In three years of publicly writing on Bangladesh-related stuff, I have not received a stronger reaction than that on my assessment of the Prime Minister’s India trip. And it’s not just me, other fellow UV writers have also had similar experience publicly and privately. In this post, I respond to some comments from well connected political analysts.
The comments can be paraphrased as follows.
The summit has cemented the gains of the past year in terms of confidence building from the Bangladeshi side, and has laid a firm foundation for resolving the major outstanding issues from the Indian side. This is a considerable achievement and something to get enthused about — a qualified hoi hoi if you will. In that sense the visit really has been significant and successful. While communiques are generally what policy wonks focus on, in the current context, the communique alone is neither a very meaningful statement nor a useful way to look at / measure the success of the trip. Atmospherics and context are key here. And if you consulted people involved in the trip from either side of the border, you would appreciate the success much more.
My responses in detail are over the fold. Quick take away:
1. Agree that in the past year, Bangladesh has taken immense measures in confidence building — measures that are good for Bangladesh regardless of tepid public reactions from India.
2. Concede that I have no inside information, and thus can be missing the atmospherics completely.
3. Stress that if the above view of qualified hoi hoi is correct, then we should see some concrete steps from India reasonably soon.
Firstly, it is true that since the current government came to power, significant steps have been taken in the Bangladeshi side to allay Indian security fears. More importantly, these steps, I believe, have been to the benefit of Bangladesh, regardless of Indian reactions.
Without getting into a debate about how much involvement past Bangladeshi governments may or may not have had with Indian militants, these are reasonably incontrovertible facts: there were Indian militants present in Bangladesh; and there were serious security lapses in 2004-06 (assassinations, 10 truck arms etc). It is also reasonable to theorise that the two were connected, that the presence of Indian militants in Bangladeshi soil poses a direct threat to Bangladesh’s security.
Not Indian, but Bangladeshi security.
Therefore, uprooting these militants is a benefit for Bangladesh. This doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to conditions that create these militants. But the responsibility of the People’s Republic is primarily to its own people, and the responsible thing to do is to completely disentangle ourselves from India’s wars. (As an aside, anyone comparing northeast Indian secessionists with our Mukti Bahini either misunderstands history, or is being a demagogue).
We can debate the manner in which the current government has carried out the disentanglement. Publicly humiliating the security agencies, or breaking domestic laws to extradite foreign nationals, can have longstanding negative consequences. But on the big picture, the government has done the right thing, at considerable political (and for the Prime Minister, personal) risk. They ought to be congratulated, regardless of Indian reaction.
But this doesn’t mean we should overlook the fact that Indian public reaction thus far has been fairly lackluster. That’s the point made in my Hoi Hoi or hai hai piece, or Asif’s Guardian piece.
This takes us to the second point. I do not have any private information. My analysis is strictly based on what is available in public domain. As a general rule, I try to stick to publicly available facts, because they improve the discourse. But I do accept that in the current case, there may well be benefits in relying on such private information.
Unfortunately, since I don’t have access to the corridors of power, I cannot report on what may happen. But, for argument’s sake, suppose it is really the case that the trip ‘has laid a firm foundation for resolving the major outstanding issues from the Indian side’.
What will happen then?
Well, a Joint River Committee meeting is scheduled for the first quarter of 2010. Presumably if the Indians are ready to resolve outstanding issues, then we will see some solid movements in this meeting? Not just promises to resolve river-related issues, but actually resolve them? Or may be some political commitment about the killings at the border? Or postponement of Tipaimukh Dam?
The ‘qualified hoi hoi‘ theory has a testable prediction: resolution of at least one outstanding issue within a reasonable time.
I will be very happy to be proved wrong about not believing the hype, and to raise cheers of hoi hoi if my well connected friends prove correct.
But will the Indians rise to the occasion?
“Publicly humiliating the security agencies, or breaking domestic laws to extradite foreign nationals, can have longstanding negative consequences. But on the big picture, the government has done the right thing, at considerable political (and for the Prime Minister, personal) risk.”
Show me another example of a country that openly stated that it supported the terrorists in another country? Is there any? Did India ever openly agree that they supported the insugency?
Govt has done the wrongest thing to self implicate us (without any court accepted verdict based on police interrogation) just to gain political mileage and underpin opponents. If at all it wanted to do what it did believing that to be true, then it should have taken all the actions, redefine the state policy but all in private while diplomatically never accepting that we support this and that. That is the norm of international diplomacy.
