Khaleda Zia’s visit to India is not pointless even for AL

[This was published in the Dhaka Courier on 16 November 2012]

Highly talked-about visits of Jatio Party Chairman and former President HM Ershad, long time ally of India, and BNP chairperson, former Prime Minister and leader of the opposition in the 9^th Parliament Begum Khaleda Zia, emerging ally of India from its fold of long time anti-Indian stance, to India took place at the invitation of the government of India under its newly initiated strategic policy of ‘engagement with Bangladesh’s democratic and multi-party polity’ in place of one track approach to continue with Awani League. Ershad visited India between 10-18 August  while Khaleda Zia did so from 28 0ctober to 03 November 2012.

Substantially enough, to understand the weight and feedback of Khaleda Zia’s tour overview of Ershad’s tour may be a useful adding up. It is believed that Ershad’s visit was mostly a kind of renewal and reassertion of his ties with India where his grievances leading to widening chasm between Jatio Party and ruling AL and his next possible course of standing to face the upcoming elections to 10^th Parliament might have dominated the deliberations. Ershad, returning home from India, has been behaving in a baffling manner as if the golden key to going to power is at the moment in his hand. Ershad, an unpredictable personality in the politics of Bangladesh with a characteristic of CMLA (cancelation of my last announcement), is currently frantic enough to sit in the chair of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. He senses that he is now 85 and, hence, he candidly confesses that age may not allow him to continue for a long. Therefore, the coming elections may be the last one in his life.

To suit the purpose, he has meanwhile declared to contest all the three hundred seats in Parliament standing on its own alone without being a party to any alliance. On 11 November he said at a meeting of Jatio Party that very soon he would quit the ruling grand alliance through holding a grad congregation of five lacs people at Dhaka. But the irony of the fate of Jatio Party is that Jatio Party has to meet with the certainty again that Ershad cannot be away from practicing of the music of CMLA. It is a crude reality for CMLA Ershad that Jatio Party, if the present organizational standing and political strategy remain static too, shall have to continue as a party to an alliance whether it is AL-led or BNP-led.

Yes, his dream of becoming Prime Minister may come to true if he is in a position to ensure at least sixty seats for Jatio Party being a party to any alliance, which will definitely make him the deciding factor in forming a government. From this standpoint his visit to India was not meaningless to be sure, although there is a sense of relaxation in AL that Ershad being committed ally of India cannot be outside the sphere of AL, the most dependable ally of India. But to make it meaningful at home he has to be determined, uncompromising and target-oriented all the way. What India can do if he himself is fond of practicing CMLA being not serious enough to put Jatio Party on a strong footing in reality to prove his bargaining strength to an alliance?  

But on all counts politically and organizationally, Ershad and Khaleda Zia are not on equal standing because BNP and AL have made their presence as alternative government in today’s Bangladesh. Under the changed scenario Khaleda Zia, leader of the rightist bloc in Bangladesh with anti-Indian stance because of its upholding national interests in its own mode of interpretations is more coveted for and acceptable to India.

Khalada Zia’s visit to India, for all practical purposes, may be split into part one and part two. Part one relates to the end of the visit and part two is a matter of implementation of the pledges made by the parties concerned from their respective stations. Again, part two asks for two phases. One is its role from the seat of opposition which is ‘now’ while the other is its role from the seat of power which is ‘future’. To comply with the pledges falling within the fold of ‘now’ is really challenging on all counts and weights for the reason that if BNP moves for striking any overnight U-turn policy to India then the possibility of risking vote-bank in the right wing may be reality Misunderstanding and suspicions may also breed and shoot up between or among the parties to the alliance.

Whether BNP should make U-turn right now or it should rather go for softening its stance at the initial phase all these relate to BNP’s capacity and capability to convince and soak up the parties to the alliance where presence of anti-India segments is notably countable. For BNP it’s a standing of catch-22 sustainable synchronization of which calls for a visionary, forward-looking political leadership. If not, edifice of grand alliance may face the blast of falling apart in the end. Likewise, calculated and guarded attention and care is needed so that BNP-China relations and BNP-Pakistan relations are not affected due to marching and developing of BNP-India relations. All the best, to move with time, space and dimension it is better for BNP to take note of  the paradigm of growing India-China relations, which was initiated through the historic visit of the then Indian Premier Rajiv Gandhi to China  in 1988. Hence, India and BNP rapport is a call of time. Therefore, the visit is important for AL as this will bring BNP and AL closer to understand India more profoundly at the same time enabling them to move towards a common approach to India in the context of time, space and dimension.

Ruling AL’s observations and interpretations of the visit are not only attention-grabbing but also confusing and malevolent wherefrom it is difficult to draw an easy finale as they largely lacked coherence and symmetry. Few examples may be illustrative in this regard.

