.
.
.
The pro-Indian Awami League won a record landslide victory which holds with its allies a near 90% majority in Parliament. That was in December 2008. You would have thought that India would jump in and take the opportunity to further cement ties between the two countries, BUT instead waited 20 months later to take some concrete action.
Cynics and satirists might say that an Indian government making a major government decision within 20 months is quite a record.
But why this slow?
Various explanations may be proffered.
There may be various factors related to general Indian governance, "Why do something today when it can be done next year". The infamous Arjun non-tank has been in the making for 38 years, since 1972 when it was first conceived; Mountains upon mountains of Commission reports on Police reform since the 1950's in India ; Mountains upon mountains of Commission reports on Education reform since the 1950's; Mountains upon mountains of Commission reports on Judicial reform since the 1950's in India, all gathering dust.
There is also the issue of competition between State agencies and departments, for example the competition between the MEA and the Home Ministry or the Finance Ministry. The situation is made worse by a weak PM who has no game plan in anything, but is content with his role as the night watchman given to him by Ms. Sonia Meino, keeping the seat warm for playboy Rahul. Ideally in the normal world the MEA would be the lead agency with a clear thought out strategy which was transparent, but its priorities are clearly else where.
The Awami League coalition winning 90% of the seats in parliament, and if you had a situation where a high powered Indian delegation turned up in Dhaka soon after a few days later that might have seemed unseemly conspiratorial and suspicious had it happened. The Indian mindset........slow and ponderous which is ingrained through the Hindu religion.......Hari Om Shanti; being decisive is un-Indian, and even "dirty". Finally a general Indian antipathy and innate condescension towards Bangladesh.
All of which are of course poor excuses for running pragmatic state to state policies.
About the last point its there, and it exists. Antipathy towards the "dreaded Bengaalis" had been left by the British, and picked up by many a Indians, and Pakistanis since independence which of course would have consequences later. The British ruled Bengal between 1757--1947, and some of the worst crimes committed by them in South Asia was in Bengal. For psychological purposes as they continued with their genocide and high crimes in Bengal they developed a warped sense of hatred towards Bengalis as utterly devious, weak and primitive people who deserved what they got, as they continued their plunder and misrule of what was at one time the "Pearl of India" famous for its wealth. Rather in the manner of a rapist and his attitude towards his victim, or the Israelis towards Palestinians or the Tartars towards Russians or the Japanese Imperial Army in China during WWII.
I have met and mixed with many Indians in my 30 years in the UK. There was Chandresh from Gujarat back in the 1980's who never lost an opportunity to make fun of Bangladesh. Then as I recall when I attended a teachers seminar in Birmingham in 1991, a West Bengali soon learnt I was a Bengali speaker and came over to chat with me, but his faced changed when I told him I was Bangladeshi, where upon he said, "never mind" and turned and walked away.
Then there was Professor Upendra Baxi, a cosmopolitan worldly man, and my tutor for my Masters which focused on Bangladesh and India: "Corruption and the Law: A case Study of India" ; "Liberalization and structural Adjustment of the Indian economy during the 1990's" ; "Strategies for protection of female garment workers in Bangladesh" ; "The elite, corruption and politics in India" ; "Critical evaluation of the National Human Rights Commission of India", and finally "A critical examination of the environmental laws of India and Bangladesh and the judicial response".
In all that work, and time I spent with him as my tutor all he had to say about Bangladesh was to the effect, "Oh, the poverty, so, so poor, so so poor." "Oh, the poverty, so, so poor, so so poor." "Oh, the poverty, so, so poor, so so poor." The prof should have got a tape recorder and ran it. The prof visited Pakistan many times, and had been around the world, but never visited Bangladesh to actually see it. That was Indian condescension and general disinterest at another more subtle level....subtle because the prof through his work SHOULD have visited Bangladesh, especially when he was based in Calcutta, but chose not to.
Its India's sheer indifference, clumsiness and condescension which has meant that after giving birth to Bangladesh in 1971, after 38 years Bangladesh is still not firmly embedded into India's sphere of influence.
Bangladesh is a Indo-Burmese nation of people, which historically has always been part of greater India when empires came and went. As with India, 10-15% of the nations population is Indo-Aryan predominantly drawn from the Pashtuns who settled in this part of the world over 800 years as military conquerors. Other Iranian tribes have come into India as a whole besides the Pashtun's over the last 3500 years.
Bangladesh should be within India's sphere of influence, and this should be accomplished through measures which tie the two countries closer together, AND perhaps most importantly which also makes Bangladesh an economic success story as with India. There is obviously no point creating elaborate relationships between the two countries if Bangladesh falls behind India economically......and ALL WE GET IS A REPETITION OF 1972--1975.........Where excellent relationships existed between the governments of the two countries, but in reality the situation in newly liberated Bangladesh was very poor; governance very poor; mass starvation and finally a coup backed by Washington in 1975.
The perception of Bangladesh's poor plight between 1972--1975 by many Bangladeshis was that this was India's real gift to Bangladesh, especially in right-wing circles within security. This perception was reinforced by India's ham fisted destabilisation programs against Bangladesh between 1975--1981, which culminated in the assassination of General Zia-ul Rahman. THIS PERCEPTION STILL EXISTS, where many in Bangladesh believe a lot of the Islamists in Bangladesh are backed by India and RAW.
