state-owned Power Grid Company and Indian state-run Power Grid Corporation will jointly set up transmission lines to carry the power to the Bangladesh grid, for which India needs access to our port facilities and Dhaka needs lots of money.

That also proves that the prospect of any viable power generation and sharing remains contingent upon India’s construction of the proposed power generation centre in the power-starve Tripura state which currently imports from Bhutan about 1400 MW of electricity to meet its peak hour shortfall, and Dhaka’s ability to build commensurable infrastructure and conduit to share the fruit.

However, in a brilliant stroke of classical diplomacy, the PM has offered her government’s support to India’s candidature for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council and promised to lend support to Delhi in the Indian candidature for a non-permanent seat of the UNSC for 2011-2012.

‘Responding to the prime minister of India, the prime minister of Bangladesh conveyed her country’s support in principle for India’s candidature for the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council as and when the reform of the UN Security Council is achieved,’ says a joint statement.

The killing of three more innocent Bangladeshis during the visit aside, a number of other detractions and dirty politics dogged the visit, the most prominent among which was the disclosure in Dhaka by the ruling party secretary general, Syed Ashraful Islam, that former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has had a meeting in Dhaka with the ULFA leader Anup Chetia, in July 2002, which was facilitated by then prime minister Khaleda Zia.

The alleged meeting, the veracity of which was challenged instantly by BNP leaders, took place in Musharraf’s hotel room while the latter visited Dhaka. This was a dirty politics that the AL should have avoided, unless the information came as a design to do so in the wake of PM’s Delhi visit.

Chetia, incumbent secretary general of ULFA, remains detained in a Bangladesh jail since his arrest in 1998, and, his handover to India is the most coveted aim of Delhi at this very moment, especially ULFA’s military commander, Paresh Barua, reportedly being in China. Yet, India may not get Chetia in the manner it got the possession of the seven other ULFA leaders who had recently been ‘kidnapped’ from Dhaka by, according to a number of sources, Indian special force.

Anup Chetia is a refugee claimant, which is his legal forte, and his ultimate disposition relies on Bangladesh’s final decision to deport him from the country. Even when such a decision is made, according to the concerned Geneva Convention (1951) relating to fate of refugees seeking protection in a third country - of which Bangladesh is a signatory - one particular clause of that Convention circumvents Dhaka’s option to handover him to India.

Author: M. Shahidul Islam
Source: The New Nation