I am not sure if ever Bangladesh supported terrorists of anyther country. To INDIA – we never did support your terrorist. We have a foreign policy that states our stand.
Even if a country does, that is a matter of state policy and not securities agency. Securities agency run under the direction of government. So why blame Securities? That too to take political laurel atthe cost of the country?
If there was any flagrant/shameless support of terrorist/insurgency of any country, it was India who supported our insurgency. What better proof of that when Shantu Larma comes for meeting in indian helicopter?
And thanks to govt/ALs wrong headed short sighted self interest oriented step that supporting their insurgency became talk of the blog whereeas India’s role – amra bemalum vule gechi.
Durvaga ei- desh are bichitra er kichu kichu manush. And now you are telling exactly the opposite.
“Publicly humiliating the security agencies, …. at political risk” – Comon – you know better than this that it was a political gain/stunt to paint BNP led government … the way they did.
[Reply]
With the risk of being accused of “misunderstanding history”, I have to ask why the secessionists of the northeast are “uncomparable” to our Mukti Bahini. Both had different ethnic roots from ruling majority, both were geographically distant from the “mainland”, and both were ignored when attempting democratic means of opposition (Indian government’s we-don’t-give-a-shit attitude to anti-dam protests in Manipur and Mizoram is a good example).
I agree with your argument though. At the end of the day it is not our war to fight.
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:38 am
For one thing, we were not different from the ‘majority’, we WERE the majority. And our cause had unequivocal public support expressed through a free and fair election. Mujibnagar government derived its legitimacy from the 1970 election —- this is a rarity in the annuls of insurgency. The war came following a breakdown in negotiation and Pakistani genocidal crackdown. And finally, Mujibnagar government and Mukti Bahini were served by civil and military bureaucrats who defected from the Pakistani state to join the fight. We can quibble about this speech or that declaration, this negotiating gambit or that military strategy, but this is the broad brush of history.
None of these conditions hold for any Indian insurgency. This doesn’t mean the grievances in the Indian northeast (or our own CHT) are not real. They are. But it’s wrong to compare their insurgencies with Mukti Bahini.
[Reply]
bongobeer Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 4:15 am
I apologise for my lack of clarity, but my, and indeed the accepted political, definition of a majority would be the group that holds decisive power in the political process of a state, and yes, by that definition, both Bengalis and the Northeasterners fall into the definition of minority groups.
It is true that the 1970 election and the subsequent failure of the “majority” to hand over power was a cause for us to fight, but I strongly dispute any indication that liberation sentiments lacked legitimacy before that point (we can’t forget 1952 can we?) With or without the election, Bengalis had the legitimacy to hold secessionist views and act accordingly. Being the majority in terms of population was not the all-important detail, it was the oppression in the hands of the ruling class that gave us that legitimacy. And that is a feature shared by our northeastern neighbours.
Accordingly, I can sympathise with the insurgencies, but as I said before, it is not our war to fight, and it is indeed in our interests that we stop acting as a safe-haven for secessionists for the sake of maintaining a good relationship with our powerful (enough-to-crush-us-whenever-they-want-to) neighbours.
[Reply]
Raihan Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 4:33 am
When did Mukti Bahini attacked civilians? Did we go and killed civilians? Did our supreme leader went in hide? What legitimacy does ULFA have? Are they elected representatives of Assamese?
Jyoti bhai, you must write about our political leadership during 1971. I think, most of us don’t get the difference. There is a clear difference between Bloc Québécois and ULFA.
Raihan Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 4:26 am
hmmmm… even you have started writing in BOLD letters. Stop screaming, Jyoti bhai, stop screaming!
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 6:21 am
Guilty as charged. and will take corrective actions.
bongobeer Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
@Raihan – Thanks for pointing out the differences, although my argument was not that there aren’t any differences. There are hundreds. I was simply taking issue with Jyoti Bhai’s comment that the two are totally “uncomparable”. And I still think that there are some fundamental similarities which compel me to sympathise with the liberation movement with a whole if not ULFA (I never mentioned them).
I can tell u one thing abt Indian media – they are extremely Pakistan and to some extent China centric. Being such a diverse country, something keeps happening in the country that captures its attention. Most media offices are located in Delhi.