In India's defense all I will say about the events of 1972---1975 is this. 1972--1975 was the great lost opportunity for India. India for obvious reasons had high expectations of the Awami League allies in war. But the reality was that the Mujib government was wholly corrupt and incompetent, and though Mujib was a great orator, mere oratory with populist slogans in themselves do not actually run a country.....it is Sher Shah administrative efficiency that runs a country. Mujib himself was not corrupt, but many family members were clearly crooked and corrupt, as were many of his cronies........and it was this toleration of these crooks and criminals within his inner clique which led to his downfall and massacre in 1975. I do not say his massacre was justified, but if you fail in the all important business of government/governance by playing politics with populist slogans than in an unstable nation such as Bangladesh there can be serious consequences.
To be sure Mujib was dealt a bad hand between 1972--1975, in charge of a nation which had just experienced a genocidal war by the Pakistan army, and which had also for good measure destroyed much of the country's infrastructure. To be sure the American's didn't like his Socialist populist credentials, withholding vital food supplies from the USA which led to the famine of 1974-75, and Kissinger the Jew seemed to have a personal grudge against Mujib. BUT within such challenging situations a Third World nation can survive.
1. Mujib should have stopped making populist speeches, and got on with the business of actually running the country..........it was no longer 1971.
2. Mujib should have got rid of or reigned in corrupt family members and cronies. Mujib should have brought in more effective technocrats from outside his party and given them free reign to make his administration more effective. He was in a bad situation and he should have reach out to the whole nation for help.
3. Mujib should have been more honest with his Indian mentors and benefactors and kept them abreast of what was actually going on in Bangladesh, especially highlighting the countries challenges and problems in written trancripts point by point by point and sought help from India in those areas, WHERE POSSIBLE...........for FUCK sake a little bit of honest talking between friends REGULARLY can solve a lot of problems and embarrassment in the future.
4. Mujib should have avoided entering International gesture politics which would have serious repercussions for him........showing overt friendship towards Castro's Cuba which in the sum total of things brought no real gains for Bangladesh. Sending free Tea to Egypt for the boys in the 1973 war, which must have wound up a few Jews in Washington, but no real benefits for Bangladesh save a return free gift of 30 T-54 tanks from Egypt, which were ironically used by the military against Mujib and his assassination.
5. Still giving aggressive rhetorical speeches and interviews in the international media, and especially BBC. If you are the leader of a Third World country the better policy is to always remain calm and SMILE. Proactive First World nations, with pretensions to empire like their Third World leaders passive and smiling (The crook Zardari)..........."Yessa Massa, I is a good little boy". On the other hand smiling, being polite and non-aggressive in public does not prevent you from being a good effective Sher Shah type leader. Mujib=Hot air. Bark worse than the bite. North Korea gets away with it only because they are backed clearly and overtly by China.........there is no ambiguity in the relationship between the two.
6. Mujib should have recognised the animosity of the USA, and especially Kissinger towards him and taken counter measures through India.
These factors above have very little to do with India. It is a sorry shoddy state when one begins to blame ones number one benefactor for the fundamental failings of BANGLADESHI LEADERS in their country first and foremost. It then becomes a denial and an inability see the real causes of the failings of Bangladeshi leadership and government/governance originally. A failure to deeply reflect.
On the other hand India isn't exactly Norway, where the level of government/governance is premier IPL league. India itself certainly in the 1970's, and still now has many challenges. There fore one must not expect the earth from such a poor regime.
So what is to be done to move things forward between the two nations?
The $1 billion cash help for Bangladesh is a good indicator and a sign of the level of commitment by India towards Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a priority number 7 country for Indian foreign policy, behind the USA, UK, France, Japan, Russia, and China. That is not logical. The list looks unrealistic and meaningless, as if someone with a BA in foreign relations looked at the world map and quickly jotted down the list of the most important countries on earth. Bangladesh should be priority number 4 country at least FOR INDIA, for a variety of reasons.
Bangladesh has 150 million people which is almost surrounded by India. 20 million "Bangladeshis" already live in India creating a significant demographic impact in Assam and West Bengal especially. Millions more Bangladeshis will be settling in India in the future. This alone is a good enough reason for India to raise the diplomatic priority of the country from the current status to number 4. That reason is not a glamorous or even exciting reason, but pragmatically for good home keeping reasons in her neighborhood India needs to pay more attention to Bangladesh, which is not sporadic but systemic with a national coordinated action plan involving the MEA, Home and Defense Department even.
I would like to see a FTA between India and Bangladesh. A complete across the board FTA.
Would like to see Bangladesh export gas to India, which makes up for the loss of contract in Myanmar recently, AND which evens out the huge trade imbalance between the two countries.
Would like to see a total visa waver between the two countries. When you have 20 million "Bangladeshis" living in India already, and many more millions to come regardless of greater security and fences, then what exactly is the point of having visa's. To catch bad people?
