BANGLADESH: Where is India in Dhaka’s New Foreign Policy?

BANGLADESH: Where is India in Dhaka’s New Foreign Policy?

Guest Column by Bhaskar Roy

According to Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Advisor Iftekar A. Choudhury Dhaka needs to cultivate relations with five key global powers i.e. the USA, Russia, UK, Japan and China. Choudhury was addressing a press conference in New York in October 2007. He was part of Chief Advisor Fakruddin Ahmed’s delegation attending the 62nd UN General Assembly session.

The Foreign Affairs Advisor also spoke about strengthening “balanced relationship” with the neighbouring nations and member states of SAARC, Bangladesh-India-Myanmar Science and Technological Co-operation (BIMSTECH). Developing linkages with the ASEAN, EU, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Commonwealth.

Earlier, speaking at a conference of OIC Foreign Ministers in New York, Iftekar Choudhury spoke about safeguarding the rights of Muslims where they were a minority and prevent unilateral actions against Muslims States.

During his visit to India earlier in the year, the suave, glib talking diplomat had charmed a number of Indian journalists, till they realized after his departure that he had sold them a cuckoo. Therefore, Choudhury’s statement calls for a very close reading. Choudhury’s personal inclinations are reportedly more western and Pakistan oriented, and his India directed foreign relations thoughts would call for greater clarifications. While he has no objection at all to western governments’ comments on Bangladesh’s internal political affairs, he took strong exception to an Indian minister’s observation that India hopes to see a free and fair elections in Bangladesh and emergence of a democratic, secular polity. Choudhury criticized the Indian comments as interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs.

Over the past 37 years since Bangladesh came into existence with no small assistance from India, the relationship between the two countries, at least at the political and diplomatic level have never been really smooth. During Bangladesh’s war of liberation, the Mujibnagar government (the liberation government) functioned from Kolkata (Calcutta). It was, therefore, inexplicable how relations between the two governments soured so quickly after 1971.

Sk. Mujibur Rehman, the Father of Bangladesh (nation) was not only deified in his own country but was also a hero in India. Unfortunately, he also contributed through his policies to certain developments which literally startled the Indians. Even then, New Delhi reposed faith in him. Some of Sk. Mujib’s policies ensured reduction of India’s space in Bangladesh which was filled in by those same forces that Bangladeshis fought against. According to some critics, India had only Pakistan (West and East) to contend with, but after the liberation of Bangladesh India had to be concerned with both Pakistan and Bangladesh. There is a lot of truth in this criticism in hindsight. According to an India Army officer who as a captain fought in the war and was present during Pakistan’s surrender ceremony in Dhaka, soon after the event they were faced by abuses on the streets like ‘Indian dogs, go back’. Some Bangladeshis, a small minority, still feel strongly that India should not have withdrawn its troops from Bangladesh so quickly. But Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did not want to lay India open to accusations of keeping an occupation army in Bangladesh.

Iftekar Choudhury’s foreign policy exposition in New York spoke about strengthening ‘balanced relationship’ with members of SAARC and BIMSTEC. The statement is open to wide interpretations. It has to be clarified if the word ‘balance’ was used in bilateral terms or multi-lateral framework of SAARC member states.

If ‘balanced’ is in bilateral terms, Bangladesh may have to answer a lot, and in a wide area of the relationship. The two countries share a 4000 km border, generally porous, unguarded in many segments, undemarcated in some areas with disputes over enclaves, and rampant smuggling. There are smugglers on both sides of the border that the border guards should be vigilant over. That is not happening because the goods smuggled are mainly from the Indian side and encouraged and facilitated from the other. It is, because, Bangladesh requires the Indian goods, especially basic foodstuffs and beef on hooves to keep their markets running.

More importantly, the earlier Director of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) Maj. Gen. Rezzakul Hyder accused India of being involved in the August 17, 2005 countrywide terrorist bombings in Bangladesh. As he spoke in India, he was promoted on his return home. Dhaka has also blocked the Asian highway coming from Myanmar through Bangladesh into India, something that BIMSTEC cooperation may suffer from. The list is long.

India continues with the ‘Gujral doctrine’ on relations with neighbours i.e. give more to neighbours who are smaller, and expect less. Bangladesh and India cannot run away from each other given the geographical position. The realistic position is Bangladesh cannot exclude India from its economic development but if does so it will be hurt, and so will India be to some extent. If Iftekar Choudhury advises his country to adopt the policy to cut its nose to spite its face, it would be unfortunate for all concerned.

If India is to be ‘balanced’ with the other members of the SAARC family, Mr. Choudhury would have to expand further on his postulation. Will India’s economic involvement be balanced with the others in Bangladesh? In that case Dhaka would have to brush up its mathematics. None of the other members of SAARC have the economic competitiveness and wherewithal as India. Even the Pakistani business establishment is pushing for more direct trade and economic relations with India, since they have to import Indian goods through Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai at a far higher cost.

Iftekar Choudhury may be thinking in terms of China as a SAARC member. China has just become an observer member of SAARC through the good offices of Bangladesh and Pakistan primarily. Trying to bring in China to counter India in Bangladesh may not be a good idea especially for Bangladesh. Encouraging competitiveness is good; fomenting contention is self –defeating. This is not ‘balance’.

Enhancing relationship with the ‘big five’ is a good idea. Bangladesh’s man power at a certain level has substantial intellectual property. What they need is opportunity to invest this property for the development of the country.

Bangladesh is still energy starved and supplementing through nuclear energy. Russia can step in here with good and cheaper reactors. Indigenously manufactured Chinese nuclear plants are substandard. One has only to ask Pakistan about it. But if Choudhury is looking to bring in international politics he must understand Bangladesh does not have the capability to manage such situations.

Obviously, Iftekar Choudhury had India in mind when he spoke about safeguarding the rights of Muslims where they are a minority. It is hardly thinkable that Bangladesh will take up issues with the USA, the UK or China. This zeros down to India, and Bangladesh has in the past criticized India on treatment of Muslim minorities.

Whether Iftekar Choudhury was playing to the OIC gallery or if he had something else on his mind is difficult to say. But basically from India’s point of view it was a mischievous statement. Where India is concerned people like Choudhury jump into the fray with alacrity if there is an opportunity. He must understand that the Muslim population in India is larger than that of Bangladesh, most of whom do not subscribe to his ideas. After this statement, Indians would wonder if Choudhury is supportive of Bangladeshi Islamic terrorists involved in several terror incidents in India.

The foregoing raises very serious questions. Is there a regret in some sections of Bangladeshi leadership i.e. bureaucrats, politicians, military personnel over the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan? Or are they still confused between “goolami” and nationalism? So only when they sort this out one could expect a smoother India-Bangladeshi relationship.