[This was published on 09 June in Bogota Free
Planet, 10 June in Dhaka Courier, Green Watch and Industrial System.EU and 11
June in Burma Times]
On April 17, 2015, Prashant Jha, Associate
Editor, Hindustan Times, and CASI Spring 2015 Visiting Fellow, presented a
paper "Big Brother or Elder Brother?: India’s Role in the Nepali
Transition" at the Center
for the Advanced Study of India(CASI), University of Pennsylvania, USA. In the
paper he touched so many areas that may be summarized as follows:
‘Nepal
is a partly sovereign country – and this partial sovereignty stems from its
deep, historic, complex, intimate, and multi-layered relationship with India. Delhi
has had a role in shaping political outcomes in Kathmandu at key moments in the
past six decades; most recently, it played a direct role in facilitating the
peace agreement between mainstream political parties and Maoist rebels in 2005.
Thus began Nepal’s transformation from a monarchy to a republic, war to peace,
Hindu kingdom to secularism, and a unitary to a potentially federal system.
The Nepali peace process can be counted as a
rare instance of Indian-driven peace-making in the region – the peace has held,
with not a single shot fired since the end of the war a decade ago, but the
political transition continues with an unfulfilled quest for a constitution.
The Indian role however has triggered contradictory responses, both within New
Delhi and across the Nepali political spectrum. Has it been a "big
brother," excessively interventionist, seeking to "micro-manage"
Nepali affairs? Or has it been an "elder brother," as External
Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj put it, stepping in to assist when Nepal’s own
parties have sought help? Can India possibly be a facilitator and guarantor of
the peace accord without a degree of micromanagement, or it is more appropriate
to have a hands-off policy?
This lecture will document the precise nature
of the Indian role at key moments of the peace process, the divergent impulses
that drive policy in Delhi, the principal players, and what it has meant for
Nepal. Through the case study, Mr. Jha seeks to understand the challenges
inherent in India’s regional diplomacy as it expands its footprint in a
neighborhood dominated by complex, fragmented, and democratic political systems’
(https://vimeo.com/126503180). What a
wonder it is that Elder bother concept replaced big brother concept without
taking note of the due standing of the states in question!’
Then we find the repetition in case of
Bangladesh and India. In the words of Sushma Swaraj, currently Indian External
Affairs minister, ‘To the neighbors in the sub-continent, India is an elder
brother, not a big brother’. This she made during her speech in the Lok Sabha, lower house of Indian
Parliament, at some stage in the passage of the Bangladesh-India Land Boundary
Accord of 1974, also known as the Constitution (119th Amendment) Bill
2013, on 7th May 2015, which now after the
assent of the President will enter in to the statue book [as Constitution 100th
Amendment Act 2015, wherein
virtually she reasserts in a different mood and mode that ‘India is standing
above, not at all on equal standing while dealing with the neighboring states’.
This elder bother concept otherwise also signifies and denotes a sort of
‘Vertical-Horizontal Relationships’ between India and other neighbor states in
South Asia. Important it is because this is the first time in the history of
independent India that such concept is being forwarded with authorization from
the seat of power in India (big brother concept, unlike elder brother concept,
was leveled against India by others in the neighbor states). Let us recall the
former Indian Premier I.K. Guzral (Inder Kumar Gujral was an Indian politician
who served as the thirteenth Prime Minister of India from April 1997 to March
1998. Gujral was the third PM to be from the Rajya Sabha, the first being
Indira Gandhi and the second H. D. Deve Gowda) who has placed himself as one of
the leading thoughtful statesmen in India for his famous approach to inter-states
relations with India in the subcontinent, which later came to be known as ‘Guzral’s
doctrine’ (a big state should be more pro-active, initiative, visionary,
sincere, considerate, sacrificing and magnanimous while with its small
neighbors in particular and such approach of Guzral stands opposed to India doctrine
(supremacy of India over the states in South Asia), a kind of oft-quoted
allegation being made by the small neighbors in the sub-continent of South Asia
including nuclear-state Pakistan, India’s arch rival since the very day of the
partition of British India in 1947 into
two sovereign states India and Pakistan.
Well, Indian Prime Minister Norendra Modi’s
recent two-day visit to Bangladesh from June 6-7 2015 is definitely a sort of
overhauling of what India at present feels and realizes about her small
neighbors pointedly having Bangladesh in Mind. Modi’s foreign policy started
with a theme ‘Neighborhood based on peaceful co-existence and onward
development is first’. Here, to suite the very purposes, cooperation and
sincerity to overcome the issues and problems, old and/new, between or among
the neighboring states have to be addressed with due acumen and statesmanship. Since this is an era of getting closer, also
called ‘global village’, the message of the civilization is one and unambiguous
‘Let national, bi-lateral, regional and global approaches and initiatives
mingle at points of understanding ensuring mutually rewarding position. Do all
his avowed intentions and commitments-- weighing also his first ever blistering
speech at the Bangabandhu International Convention Centre at Dhaka on 7 June,
2015 before a gathering comprising members of the Indian community, eminent
Bangladeshis including political personalities, cultural personalities,
business persons, academicians and Dhaka University students--synchronize with
the newly forwarded concept of ‘Elder brother”? His quotation from an Indian
Daily editorial that said that ‘the Land Boundary Agreement was equivalent to
the fall of the Berlin Wall’ is very much confusingly meaningful in this
regard. Inking 22 protocols, MOUs and agreements with Bangladesh, Modi in the
end won a lot and then the asking arises ‘How much is Bangladesh benefited? To what extent has state security gained over
regime security? Time is not apt to come with replies readily. Let the replies
get unfolded in course of time, space and dimension.
Therefore, it’s a real challenge for Sheikh
Hasina since she has to play now more cagily applying required altitude of
diplomacy and politics essentially keeping in mind, inter alia, the
Bangladesh-China Relations, Bangladesh-US Relations and Bangladesh-Japan
Relations. Analysis needs to be honored that Bangladesh-Pakistan Relations are
not based on Bangladesh-India Relations. It’s the lesson of history that
arrogance of today may be transformed into sacrifice of tomorrow. Here the moot
point is realization that should never be set aside for ever. Sheikh Hasina
being the eldest daughter of the father nation Bangabandu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
shall have to be cautious all the time as a befitting statesman going beyond
mere emotions, whims, caprices and indifferences. All the great men in the
world knowingly, recklessly or inadvertently have chance to fall prey to
appeasement and sycophancies. Those who were careful enough in the past
advanced heroically and those who were fond of such fancies suffered a lot in
the end. Yes, state and national interests are above all. If something is lost
today that can hardly be revived and returned tomorrow. Even if it s returned,
remember that the way is not a bed of roses under the circumstances, compelling
r not. Let Sheikh Hasina be in the best position to handle her foreign policy
advisers, think-tanks and diplomats in the execution processes inside and
outside the ministry of foreign affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment