In politics and diplomacy there are so many things which need a reasonable extent of power of understanding, power of digestion and power of delivery as and when required with a forward-looking vision and mission, which cannot be well understood and foreseen momentarily. A statement either in the form of political fiction, or of diplomatic fiction, or of war fiction, or even of strategic fiction is a part and parcel of statecraft. That’s why, when a statesman or a head of government of a free and sovereign state utters words, formally or informally, on matter of another free and sovereign state, that should definitely be looked into and weighed not with mere impulse, emotion and romanticism, but with much attention and care in the contents and contexts of the bi-lateral relations, and of regional and international landscapes. This is an unavoidable necessity for the sake of present and future at the same time not being oblivious of the past, prickly or friendly, because past in term of time may be lost but it remains alive as a possible guide, friend and philosopher in the light of cause(s) and affect(s) i.e. events and feedbacks.
With all these in true perspectives, it is better to have a look at the recent comments of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who during his formal talks with some senior journalists of India on 29 June 2011 made few comments on Bangladesh that include, inter alia, a hint of possible change of government at any time in Bangladesh because of the existence and continuous activities of Islamic militants supported by Pakistan’s ISI, growing strength of Jamaat-e-Islami having meanwhile twenty five percent popular supports in its fold. Such comments, outside the ambits of the governments of Bangladesh and India, evoked a storm of criticisms almost at the equal waves, attitudes and lengths, although a kind of very mild and delicate response (not reaction at all) amounting to non-protest were also voiced by two senior ministers---one is ruling party secretary general and minister for LGRD Syed Ashraful Islam and the other being minister for agriculture Begum Matia Chowdhury--- of Hasina administration.
Further complications arose when such comments were placed in the official website of the PM’s secretariat. Such act of the PMs Secretariat added more viable and authenticated logic and rationale that India wanted to focus it widely and she has done so aptly by this time. Later on 02 July 2011 in the face of storm of criticisms at home and abroad, the comments were withdrawn from the website without giving any clarification or elaboration on it. Thereafter, India’s External AffairsMinistry spokesman in a brief claimed that the comments were made ‘off the record’, even though the PM did not make it clear to the journalists that he was making or made the comments ‘off the record’. Such mysterious evasion of explanation was demonstrated again when Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna who during his three-day visit to Bangladesh from 6-8 July 2011 met the editors of leading newspapers and electronic media at hotel Sonargaon in the very evening of the first day of tour. In reply to a question on this issue Krishna said ‘I had a meeting with the prime minister three days ago and the PM has conveyed in unequivocal terms of his affection for the people and leaderships of Bangladesh’ adding further ‘There is no reservation on the part of India and its people about relations with Bangladesh. There is no factor, which limits our relationship. Sky is the limit of our relations with Bangladesh’ (Delhi Wants More Ties with Dhaka, Krishna met media editors, Daily Star, 7 July 2011). Later in the following afternoon during the joint press conference of the two foreign ministers, he terming India-Bangladesh ongoing relations as a ‘role model’ that might be inspiring for others simply responded to a question on the same saying ‘the comment was made informally’, which again referred to ‘off the record’ without any explanation at all.
And relevantly, under the given circumstances, the concepts of ‘off the record’ and ‘on the record’ deserve to be touched upon at the minimum. In fact, ‘off the record’ implies that a) the matter should be confined to the persons to whom it is addressed and b) therefore, it is not for the purpose of publication or of quotation. ‘On the record’ means necessarily that the matter is for the purpose of publication, or of quotation and any or all of them to whom it is told is or are in a position to disclose, publish or quote it freely whenever he or they feels or fell so. Therefore, ’off the record’ is the reverse standing of ‘on the records’. The carnal point of difference lies not in proving the truthfulness or substantiality of the statement or comment but in the frame of passing so. ‘Off the records’ is, thus, a statement or comment made on condition of ‘not be published, or not be quoted’. To be more specific and sanguine, a comment or statement without being called a kind of ‘off the records’ before or during or even after its passing to the target group cannot later be claimed as ‘off the records’ Hence, the similarity between the two is simple and straight i.e. the comments or statements carry almost same weight and value conveying a message to those who concern it while the difference between them lies in their being ‘off the record’ and ‘on the record’.
