Bangladesh and India continue to be unhappy with each other while remaining each other's closest neighbour. In fact for all practical purposes, it is Bangladesh's only neighbour.
Historically speaking, Bangladesh provided India the grandest opportunity to craft its finest hour by defeating Pakistan on Bangladeshi soil. Yet today, there is confusion whether both are friends or foe. Bangladesh thinks a victory was possible without Indian support in 1971, while India wants eternal gratitude from Bangladesh for what it considers a favour of a lifetime. Both attitudes show how immaturely the bilateral relationship has been handled in both countries over the years. Whether they will ever grow up and treat each other as adults is sadly in doubt.
The background to affection and hostility
The Indo-Bangla relationship has to be put in the context of history. Bangladesh in its East Pakistan incarnation was 'enemy territory' which India assiduously courted as a potential migrant from Pakistani hegemonic construct. It gambled that Pakistani treatment of Bengalis was so bad that one day it would reach a breaking point as it did and Pakistan would collapse. And then India could play a role ensuring the halving of Pakistan. Of course, East Pakistan was never a military threat to India as Pakistan never invested any military resources to defend it so India could afford to be gentle.
1971 was the darkest and the most glorious time for Bangladesh. During this period India not only gave shelter to millions of people fleeing Pakistani terror but also armed the freedom fighters and assisted the government in exile in keeping its insurrectionary flag flying. It couldn't have done more than it did.
What however is left un-stated by Indian voices is that it wasn't plain altruism but India's self-interest as well. India wanted to break up Pakistan and the Bangladeshi nationalist movement provided it with an incredible opportunity. In a way, India should be grateful to Bangladeshis for giving India this chance. Instead, India has imaged itself only as Bangladesh's life saver, midwife and charitable uncle all rolled into one. That description is what is wrong with much of Indian policy attitude where it forgets it gains from its dealings with its smaller neighbours.
Bangladesh on the other side feels that India had no role to play in its 1971 war of independence or only that it was a self-serving one. It thinks Bangladesh was quite capable of winning the war all by itself though it would have taken longer and India did nothing that deserves gratitude. It ignores the fact that Indian soldiers died on Bangladesh soil, gave shelter to its people and armed its resistance army. It would rather forget India existed in 1971.
Both these views are extreme and absurd and if both the countries could ever accept the fact that it was matter of convenience for both and a convergence of two self-interests and one objective, the matter would have had a more realistic and nourishing narrative.
It's the legacy of these misconstrued perspectives with both parties unable to see much beyond that which has led to the situation of mistrust and even hostility. It suffers from jingoism if one may say that is hurting both.
Indo-Bangla: points of conflict
Indo-Bangla relations have several major points of friction. They are: a) security, b) economic relations, c) sharing of common resources, and d) other issues including those relating to border management.
Security issues are what occupies front pages, create most rising temperatures and recently have focused on involvement of extremist groups. It has an unfortunate long history and India did provide shelter and support to the Chittagong Hill Tracts insurgency in Bangladesh in the mid-70s. Bangladesh retaliated by providing support to the Indian North East extremists and this pattern of supporting each others' enemies has gone on.
The recent trend has become more disturbing as Islamic extremists who are hostile to both Bangladesh and India are in operation. India has said that many of these groups operate using Bangladesh as a sanctuary. While the BNP government used the 'shelter to extremists card' to put pressure on a huge and not very sympathetic neighbour, the AL government, itself a victim of 'Islamic terrorists', should have no problem in coming to some understanding that also takes into consideration various other issues influential on the broader Indo-Bangladesh relations combo.
The second problem between both is that of sharing of common resources with special reference to water sharing. India's arbitrary decision to construct the Farakka Barrage devastated many parts of Bangladesh, which also means that it does not receive a fair share of the Ganges river flow while getting flooded during the monsoons when India releases excess waters. The sharing of Ganges waters is a major dispute having a major impact on Bangladesh's environmental degradation.
On these issues India has not acted in concert with genuine concerns that Bangladesh has and it has given priority to its own needs which admittedly are high. Nevertheless, it is a major friction point that needs resolution.
Next on the plate is trade imbalance which remains the most critical point of contention now because it is a multi-billion dollar ongoing transaction, both officially and through unofficial channels and both countries have a huge stake in this. However, to what extent the two governments have been able to facilitate this and how much of this is the result of market flow is a cloudy matter. The flow greatly favours India.
The Bangladesh finance minister AMA Muhith has said that he will try to slim down the balance of trade, but so have previous ministers and it has not happened. India certainly knows that the market is becoming captive here and no matter what the official relationship is, it will favour India. It has also used the trade issue to push for transit facilities which many in Bangladesh have seen as an intrusive demand and some even as a threat to its sovereignty.
