asianaffairs

Forming friends from foes?

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s imminent visit to Bangladesh is an ideal opportunity for Delhi and the BNP to forge warmer bonds than they have hitherto enjoyed, writes Kuldip Nayar.

By Kuldip Nayar

ALTERED IMAGE: Sheikh Hasina, known for her liberal stand, is now taking steps that are restricting individual freedoms

When the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), headed by Begum Khalida Zia, was in power, its foreign minister Murshed Khan complained about the fact that India had made up with Dhaka only when Sheikh Hasina's party, the Awami League, was in power. His reference was to the Farakka Barrage water treaty, under which India agreed to release more water during the lean period in Bangladesh. I told him that his party always took an anti-India stand and that the inclination of New Delhi to give concessions when the Awami League was at the helm of affairs was natural, but he stuck to his assertion that India should deal with Bangladesh as a country, not with any particular political party.

However far-fetched Mr Murshed Khan's accusation of bias was, there is a general impression in Bangladesh that India is closer to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina than it was to opposition leader Khalida Zia. This is natural because, during Zia's regime, Bangladesh became a haven for anti-India elements and pro-Pakistan terrorists. All Naga undergrounds and militants from Manipur operated from Bangladeshi soil. Even when India pointed this out to Begum Zia's government, it did not act.

In spite of all this, Murshed Khan has a point. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should keep this in mind during his forthcoming visit to Bangladesh, where he will be signing a series of agreements with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for formulizing closer cooperation. It should not look as if India is doing everything because Sheikh Hasina is the prime minister.

This is also an opportunity for the BNP to shed its anti-India sentiments and change its stance from enmity to friendship, because that will be beneficial for Bangladesh. For example the agreement on transit routes is a win-win situation for both countries, yet the BNP prefers to call the route an 'Indian security corridor'. Concessions given to Delhi at the Chittagong port will earn Dhaka a substantial amount of revenue, apart from the fact that it will import goods from India at a lower cost, thus avoiding the circuitous route of rail and road. New Delhi should also try to reach out to the BNP, which is the only opposition party that will take over if and when the Awami League loses at the polls. The first test will be the country's next general election, due within the next two years. The Awami League is rapidly losing ground because, among many things, it has changed the constitution to delete the provision for a caretaker administration.

In fact, the Awami League should realize that it would not have had a landslide victory in the 2008 elections, which were fair and free, if there had not been a caretaker government. The hostile reaction of the BNP to New Delhi is understandable. But the party would commit hara-kiri if it were to boycott the next polls. The people of Bangladesh have developed a democratic temperament and they are mature enough to choose their ruler, even if there is no caretaker government. Therefore, the BNP's call to boycott the next election is uncalled for.

However, it is unfortunate that Sheikh Hasina, known for her liberal stand, is taking steps that are restricting individual freedom and free expression. The statement by Mahmudur Rahman, a newspaper editor who served Khalida Zia, that he was 'tortured, handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped naked and starved' is telling and brings no laurels to Sheikh Hasina's government. Nor does Hasina do any service to her father, Bango bandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, by having bank notes issued with his portrait. He does not have to be built up because, as the father of the nation, he enjoys the position that no other person can claim. His sacrifices and the suffering that he and his family went through would always stir a response in the people of Bangladesh to follow his ideals. Any attempt to have his picture everywhere is simply crude and gives the impression that he needs to be publicized. This is not fair to either him or to millions of his followers.

That the BNP leaders, especially Zia's son, Tarique Rahman (another Sanjay Gandhi), indulged in corrupt practices and made money is no longer a secret; Sheikh Hasina's government has meticulously uncovered many instances of fraudulent activities involving the party. But charges of corruption were also brought out by the caretaker government against the Awami League's leaders. Both should be treated in the same way, yet one gets the impression that even the law courts are dropping the cases against the Awami League whilst pursuing them vigorously against the BNP.

A recent survey has shown that Sheikh Hasina still commands the majority of opinion. The nation still has not given up hope that she will deliver what she had promised before her party's decisive victory. But more and more people are taking to the streets, angry that they can see no improvement in their lot despite the country's growth of seven per cent per year. Instead of combating hunger, Sheikh Hasina is resorting to methods that are worryingly anti-democratic. She should learn a lesson from India, where people's resentment against the government has taken the shape of a country-wide protest. Unfortunately, Bangladesh is not embedded in a culture of non-violent demonstrations, which India has followed since Mahatama Gandhi showed how freedom could be won without firing a shot

top