Inquisitive minds may not like to refrain from the asking that had the PM’s made comments ‘off the record’, why should the same be put ‘on the record’ in the PM’s secretariat official website? Is it a combination of the ‘off the record’ and ‘on the records’, a development or a new innovation in this field that can rightly be held as an ‘on hybrid records’? Such asking indeed cannot be washed away in such a dubious manner.
My former attachment with Jatiyo Party as its international, publicity and publication secretary exceeding a decade opened a big horizon before me to cultivate, garner and store so many things in national, bilateral, regional and international perspectives having India in mind as one of the topmost priorities since then. Long before that, amusingly enough, I had golden opportunities as a special correspondent of the then weekly New Nation, now a daily, to take exclusive interviews of the then leading Indian political leaders and statesmen such as Indira Gandhi (New Nation, 23 September 1979), Charan Singh, Jagjiban Ram (New Nation, 06 September 1981) and Jyoti Basu (for External Services of Radio Bangladesh in May, 1985), which, to speak the truth, generated a great interest in me to learn more about India and her leaderships. I am still roaming and storing, and hope to continue intimately. Therefore, to me, the comment of the incumbent Primer is neither a mirage (as many hypercritic so holding) nor it is sans a meaning /message, immediate or distant, at all.
After the dissection of the concepts of ‘off the record’ and ‘on the record’ let us now see the standing of the PM of India while making a comment or statement in a formal meeting or sitting. He might have done this guardedly having all the matters in right and pragmatic direction in India’s perspective. One must take a note thoughtfully that the prime minister of India is not away from all necessary documents based on studies, researches, data and analyses showing alternative routes and determinations being made and passed to him regularly or for certain purpose through dependable channels and pipelines covering, inter alia, RAW and External Affairs Ministry; therefore, it should not be called a ‘mirage’ as many critics, former diplomats and a class of intelligentsia in Bangladesh and India prefer so and apparently they might have had enough pleasure in doing so as if they were in a victorious position and the prime minister of India, who is widely acclaimed as a man of knowledge and experience with less emotion and caprice, is exactly undermined and defeated.
In Bangladesh’s context, the comment, whether it was ‘off the record’ or ‘on’ or ‘on hybrid record’ it is well-perceived and digested that it has a probative force to convey an apparent message to those to whom it is meant. It’s a message to Bangladesh leaderships, ruling and oppositions, those terrorism in particular Islamic fundamentalist groups are still very active here and a change of government is a kind of music of politics depending on time, space and dimension.
Therefore, for the Hasina administration it carries a package of messages, which may as follows be viewed:
That she is to go a long thoroughfare to combat threats and challenges and she may not be successful at the current rate of national drives rather a comprehensive bi-lateral, not regional drive is unavoidable. Therefore, message is clear that India being a big neighbour with more capabilities and capacities should or can come forward with renewed vigour and manner as the widely claimed sub-continental power to stand by Bangladesh. What is the decisive point to be earmarked is that still there lays a close connection between SIS and those militant forces in Bangladesh, not the question to what extent the existence and activities of Pakistan’s secret service intelligence network is mobile here under the changing circumstances.