Regional media has also grown. I am sure the Bangla accord would have been covered by the North East region media as the region is bound to benefit from this historic accord. Even the mainstream media rarely covers stories on North East India.
You need to understand that geography is responsible for this as well. Chicken’s neck is a thin area that connects North East with rest of India. The terrain is also very difficult. It taken 2-3 days to travel from Calcutta to Tripura or Manipur. Hence, the region is not that well integrated with the rest of India.
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:46 am
Yes, this is true. I don’t think it is just the media that is Pakistan-centric. The entire foreign / security / trade policy complex —- bureaucrats, think tanks, academics —- are primarily focussed on Pakistan, and many if not most tend to see Bangladesh through a Pakistan prism. Therefore, a minor incident in Dhaka involving Islamists might get picked up because it fits the narrative of ‘Pakistanisation of Bangladesh’ well, but major nuances that contradict that story gets ignored.
The consequence is that at the policy level, this leads to inaction and inertia.
[Reply]
bongobeer Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 3:55 am
The uber-nationalist media is indeed prepared to resort to making news out of thin air when needed. Good example: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pak-footprint-behind-Bangladesh-mutiny/articleshow/4205848.cms
[Reply]
Anoop Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:56 am
“and many if not most tend to see Bangladesh through a Pakistan prism. ”
@Jyothi,
I dont agree at all. Bangladesh has a well defined identity and the root of its problems are not related to identity. India is a HUGE country. I live in the South of India,in Bangalore and I hardly ever hear news about my own city. Its always “this happened in Mumbai” and “this happned in Delhi”. Its understandable actually. People in India speak different languages and in Bangalore we speak Kannada. The guys in major News channels and Papers dont get our language and hence, dont cover our stories. But, that media void is filled up by Regional Channels. They are vocal and powerful and can bring down state govts.
The troubles in North-east are similarly overlooked not because we dont care but they speak a different language. But, that doesn’t mean we dont love them or care for them. We do but it takes time to take corrective measures in such a big country be it anywhere in India.
I can only wish that Pakistan was more like Bangladesh and I understand the different identities of the people of Bangladesh. I am very happy that our relations with Bangladesh are on the upward swing. I hope Bangladesh together with India bring millions out of poverty.
I guess we didnt consolidate our friendship after the war of Independence of Bangladesh. I see traces of Indira Gandhi in Sheik Hasina. Hope Bangladeshis think well of her(Indira, I mean).
[Reply]
We all have an opinion about Indo-Bangladesh politics. I have a demand. lol.
I only want one thing. lol
I want India to invite our Prime Minister in their next Republic Day. and through her- they must show their respect and gratitude- to us. I mean, hey, our Prime Minister took extra ordinary risks to promote indo-bangladesh bonding. We deserve to be called one of their best friends.
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2010-01-27/news/37877
ps. indian media did not make any fuss about japanese and korean prime ministers either. may be indian media is too cool for prime ministers of ordinary people! bahahaha!
[Reply]
jyoti Reply:
January 27th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Korean president is visiting as a preparation for the G20 summit later this year, which he will host. I doubt it is being portrayed as a ‘paradigm shift’ in the Indo-Korean relationship by anyone.
Btw, Tamim Iqbal is getting a lot of attention in the Indian media, so it’s not always the case that they ignore us.
[Reply]
Anoop Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 1:59 am
@Raihan,
You are abosolutely right. I have no idea why the idiots in Delhi didnt invite Bangladeshi PM for Republic day. She has done a lot for India and Bangladesh. Thank you Bengalis for electing her to the post of PM. Keep the nut cases out and focus on development. THere are millions in India and Bangladesh who dont have a decent meal a day. Its out duty to help them. Let the extremist fight but in a true democracy that fight is in vain.
[Reply]
Jyoti – You said the ” ‘qualified hoi hoi‘ theory has a testable prediction: resolution of at least one outstanding issue within a reasonable time.” To me the whole theory sounds like a prediction, based on India’s verbal “promise” of neighborly friendliness at some point in (un)forseeable future! How much value that “friendliness” has, is already pasted in India’s record of past 40 years. Not to mention BSF friendliness of past 40 hours!
A lot of “presumably-if-maybe” in your post sounds like the result of the whole summit is based on speculation. Just as Hasina’s jubilation of “100% successful” for this summit, sounds like Bush’s now famous declaraion “mission accomplished”
[Reply]