Understanding Khaleda Zia’s Visit to India

[This was published in the Daily New Nation on 30 October 2012]

At the invitation of the government of India (It was disclosed at a press brief by Begum Zia’s press secretary Maruf Kamal Sohel that ‘Begum Khaleda Zia was invited previously by Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and later by the then finance minister and now President Pranab Mukherjee and Indian foreign minister SM Krishna recently sent her a letter formally inviting her to visit New Delhi) BNP Chairperson, former Bangladeshi Prime Minister and leader of the opposition in the 9^th Parliament Begum Khaleda Zia’s ongoing week-long official visit to India, from 28 October to 3 November 2012, may be viewed as a sign of activist opening for paving a way to bridge the long standing Himalayan gap between BNP and India now being led by the Congress dominated UPA government. It’s indeed a comprehensive and exclusive expedition entailing, inter alia, wide range of talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Pranab Mukharjee and leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj. Centering this visit talks, debates and analyses--negative or positive or hybrid--are on in full swing both in Bangladesh and India. But the first and last words on all counts about the outcome of the visit are yet to be seen in the light of opportunities, prospects, necessities and realities depending on time, space and dimension. BNP, on the one hand, abandoning its old policy and music, perhaps, cannot promise to walk along the line of AL, which has already been in an ambush for not to yield any visible upshot even by giving roughly everything from Bangladesh’s standpoint and, on the other, India is until now not in a position to rely on BNP because of her experiences and lessons in the past. Nevertheless, marching towards confidence-building drive between them must be appreciated and encouraged in a wider political perspective.

There no denying the fact that based on the motto of party to party contacts India’s move towards expanding its political ties in Bangladesh beyond the boundaries of AL, a long time tested ally, is her new strategy in the context of time, space and dimension which may rightly be called India’s new strategic multi-level political engagements in Bangladesh. Today, she appears to be smart enough not to allow her so far pursued one-track rigid stand and emotion go in a reckless mode and fashion while taking note of Bangladesh as a whole where China and Pakistan formidably envelop the rightist bloc with BNP taking the lead. Reality tells her to comprehend and wrap up that there must be a compromise between India doctrine denoting establishing and upholding supremacy of India over the states in the region and Gujrul’s doctrine conveying in unequivocal terms that big state with a forward-looking bent of psyche and vision should take notes of the issues and interests of small neighboring states or else she cannot generate confidence and love in the minds of the neighbor small states. Therefore, keeping alive big brotherly Indo phobic currents and trends are not compatible with expected and befitting roles and responsibilities that a big state like India should play.

Synthesizing these two doctrines into a single one putting the flavor and appeal of Gujrul’s doctrine at the centre is a matter of majestic acumen and intelligence that further calls for a comprehensive, updated and accommodative approach to the whole spectrum of foreign policy and relations, past and present, in the light of India’s national interests, real or fictitious, responsiveness to and responsibilities for neighbors,  bordering or not, so that process of mutual trust and confidence building may find real clues to move together anew with a true sense of  ‘sustainable foundation’. Here the centre point is what India feels to model her foreign policy to play a big state role in creating, augmenting, sustaining and ensuring peace and stability in the region. Growing India-China relations, viewed in different perspective and dimension, following the historic visit of Rajiv Gandhi to China between December 19- 23, 1988 is a tested paradigm of it.

In an era of globalized atmosphere no state, big or small, can afford to face its challenges and dilemmas at its own. Bi-lateral, regional and international understanding and cooperation are unavoidable on all counts. Now, realistically enough, national issues and problems speedily escalate and get knotted in the string of bi-lateral, regional and global formats. The days of unilateralism has been overshadowed by either bi-literalism or multi-literalism or by the both. India, perhaps, is ready to suit the very purposes because (a) she needs respect and recognition from the neighbor states since she has meanwhile emerged as one of rising powers in Asia and (b) to get such respect and recognition there is no alternative to her being responsive and responsible to the calls, necessities and realities of the small neighbor states, which broadly ask her to settle outstanding knots existing between her and them, bi-laterally or multi-laterally.

Can India settle the thorny issues case by case while dealing with Bangladesh? One may say yes and other may hold that it is not so easy to reach at a conclusion without taking note of the sentiments and stands of the people of the bordering states (provinces) concerned at home. Of late, ironically enough, realities appeared before her are (a) foreign relations with the bordering neighbor sovereign states, in particular in a federal or quasi-federal state like India, cannot be sole domain of concerns and interests of the central government. Therefore, centralized but coordinated sharing approach of foreign policy is a priori indeed and (b) on the question of national interest(s) bipartisanship/consensus between or among the major opposition political party/alliance in Parliament at the centre is very important in a dynamic, forward-looking foreign policy and the matter is more serious when a treaty needs to be rectified by Parliament. Because such rectification requires two-third-majority votes in Parliament, which is not usually possible for a party/alliance to hold in most of the cases. Unfortunately, the UPA government lacks such majority as well.