50--60% of the total undergraduate pool in Bangladesh study in India. That is a huge "soft power" leverage which India enjoys over Bangladesh. Can India and the Department of Education take that to another level?
Would it not be useful and wonderful if the security of the two countries came closer together, a blue print for greater cooperation between SAARC nations in the future.
Presently 100 cadets pass out yearly from the army in Bangladesh. two of the best are sent to Sandhurst, and the UK has military personnel stationed permanently in Bangladesh. I want to see that over turned. I would like to see 10 of the best cadets from Bangladesh going to India yearly to Dehra Dun instead, in addition to other bilateral training packages for qualified officers. I would like to see Indian officers stationed in Bangladesh in a permanent advisory capacity, which sidelines and eliminates the presence of foreign military advisers from other countries........THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGIC INITIATIVE FOR INDIA IN BANGLADESH GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY, AND THE ROLE OF THE MILITARY. Through a variety of comprehensive initiatives the Bangladesh military needs to be brought into India's sphere of influence permanently and forever. The Awami League government with its 90% parliamentary majority can easily deliver on this. But that one must be wary that such an initiative will take time.
To reinforce this India must provide Bangladesh with yearly military aid of $300 million (1% of India's defense), so that comprehensively Bangladesh's weapons systems are locked into India's indigenous arms manufacturing base. India must also conduct yearly military exercises with Bangladesh paid for by India; one year in India, the next in Bangladesh. Finally India might want to think about how to integrate Bangladesh's military into India's Eastern Command structure......in the future, under a bilateral military Treaty.
Much the same advice for goes for Indian cooperation and integration with the various intelligence outfits of Bangladesh with their quaint Anglocized names; DGFI, NSI, MI. The same with Bangladesh police. The same with the Bangladesh Civil Service.
India has the resources, but requires the will and a clear game plan. India needs to cease being RAW "clever" with Bangladesh, and quickly integrate the country into India at all levels, which clearly benefit both countries. If Bangladesh fails India also fails initially in West Bengal and Assam at least with 10's of millions more refugees....this can be avoided if India is proactive in this sphere with the right attitude.
Bureaucrats with the wrong attitude on both sides with hidden spoiler tactics can be summarily executed if caught with such games(RSS/Islamist tendency bureaucrats)
_____________________________________
With Pranab visit, India signals changed approach to Bangladesh
Indrani Bagchi of The Times of India.
India will signal its seriousness in engaging Bangladesh with a special gesture: finance minister Pranab Mukherjee will personally go to Dhaka on Saturday to sign a $1 billion credit agreement, the largest package that India has ever given to any country.
Mukherjee's personal appearance is deemed crucial because PM Manmohan Singh wants to send an important message to its eastern neighbour, that Bangladesh is very high on the priority list.
This signal is important because there has been speculation lately that Bangladesh was unhappy about the slow progress in bilateral matters after the visit of Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina.
Mukherjee is expected to meet the foreign and finance ministers in Dhaka as well as have a one-on-one meeting with the PM herself, before returning on Saturday night. He will announce a gift of 3 lakh tonnes of rice, but much more important, will tell the Dhaka government that India is ready to schedule a meeting of the joint boundary working group after the Eid festival.
The boundary negotiations involve a "package" agreement including demarcation of the 6.1 km disputed border, enclaves and adverse possession in an all-in-one deal. "That means progress is necessarily slow," said an official.
On the other hand, the joint river commission has even exchanged ideas on Teesta water sharing with Bangladesh giving a draft memorandum of understanding and India a set of principles. Within both documents lie the contours of an agreement, said sources.
In a related sector, Bangladesh and India have now agreed to conduct dredging on the Ichchamati river as well as build embankments which was a no-no earlier.
But Indian officials are most bullish about the prospect of cooperation in the power sector. After Bangladesh succeeded in getting an electric cable under the Tin Bigha corridor to power up the Dahagram and Angarpota enclaves, NTPC is working on a joint venture with Bangladesh for thermal power projects in Chittagong and Khulna. Bangladesh has been hesitating on Chittagong, and Mukherjee will attempt to convince the leadership that the project would be on the lines of the one executed in Sri Lanka recently.
At 1,320 mw, Indian officials said the Bangladesh JV is much bigger than Sri Lanka's project. An agreement has also been signed with Power Grid Corporation which will ultimately see Bangladesh connecting to the Indian power grid. India has committed to providing 250 mw of power, but after the interlocking of the grid, the amount could be higher.
On the Meghalaya border, the governments have finally selected two border "haats" which will be inaugurated soon.
The difficulty with all of these is that since they involve big infrastructure works, results will only show up a couple of years later. In the interim, there is need to pick some low hanging fruit -- India had allowed 8 million pieces of garments duty free, a quota that Bangladesh has used up. So this offer will be repeated.
For Bangladesh, the new engagement with India is desirable but it wants to see quick results. For its part, India has only now made the mental changeover to a relationship that is not based on reciprocity, a governing principle for India's neighbourhood diplomacy for all these years.
"We have to hold Bangladesh's hand, and do it publicly," said a senior official. With Mukherjee's visit, India is hoping Bangladesh will understand that India wants to do just that.
