Khaleda Zia’s visit to India: Viewed from a wider political perspective

 [This was published in the Financial Express on 09 November 2012]

Chronic outbursts of sentiments, emotions, antagonism, real or fictitious, against neighbouring big state closing eyes to realities hardly yield any positive feedback for a small bordering state. National interest(s) is a tricky affair in inter-state relations. Coming to an agreement on the question of national interests of two states on the same issue is beyond doubt the most challenging task in statecraft. To survive and continue meaningfully small states in such peculiar positions should be smart, forward-looking and diplomatic enough in resolving issues of various kinds with the big state. And so comes the question of political leadership since there are two modes for the resolution of issues, old or new. One is 'peaceful means' involving dialogues and other is war. If the standing of such neighboring states is in a 'vertical-horizontal shape' instead of 'horizontal-horizontal shape' then the topic of war stands neither here nor there. Therefore, the Hobson's choice is 'peaceful means'.

It is the political leadership on which depends, by and large, the art and acumen of resolving issues through peaceful dialogues and negotiations. For Bangladesh, with no debate and jargon, it is our political leadership that should be the most valuable instrument in settling outstanding issues, pointedly, with India. With these in right perspective, the visit of Begum Khaleda Zia, the Chairperson of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, to India from October 28 to November 03, 2012, at the invitation of the government of India bears importance on all counts. The visit took place at a time when India might have come to  realize that—

(a) the ruling Awami League-led grand-alliance government is troubled with a series of failures risking decline of popularity, which may become a major factor in the elections to the 10th Parliament in 2014;

(b) intelligence reports in India predict that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Islamic forces have meanwhile consolidated and strengthened their bases so much that yjr Awami League (AL) may not be in a position to face them intrepidly in the upcoming electoral race in 2014 and

(c) no party in Bangladesh has so far been fortunate enough to be re-elected to power for a consecutive second term and hence the possibility of the BNP returning to power in the next election. If BNP is voted to power, 'role model' of bilateral relations established between India and Bangladesh due to the positive initiatives and responsiveness of Sheikh Hasina government should not be lost under any circumstances (during his trip to Bangladesh in 2011, the then Indian foreign minister SM Krishna, with a profound sense of satisfaction from Indian perspective, called recently developed India-Bangladesh relations a 'role model'). Hence India wants to generate a 'more broad-based, accommodative and sustainable role model' embracing all the leading political parties of Bangladesh in the fold.

From this perspective, Begum Zia's visit bears a great significance both for India and Bangladesh. During the visit Begum Zia had talks and exchange of ideas and views with the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha Shusma Swaraj, Security Adviser to Prime Minister Shiv Sankar Menon, Foreign Minister Salman Khorshed, Prime Minister Manmohon Singh, BJP President Nitin Gadkari Marathi and President Pranab Mukherjee. The deliberations revolved on and around the enduring problematic issues between Bangladesh and India like killing of Bangladesh citizens by Indian BSF, exchange of enclaves and territories in adverse possession, Tipaimukh dam, implementation of land boundary agreement, connectivity and reducing the yawning trade imbalance.

Summing up the visit Indian foreign ministry spokesman Akbaruddin called it 'fruitful' while Khalada Zia termed it as 'highly successful'. On November 06, BNP standing committee member Tariqual Islam who visited India with Khaleda Zia said at a press conference on Khaleda Zia's visit to India that 'the BNP is not an anti-Indian political party. It is committed to settle our outstanding issues with India upholding our national interests. Standing by national interests does not necessarily amount to being anti-Indian.' 

It is interesting to note that BNP's stand about India differs from the seat of opposition and from the seat of power. While in opposition it plays the old music of Indo-phobic Bangladesh at the mass level but when in power, it apparently follows a policy of India-friendly Bangladesh at the government level. This is called 'double standard', which is good neither for India nor for Bangladesh - nor even for the BNP itself. By practicing this dualism, the BNP has done two things. One is that the BNP has not presented a true picture of realities between Bangladesh and India and the other is that it has created, nursed and escalated 'anti-Indian' current in the minds of its rank and file in particular. Thus BNP could not determine its road map to deal pragmatically with India paying due attention to the principles, dynamics and matrix of bilateral, regional and international politics, relations, strategies and diplomacy.

Did Khaleda's visit set an example of 'win-win position' for the parties concerned? Or, Khaleda in effect promised to walk along the line of Hasina with more responsibilities and responsiveness to the needs and calls of India with a view to having her room there cornering or displacing Hasina in a competitive mood and manner? It is clear from published reports that Khaleda Zia has promised not to allow insurgents to use the soil of Bangladesh against India. She made a clarion call to India by stating 'This marks a new beginning. Let's look forward and not look back in the rear view mirror." With this she apparently signaled a U-turn in BNP's years-long stance towards India. 

While dealing with India 'national interests' should under all the circumstances be prime concerns both for Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, nay, AL and BNP. For upholding and strengthening our national interests in an atmosphere of neighborly gesture and amity, the government of Sheikh Hasina has been on the right track from realistic standpoints. Her government has done a lot for India even taking electoral risk. But, in return Bangladesh has practically achieved nothing till the date. The BNP is also beating the drum loudly saying that Hasina administration has succumbed to India following a recapitulationist foreign policy setting aside the interests of Bangladesh only for advancing its partisan goals. In fact, the AL stand remains same both in opposition and from the seat of power. Now is the turn of the BNP to get rid of its double standard policy towards India.

Dismissing the visit as pointless, the AL government cannot escape the reality. The publicly stated present policies of the BNP towards India are similar to those followed by the AL. Thus, BNP's oft-quoted slur on the AL for being pro-Indian is either softened or minimized largely. Secondly, by embarking upon its latest stance on India, the BNP has put AL under serious trouble as India, with Khaleda's nod on hand, is now strategically in a better position to create pressure on Hasina to go for more initiatives advantageous to it.

Under the changed circumstances, if both the AL and BNP from their respective platforms want to serve national interests of Bangladesh then the issue of being pro- or anti-Indian should cease to be a driving force in the politics of Bangladesh. The Hobson's choice for Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia is to sit together to decide on a common Bangladesh approach towards India. India will then realise that the days of getting unilateral dividends keeping the AL and BNP at loggerheads are over and time is now to look into everything from the standpoint of mutual dividends honestly, realistically and transparently. 

********************************

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 t                                                      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 he 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.