Because one cannot but take a realistic note of the Pakistan defence minister’s current statements and affirmation that India is nowadays more powerful than Pakistan and if there is any war between the two, Pakistan can stand and last only 22-25 days maximum whereas India holds the strength to continue at least 45 days. He also disclosed the truth that Pakistan could not afford to equip herself with most modern and sophisticated instruments for war to race with India because of the size of latter’s budget, population, economic growth and proliferations. With all these a comprehensible memorandum has been unfolded before the world in general and the countries in south Asia in meticulous that the ‘balance of power in the sub-continent is now strongly tilted in favour of India’. This is also a manifested geo-political reality that Pakistan is faced with insurmountable horns of dilemmas both internally and externally. Uninterrupted shelter to late Osama Bin Laden at a place adjacent to the defence zone added further crisis to her with USA and its allies in the west predominantly. Age-old allegations against her by India on a number of issues including the terrorist attack on the hotel ‘Taj Mohal’ at Mumbai causing damage to it and killing and hurting miserably many innocent boarders have come to light documentarily. Use of ‘China card’ is no more effective under the changing scenario since the ‘epoch-making visit’ of Rajib Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, in 1989. Actually, Pakistan’s use of ‘China card’ was never a photo-reflection of reality in the three wars took place between India and Pakistan respectively in 1962, 1965 and 1971. Moral and verbal supports might be a source of inspiration but it can never be the sole factor to win in the field, war or not war. Reality must be met with reality and Pakistan’s leaderships are now aware of such misuse of ‘China card’. China-Pakistan relations are no more viewed and weighed aimed principally at India. Emerging winds move more or less to the directions of necessity and veracity
The very question of territorial integration because of the chronic movements coupled with extreme violence in many forms and proliferations for separation in various provinces in Pakistan has been challenged gravely pushing the central government towards more weak and vulnerable position. Today there is a billion dollars question even in the minds of the people of Pakistan that’ who runs Pakistan? Truncated Pakistan in 1971 through the birth of Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, has every possibility and risk of being truncated again in near future. Hence, its role in Bangladesh has now come down to a minimum level during the early phase of the incumbent Hasina Government and it can hardly be geared up with renewed packages in near future at all. It is also to be noted that since the partition in 1971 Pakistan has not yet exhibited any substantial sort of sincerity and willingness to settle her outstanding issues with Bangladesh. But what she did, and continues to do all the time with a great care and commitment was to extend whole-hearted supports to Bangladesh on its matters with India, which, virtually yielded a little for Bangladesh. Today on any cost and account, Pakistan cannot afford a time for others even if such move(s) apparently or in the long run add dividends to her accounts
On the same scale and mathematics Bangladesh- China relations are going through a process of change and continuity that may be toasted, as many fear, following rapidly developing relations with India. China’s policy to Bangladesh mainly rotates around her trades and commerce, thus, a broader market for Chinese products in the form of supplier’s credits. Chinese policy and diplomacy thereto, apart from government to government relations, emphasises largely party to party contacts, people to people contacts( attention to my article ‘Diplomacy Track 111: Bangladesh Perspective’, Daily Star, 18 September 1996). Political supports or engagements hardly put her market interests in jeopardy. Bangladesh must be vigilant constantly so that Bangladesh-India relations are not measured or influenced by India-China relations and the outstanding issues between them. Need not be a sandwiched or misunderstood any more. Why China did not recognize Bangladesh before 15 August 1975 and why she gradually developed her relations with AL are all not without reasons. China’s coming forward to Bangladesh after the change-over of 15 August 1975 opened a door of formal ties with Bangladesh. Over the period of time she also developed relations with other political parties including AL, which was formally launched in 1994 through Hasina’s, then leader of the opposition in the fifth Parliament, visit to China at the invitation of the Communist Party of China.
India-USA relations--after the departure of USSR from one of leaderships of the then bi-polar world converting the world straight way into a unipolar standing under the uni leadership of USA--are now on a formidable track putting an end to the days of pre-Rajib stretching the periods from Nehru to Indira to other successive governments to Rajib Gandhi. Right or wrong, or whether we agree or not, today it is widely well-recognized internationally that India is a sub-continental power and USA officially confirmed it on several occasions starting from the days of the then US Prescient Jimmy Carter’s visit to India in 1978. With this in right perspective, further message is: let Hasina Government decide the matters in close consultation and cooperation with India that ultimately invites more and more engagements of India in this regard..
It’s a message to Hasina administration to settle under the cover of ‘connectivity’ in the end the matters in issue mostly the thorny issues relating to transits, trans-shipments, corridor etc. between the two governments as early as possible preferably before PM’s scheduled visit to Bangladesh on 6 September 2011.There is no denying the fact that India’s concerns and targets are now for the most part concentrated to her safe passage to the eastern part of India called ‘Seven Sisters’. It is a strong belief of the policy and decision makers of India in the south bloc, in particular, the ruling Congress, that both as a party in opposition and a party in power Al always stand by India even showing and establishing sacrifices in some vital matters in the name and necessity of synthesis of national interests and broader cooperation in regional compacts. There is a very strong perception even in India that Hasina government within two years of rule did to the best of her capacity and capability--even in some respects taking a considerable risk politically--for India which she could have done gradually taking much care of Bangladesh’s interests and now the ball is in the court of India to show and prove her sincere commitments to Bangladesh.