Hence, maximum care needs to be taken and ensured by the government of India before striking a treaty with any sovereign state keeping this fundamental in right perspective. India at this very moment is seriously disturbed and riddled with these problems at home while dealing pointedly with Bangladesh where the burning issues such as water share and implementation of treaties following the great signing of MOU in 2010 during the visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India. More shocking was the empty-handed, non-fruitful visit of Premier Manmohon Singh to Bangladesh from 9-11 September 2011. She carried a message of politico-diplomatic fiasco of Indian foreign policy towards Bangladesh because of non-cooperation of Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of Paschimbangla, who stood against Teesta water sharing treaty, While it took virtually four decades to formalize the mechanisms to put into practice the Mujib-Indira LBA of 1974 Treaty, nothing has moved since September 2011 when the relevant protocols were signed. There are diverse reports about the progress on the Indian side in this regard. The matter has not been placed to the Indian cabinet, apparently because of the position taken by Mamata Banerjee with regard to handing over of land to Bangladesh. There is as a result a "go slow" policy on the part of India constrained as well by the BJP opposition to the protocol.

It is strongly held by almost all quarters in both countries that Hasina government has lavishly done a lot for India even taking electoral risk to the highest water in the next elections to the 10^th Parliament. But, in return Bangladesh has virtually achieved nothing till the date. BNP is also beating the drum loudly saying that Hasina administration has succumbed to India and at present it is vulnerably following a recapitualistic foreign policy setting aside the interests of Bangladesh only for perpetuating its partisan goals.

In Bangladesh perspective, BNP with Bangladeshi nationalism on hand stands politically and ideologically opposed to AL with loose ties with India and strong ties with China, Pakistan and members of OIC. It did not miss to cash the grievances and angers, covert or overt, of the people in Bangladesh and uniquely started playing ‘India card’ to gain politically in national polls in meticulous. In support of this current BNP has a great privilege to use the oft-quoted aphorism ‘geography tells to us to be with India but history insists us on being away from India’, a crude reality that is standing as an Alps between these two neighbor states. 

It is also held here by pro-India political parties, NGOs, think-tanks and civil societies of various backgrounds, colors and dimensions that BNP is the leader of nursing, fostering, escalating and sustaining of Indo phobic Bangladesh at the mass level and so-called India friendly Bangladesh at government level. Pro-AL forces further cemented this current to reap the benefits of distrusts and negative approach of India to BNP. Definitely it worked, and still works, magnetically and mythically to widen chasm between India (mainly Congress) and BNP. India because of number reasons experienced on different occasions in the past is also of the impression that BNP’s stand to India is not friendly at all.

There are observations as well that BNP could not play pragmatically and mathematically in maintaining her relations with India. It chose to lean overenthusiastically towards Pakistan and China mostly closing eyes to India. Pakistan is currently almost a collapsible state and her defense forces are no more in a position to contest India for a long. BNP came to a realization not long that Pakistan, instead of solving her outstanding issues with Bangladesh, is mostly single-minded to back Bangladesh to stand and voice against India. To what extent do our national interests collide with Pakistan? One must agree that it is not so much at all directly. 

China, a rising global power, is, of course, an important strategic partner to Bangladesh. BNP-China relations is a fact without doubt, although in 2004 BNP led government on all a sudden, deviating from the long standing ‘One China policy’, permitted the opening of a Taiwanese office in Dhaka that the ministry of commerce claimed was a private sector agency devoted only to encouraging trade; in Taiwan, the office was loudly proclaimed as an official representative office able to issue visas and carry out other consular functions. China angrily protested that the move compromised Bangladesh’s one-China policy and the countries’ diplomatic relations in general, briefly recalling its ambassador for consultations. The matter did not proceed furthermore due to change of mind of Khaleda Zia in the face of strong protests by China. BNP did avert the catastrophe of tested relations with China readily this time.

China’s growing importance can be understood from her keen interests in the issues which specifically include (a) constructing a deep seaport at Sonadia, (b)the second Padma Bridge, (c)introducing an integrated communication system in the country and (d) establishing road and rail way links between Chittagong and Kunming. Here Hasina appears to be smarter, more forward-looking than Khaleda Zia.  Hasina strongly felt the necessity of building ties with China while Khaleda Zia preferred to keep distance from India in their respective stands. That is why Hasina availed herself the opportunity of visiting China as Leader of the Opposition in the 5^th Parliament in November 1993 at the invitation of CPC and thus initiated formal relations between AL and CPC. Coming back to Dhaka she told the waiting journalists at the Zia(now Shahajalal) International Airport that ‘China can play a positive role in Asia (visit author’s article ‘Sheikh Hasina’s Visit to China Seen in the Wider Political Perspective’, 5 February 1994, Daily Star).