The position of both the countries seem to be set in political positions germinated in the archaic models of hostility all nation states were expected to have and unfortunately most still do.
Bangladesh's paranoia parade
Bangladesh has developed a paranoia complex as far as India is concerned which can be partly traced to the not so friendly historical experience with official India whether in its support to cross border insurgents, lopsided trade policies to withholding of water resources but also to the traditional hostility towards India as a legacy of its Pakistani past. Bangladesh's policy mandarins fear that unless there is some kind of leverage, India will steam roll over.
A reality check is needed on this regard which is that if India wants, it can blow away Bangladesh in a very short while. It doesn't need transit to occupy Bangladesh. Refusing transit facilities as part of a strategy to prevent Indian intrusion into Bangladesh is a poorly thought through position. On the other hand, India is Bangladesh's principal if not its only neighbour and an economically advanced one at that. And it will remain Bangladesh's biggest business partner no matter how anti-Indian we are.
In fact, the idea that India wants Bangladesh is an absurd proposition if one looks at what Bangladesh represents. It would be suicidal to take responsibility of Bangladesh's 150 million hostile souls. India will try everything to keep Bangladesh out. Bangladesh will also become India's monopoly market unless it produces better quality goods as India has economies of scale on its side making both quality and price favourable. So, instead of denial, Bangladesh should look at all issues as an opportunity to press for greater trade rights and the greater the Indo-Bangla trade integration, higher will be the negotiating space for both.
Can India rise to become a proper regional power?
What stands in the way of better trade between the two apart from adequate competence and capacity of Bangladeshi producers to compete in the Indian market is India's own inability to see beyond the narrow business of the immediate profit margin. It simply hasn't yet shown enough evidence to prove that it has a long term regional view and it has responsibilities as the regional superpower. It continues to behave in the same way with Nepal, Bangladesh and even Sri Lanka, its smaller and weaker partners in South Asia as it does with Pakistan its arch enemy or the rest of the world.
The result has been reciprocation of hostility from these small powers because the bigger power's generous attitude is sorely missing on India's part. To achieve this requires a more constructive India in action able to see that the trade and other gaps are constantly in India's favour and such situations inevitably breed hostility. By behaving like a regional bully, a big boy in the kindergarten playpen, it has pushed down the relationship between states in South Asia to a scenario of petty bickering. It has failed its own status. It simply won't give in to the needs of the smaller states just as the smaller states are refusing to accept India as the primary power in South Asia.
Indo-Bangla relations can improve if both parties feel that there is an opportunity to dialogue with each other to achieve mutual convenience. India and Bangladesh seem to be stuck as we have said in ancient rituals of tribal hostility although the opportunity to work for mutual benefit exists. That unfortunately requires a political will befitting the 21st century and the respective asymmetric status of both countries.Productive friendship between India and Bangladesh is possible but is anyone really interested?
Tremendous benefits can be derived for both Bangladesh and India from cooperation and joint action on many fronts, pursued in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding. Somehow, these possibilities have been sacrificed as negative attitudes among decision making circles have gained prominence in both the countries,
writes Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad
Over past two decades and more, I have been involved in academic and advocacy exercises aimed at promoting regional, sub-regional, and bilateral cooperation in South Asia. I have seen windows opening for progress in this regard, but have then been dismayed to see setbacks dashing the emerging opportunities. The reality has generally been business-as-usual practice of lip service to the cause but no action. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit declarations are, in fact, testimony to strong intents of the governments of the regional countries for cooperation building in the region and working together for mutual benefit. But, little or no follow through left the agreements reached of little or no avail for the regional countries to march forward together. Experiences are often similar in the context of sub-regional (e.g. Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basins) and bilateral relations (e.g. between Bangladesh and India).
It should be pointed out here that studies conducted by academics, practitioners, and campaigners have shown that, when the issues which have bilateral, sub-regional or regional perspectives are addressed jointly by the involved countries, the benefits are greater for all the participating countries than if those issues were addressed from narrow nationalistic perspectives. It would transpire that this is also the view of the governments of the regional countries that has encouraged them to negotiate and reach the various agreements — SAARC-wide, sub-regionally or bilaterally, as the case may be — for working together to address the identified issues for mutual benefit.
Here the key question is: why has headway not been achieved in cooperation building in the region? It is argued that the regional countries have not been able to shake off the historical burden of mutual suspicion and mistrust. The regional countries have also been in the grip of narrow nationalistic politics and negative bureaucratic attitudes. It is difficult to see why all the positives by way of mutual benefits derivable from cooperation, not only in terms of economic gains but also in terms of peace and harmony and a common stance internationally, have so far failed to ride over the 'non-cooperation mode' and create an environment conducive for moving forward together. Why cannot we learn from the experiences of European Union and ASEAN, where formidable obstacles and rivalries have been overcome, enabling the countries to work together and scale ever higher levels of cooperation hugely benefiting the member countries?