It’s a message to Hasina government that in case of a tug of cold war between India and USA in the days ahead of on the points of growing engagements in Bangladesh, let India shall not be overtaken by USA because of Bangladesh’s unpredictable role (an apprehension prevails in the minds of those who matter in running India that in the name of national interests or of party’s political standing, even AL may be in a position to play an unpredictable role). Therefore, in a nutshell, the comments whisper to Hasina Government that if she does otherwise in that case her overall standing; political strength and acceptability at home also deserve to be refocused and recast by India in due course of time.
With the end of Krishna’s three-day visit to Bangladesh--- perhaps the concluding one at the high profile before the grand visit of the Indian PM Manmohan Singh to Bangladesh on 6 September 2011--- through striking here a few important protocols and agreements in right mission and direction, it is understood that India is happy and relaxed enough at the performance of Hasina administration and he, also a veteran politician and associate of late Indira Gandhi, could but observe and note that India-Bangladesh ongoing relations can be treated as a ‘role model’ for others. Whether it is a role model or it continues so in the coming days being a role model for others remains to be tasted and tested. Let us hope for the best.
It’s a message to the political parties other than AL in Bangladesh on the possible grounds as under:
Today, it is very much realised by the policy and decision makers in India that she requires Bangladesh leaderships, ruling or opposition, to side with her, overtly or covertly under all the circumstances. Indo-phobic Bangladesh at the mass level and India friendly Bangladesh at the government level have been in force for decades ; but this frame needs to be restructured and rationalised for future of India; for that reason, India should pursue policy of understanding not only with AL but also with all other political parties covering BNP and Jamaat pointedly giving due and reasonable weights to their emerging leaderships who were born after the birth of Bangladesh and who are well aware of overall changing national, bilateral, regional and international landscapes at the same time bearing in mind the standing and role of India in practice so that anti-India propaganda is brought down to a level or put to end without much delay. It is in the very analysis and detection of India that India’s role in the war of liberation of Bangladesh and aftermath has been distorted and misunderstood by those who consciously or unconsciously, politically or emotionally, paved the way for creating and nursing Indo-phobic Bangladesh, which have enormous effects on the new generation.
That’s why, party to party relations should be one of the priorities of India’ foreign policy while dealing with Bangladesh. Congress in particular shall not be blamed any more for being the only friend of AL rather its friendship is extended to other political parties in Bangladesh. Here Chinese policy of diplomacy track 1 to track V1 should be followed and applied duly and carefully. The benefits of using all the tracks together is that one track act as a balance to another track and in the final end relations anyhow survive instead of detachment or isolation.
If there is no consensus between or among the political parties on matters of India, let there at least be some avenues for India to minimise such matters through party to party channels, which must have positive effects in achieving it gains and targets.
Yes, such emerging pragmatic approach of India to Bangladesh and to its politics and political leaderships is a true departure from her age-old policy of continuing understanding with AL closing eyes diagonally to others. This is for the first time in the history of Bangladesh that a comment or statement of a key figure in the administration of India has been allowed to go unsounded by the political parties in the right or in the centre-right or in the extreme right who never prefer losing a chance to roar even on an insignificant issue. At the fag end of his three-day visit Krishna also called on the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament and BNP Chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia. Later at a press brief Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury, BNP Vice President, disclosed that during the talks Khaleda Zia emphasised on bringing out the agreements concluded between the two countries so that people might understand what exactly those contained. BNP’s stand, compared with the past, now seems to be very much formal and non-agitating.
India’s perception and stand of unilateral supports to AL is now under review and revision with a view to broadening its base of friends and allies taking into fold others who for a long were deemed to be a fort for generating and nursing Indo phobic Bangladesh at the mass level. Hence, the statement carries another message for them that India hardly cares who is in power or who is going to power here in Bangladesh and thus put an end to the widely perceived and digested political fiction(maxim)that says,’ India is a deciding factor in the politics and electoral race of Bangladesh. Well, with the visits of our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in 2010, of the agreements made during that time between Bangladesh and India followed by a series of bilateral visits and steps by the two governments till the date of departure of Indian foreign minister from Bangladesh on 8 July, 2011, perhaps the last trip of any high profile from India before Manmohan’s scheduled visit to Bangladesh on 6 September, 2011, in true perspective, well, let us see how the ball gets on rolling until the arrival of Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh.
[Dr .Sinha M. A. Sayeed, chairman of Leadership Studies Foundation, LSF, e-mail; sinha_sayeed611@yahoo.com]
No comments:
Post a Comment