 While speaking at the Jail Killing Day discussion on 03 November at Dhaka AL Advisory Council Member Amir Hossain Amu MP questioned the purpose of the visit toting up ‘To whom you (Khaleda) begged pardon? This is only the countrymen to whom you have to beg pardon for your political misdeeds, not to others”. Therefore, Khaleda Zia’s surrender to India is important, not pointless even for AL.

Terming the visit important, AL General Secretary and LGRD Minister Syed Ashraful Islam said ‘Awami League knows of the promises the BNP chairperson has made to India, adding the ruling party would convene a press conference to let people know about them’. He told reporters after placing wreaths at the graves of the four national leaders killed at Dhaka jail on 3 November 1975. This saying signifies two things—(a) either India might have passed details of the talks between her and Khaleda Zia to AL/Asraf or AL/Asraf might have a different channel to be apprised of that in full and (b) If any of these is true then firstly, it strikes out rightly the creditability of the government of India to BNP and secondly, it undermines the very invitation making it a kind of traps for the benefit of India and AL. Therefore, the visit is important, not pointless even for AL.

AL Presidium Member and Minister for Communications Obaidul Quader said at a meeting at Cox’s Bazar on 2 November that ‘through the very visit Khaleda Zia officially endorsed AL policy towards India and, as a result, such changed stand of BNP is definitely a victory for AL on all counts’. This was a statesmanlike statement made in the most positive mood and manner. Therefore, the visit is important, not pointless even for AL.

Overriding all, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni while talking to reporters at Chandpur on 29 October called the visit ‘pointless’. This might be treated as a kind of childish remarks that undermines not only BNP’s response to India but also India’s sincere initiatives to establish ties with all the leading political parties in Bangladesh. Therefore, the visit is important, not pointless even for AL as Dipu Moni got the opportunity to call such mutually rewarding initiatives of India and BNP pointless.

Further importance of the visit has been dug up from a very different angle by Dr. Hasan Mahmud, minister for forests and environments, who recently disclosed to reporter at the secretariat  on 30  October stating that during the trip Khaleda Zia had a secret meeting with the extremists in India’. It signifies two things-- (a) Khaleda is intrepid enough to play with India going beyond all newly initiated move and understanding between BNP and India and (b) she did it sitting in the very soil of India under the very nose of its multi-dimensional security nets, clandestine or open. In that case the questions arise was it at all possible to take place under the very nose of the Indian national security forces? If so, why did India fail to detect it timely? Does not such collapse of Indian security nets bring to light the serious limitations of her security system? Or if so detected, why did the ruling Congress-led coalition government in India conceal it?

Well, if it is a political fiction/lie/myth then it is as well an issue of great concern that fiction of such nature and gravity is being played unintelligently by a member of Hasina’s Council of Ministers. As a result, Sheikh Hasina can hardly set aside the burden of such childish saying of her junior colleague.

Speaking superlatively, if it comes true in actuality then the matter is really an uncompromising one that will not only expedite the deterioration of relations and confidence between India and BNP at the outset but it shall too have resultant consequences on India-Bangladesh relations. Hence, both Dr. Hasan Mahamud/government of Bangladesh and the government of India should respond responsively and responsibly from their respective standpoints to tell the truth documentarily without a delay. Therefore, the visit is important, not pointless even for AL because this paved the way for Hasan Mahamud to discover and disclose such happening of the gravest nature when both Bangladesh and India are honestly committed to curb terrorism anyhow.

All these unfold the truth that while making view of the visit of Khaleda Zia to India the ruling AL is at a loss as to what to do, what to say, when to say and how to say. There is no denying the fact that the ruling AL cannot escape the reality by beating the drums of strategic vocabularies and political fictions. Rather for AL, this visit carries importance markedly at least on two grounds which are (a) Khaleda by stating firstly, ‘Let’s look forward and not look back in the rear view mirror secondly, Bangladesh shall not allow to use its soil against India and thirdly, We endorse transit as a part of connectivity as a whole has publicly echoed roughly similar stand being followed by AL. Thus, BNP’s oft-quoted slur on AL for being pro-India is either softened or minimized largely and (b) By embarking upon this up-to-the-minute stand BNP has put AL into further trouble to listen to India more as India, of course, with Khaleda’s nod on hand, is now strategically in a better position to create pressure otherwise on Hasina to go for more initiatives about those issues wherefrom may arise a challenge or dilemma for Hasina on question of the determination of priority or balancing of regime security and state security. Therefore, there should be a unified, coherent and symmetric approach to the visit from AL because the visit is important, not pointless even for AL.