In the case of Bangladesh and India, it is extremely unfortunate that the two countries have had to remain mired in mutual mistrust and suspicion and, consequently, failed to resolve not only major but even minor issues. Ideally, Bangladesh-India relations should have been cordial and cooperative for at least two very good reasons. One is that Indians fought alongside Bangladeshis for the liberation of Bangladesh and that should have cemented a mutually beneficial friendship between the two nations. Obviously, it hasn't. The second reason is that there are tremendous benefits to be derived for both the countries from cooperation and joint action on many fronts, pursued in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding. Somehow these possibilities have been sacrificed as negative attitudes among decision making circles have gained prominence in both the countries.
I would plead for dismantling of narrow political and bureaucratic stances in both India and Bangladesh, replacing them by an open-minded, smart, and merit-first approach to resolving the outstanding issues, both minor and major, between the two countries. Once, by so doing, available benefits are reaped and, at the same time, relations between the two countries are put on a more solid foundation, they can then work together to address such issues as inclusive growth, poverty, food security, climate change, and energy, which must be priority issues in both the countries in relation to the shaping of their future in such a manner that would be sustainable from economic, social, and environmental points of view.
However, I have had occasions to make such pleas many times over the years and so have many others including very prominent people. But, obviously, those who could change things have not listened. The obvious choice, i.e. cooperation for mutual benefit, has not been adopted. I am not being naive in making the plea again. I do so because I am an optimist and I believe the cause is so overwhelmingly strong that one has to go on trying regardless of how many times they fail to make an impact. Eventually, the two countries would, I believe, resolve the outstanding issues and work together for mutual benefits, an outcome that should also emerge sub-regionally and South Asia-wide, given that the demands of the changing times and circumstances cannot be ignored for long, except to the peril of the countries concerned. But, to help that outcome to materialise sooner rather than later, all those who believe in the cause must keep pushing for it.
It may be difficult to resolve just one issue to the satisfaction of both the countries. But, when negotiations take place simultaneously on a number of issues, it is possible for the two parties to negotiate on the basis of trade-offs, i.e. one party may give some concessions in respect of one issue while the other party on another issue. A process of such 'gives' and 'takes' should enable the parties to reach comprehensive agreements in the respect of the issues on the table, which will be all together beneficial for both.
Some of the outstanding issues between Bangladesh and India are relatively straightforward while others are likely to be more complex. The relatively easy ones may be addressed first to create the right environment for tackling the more complex ones. The outstanding issues which have to be addressed would include completion of demarcation of land-border and other border issues, delineation of maritime boundaries, sharing of water resources of the common rivers (out of 54 such rivers there is a water sharing treaty with respect to only one, the Ganges); transit facilities for the passage of goods of each country through the territory of the other to destinations within the country of origin or in another country; dismantling of non-tariff and para-tariff barriers and adoption of other measures by India aimed at reducing Bangladesh's trade gap with that country; and security concerns. Other issues that either of the countries might want to include in the package may also be taken up as part of comprehensive negotiations.
It would be in the fitness of things if India, being the much larger and economically and otherwise more powerful nation, approaches the negotiations involving gives and takes concerning different issues on the basis of the 'Gujral Doctrine', which, inter alia, states that 'with its neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for reciprocity, but gives and accommodates what it can in good faith and trust.'
The Bangladeshi negotiators should prepare well and negotiate hard, but with an open mind to finding appropriate solutions. An open-minded approach would recognise the importance of gives and takes on different issues in the process of negotiations, facilitating mutually beneficial comprehensive agreements to be reached. Indeed, the process of negotiations must be transparent with the parliament duly involved and public domain mobilised at various stages for public feedback.
But, given the state of play, if the fears and mistrust are to be overcome and broad political frameworks are to be worked out for cooperation, these are most likely to be accomplished if a clear understanding is reached at the summit level, i.e. at the level of Prime Ministers of the two countries, that the outstanding problems between the two countries must be resolved soon. If a clear direction is available from the top, agreements can be expected to be reached through negotiations taking place at the appropriate political and official levels. It is important that the negotiators are directed and mandated to rise above narrow departmental, bureaucratic, technocratic, and political perspectives and to take a more long-term and wider view across the board of all relevant issues, interests, and concerns. This would ensure attention to linkages and a consideration of a variety of trade-offs.
Bangladesh may take the initiative for such a summit to be held as soon as possible so that the process of resolving the issues may start in right earnest. Indeed, careful preparations on both sides are necessary for the desired results, as indicated above, to be achieved from such a summit.
Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad is chairman of Bangladesh Unnayan Parishad and president of Bangladesh Economic Association
http://www.newagebd.com/2009/feb/09/oped.html