Politics is not static and, therefore, it does not stay at a point for a long. It moves with time, space and dimension. What appears to be impossible today may be a case of possibility tomorrow. There is no permanent adversary and friend in international politics and relations. It is the national interests, necessities and compulsions that determine the possible course of actions depending on time, space and dimension that a state generally peruses. BNP now recognizes this evocatively, which has pointedly been reflected in the recently published write-up of Begum Khaleda Zia in the Strategic Analysis, Volume 36, Issue 5, 2012, titled ‘Bangladesh–India Relations: Opportunities and prospects’. The article is important on two standpoints at least. One is that it was written and published just few days before Khaleda Zia’s visit to India and the other is that it almost pointedly and markedly relates to the latest standing of BNP about India.

She wrote: ‘The relations between Bangladesh and India are important and have a strong historic basis. The prospects for these relations to grow in strength are indeed enormous if they are pursued for mutual benifit and with mutual respect. Our geographical proximity, cultural affinity and shared history should form the parameters of our relations.

The challenges that confront policymakers, as well as the general public, are mostly due to negative legacies that may have their roots in our colonial past, where both our people were victims of the divide and rule policies of the Colonialists. This has created a sense of fear and distrust. There are forces in both of our societies who have played, and continue to play, on this fear psychosis to perpetuate mutual suspicion and thereby keep us apart. It is therefore imperative that we work together to lay a new foundation on which to build strong, broad-based, durable and cooperative ties, free from the thinking of the past, and generate greater trust amongst our people.

In short, the need of the time is a changed mind set. I think the first step in that direction is to sit down and address all our outstanding issues and seek mutually acceptable solutions through free and open discussions. The major issues that agitate the public mind in Bangladesh are the sharing of the waters of our common rivers, killing of unarmed people in the border areas and the resolutions of our boundary issues, one of the legacies of our colonized past. We must, at the same time, take into account the security concerns on both sides of the border and ensure that none shall be allowed to use our territories against the interest of the other. Seeking solutions to these burning questions has to be a matter of top priority. 

In today’s post-ideological world, countries and governments are able to position themselves between what may appear to be conflicting goals without having to squander any of their perceived and real national interests. In any event, foreign policies and cross border relations cannot remain static; they need to be dynamic. Given our historical and geopolitical realities, there is no reason why India and Bangladesh cannot adapt to these realities in achieving their common goals. These goals can best be achieved if pursued in a transparent manner and for mutual gains. One also needs to focus on winning public confidence for the sake of sustainability and, importantly, pursue these goals in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The test of dynamism of a foreign policy and its success lies in its ability to resolve outstanding issues and irritants, not in keeping them alive’

She further noted empathetically ‘Unlike the issues that affect India’s relations with some of its other neighbors, the issues that involve Bangladesh are solvable. It is important to realize that any positive and mutually beneficial outcome to the issues that currently impact on good neighborly ties between Bangladesh and India can only generate favorable public opinion on both sides. The one thing that is needed most is genuine political will and an abiding interest in having a durable relationship and friendship based on transparency, mutual benifit and mutual respect. This is the overarching and the underlining factor’.

Claiming ‘Look East’ policy as one of the leading features of her government in 2001-2006( in fact, it was initiated during Hasina’ first regime in 1996--2001) she added: ‘this policy has brought rich dividends for all of us in terms of trade, economic integration and people to-people contacts. We now need to work to develop connectivity amongst us through a network of road, rail, air and sea lanes that will link South Asia with South East Asia and the Far East, all the way to China, Japan and Korea. The benifits from this cannot be overemphasized’

In conclusion she passed a message to the people of India saying: ‘My message for the people of India is one of friendship and understanding. Being immediate neighbors, we are destined to live with each other and we must do so in peace and harmony. We cannot mean any ill to each other; neither can we afford any malice between us. We must learn from our rich cultural heritage, enhance people to people contact, work to resolve our differences and generate greater trust amongst our people. Sustained and open dialogue and discussions for our mutual interest and benefit should form part of the very core of our relationship. At the same time, respect for each other’s independence and sovereignty must be all-pervasive’.

Keeping the domestic limitations of the foreign policy of India in true perspective what can India exactly offer to Bangladesh at this very moment given the fact that Khaleda Zia, during her visit to India as well may give her word to walk roughly along the same line of Hasina on many an issue? Outright reply is, perhaps, nothing at all is promising and mutually rewarding (might be rewarding for India) at this moment. Therefore, if both AL and BNP from their respective platforms are not up to snuff to achieve the goals and national interests of Bangladesh then the inquiry of being pro-India shall not remain a driving force in the politics of Bangladesh. In that case Hobson’s choice for Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda is to sit together to have a common approach to India, or else called Bangladesh approach to India, so that India feels meaningfully that the days of getting unilateral dividends making and keeping busy AL and BNP against each other are over and time is matured enough to look into everything from the standpoints of mutual dividends honestly, realistically and transparently. Furthermore, both Hasina and Khaleda should give thought on devising ways and means to pursue ‘Two India policy’ one for Indian bordering states aimed at establishing understanding and friendship with the people there particularly so that they may as well understand the necessities and calls of the people of Bangladesh and other for the central government of India as a whole. It must be ensured that such policy towards the former may not be a source of misunderstanding between Bangladesh and the central government of India.