An epitaph to India-Bangladesh bonhomie ?

[Ray]

Can an epitaph to India-Bangladesh bonhomie be written?





Smruti S. Pattanaik

The recently concluded Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Bangladesh after a gap of twelve years has got mixed response. The letdown of the visit is attributed to the failure to sign an interim water sharing agreement on Teesta. Many accuse India of disregarding bold initiatives taken by Bangladesh's current Awami League (AL) government, which extended a hand of friendship. Yet this failure to sign Teesta agreement does not call for an epitaph to be written on the relationship.

The AL has two more years left before it gets into the election mode where the performance of the government and its relationship with India will be subjected to public scrutiny. Two years is a long period in a nations' history if there is political will. And nothing in the recent past indicates that India and Bangladesh would not be able to overcome the problems, renegotiate the Teesta deal and sign the transit agreement.

Much has been written about Mamata's theatrics, which ultimately resulted in holding back of the interim treaty on Teesta. This was matched by Bangladesh's decision to hold back the letters to be exchanged on transit. The dynamics of coalition politics in India and its federal structure have a bearing on foreign policy making. Not long back, Sri Lanka waited to start final offensive against the LTTE keeping national elections in India in mind, knowing the nature of provincial politics could have a bearing on New Delhi's approach.

While it is imperative that the provinces of India need to be taken into confidence while formulating foreign policy that has direct bearing on them, it is also essential that such policy needs to be crafted keeping individual sensitivities and their political constituency in mind. The failure to sign the Teesta treaty at the last minute also affected India's image as a nation state, a reflection of a collective failure as a country and exposed a lack of consensus between the government and its coalition partners having a bearing on sensitive bilateral relations. This also conveyed to Bangladesh how water, which is a state subject in India, can derail the central government's resolve to ink a water sharing treaty with Bangladesh.

Understandably, Dhaka could not give transit when it failed to get the Teesta deal. While the focus of Bangladesh media was Mamata, the visit of four chief ministers, who are crucial for optimising India-Bangladesh relations, eclipsed the attention it deserved. The Bengal-centricism of Bangladesh foreign policy has always focused on its relationship with West Bengal, and in the process the North eastern states have not figured prominently in shaping Dhaka's policy towards New Delhi. These states bordering Bangladesh have lost their individual identities and relevance, and have been clubbed as a collective entity of North East. Their development is now been hold hostage to Teesta.

Semantics of Bangladesh's policy have been characterised by portraying transit as benefiting these states, underplaying economic activities the transit route can generate. While these four chief ministers were looking forward to break their economic isolation by developing greater connectivity with Bangladesh and beyond, they returned empty handed just because the Paschimbanga chief minister thought of protecting its interest by its myopic decision to scuttle the path-breaking visit at the last minute. It is difficult to buy the argument that she was not informed.

Non-signing of Teesta agreement during this visit due to objection of Pashchimbanga, however, can be considered as a boon. Thus, everything is not lost between the two countries as establishment of any durable relationship would require taking these kinds of political hiccups in their stride. Had it been signed, legal wrangling between the centre and the state in India would have done irreparable damage to the bilateral relationship. This would have delayed the implementation of the treaty, creating an atmosphere of distrust which would not have been conducive for long-term bilateral relations. It would have added to the list of promises broken by India.

Trust and confidence are two important pillars in the relationship between India and Bangladesh. Both the countries in the past two years have strived to emerge out of their mutual suspicion and have silenced the sceptics by taking bold initiatives. The two countries can show the way to their South Asian neighbours that given political will any relationship can be transformed to a partnership of mutual trust and benefit. While reaching an agreement at the earliest is imperative, it would be equally important for India to involve the state of Sikkim in the negotiation.

Given that Manmohan Singh's government is a coalition government, building multiple stakeholders on bilateral issues would help. Similarly, the government of India needs to create informed public opinion regarding its policies. For example, it failed to create informed public opinion in Assam regarding the exchange of enclaves and lands in adverse possession. This resulted in creating an opinion in Assam that sovereign land was bartered at the expense of its population. Similarly, Awami League needs to create multiple stakeholders in its relationship with India. A transparent relationship will endure ideological division and will not create unnecessary suspicion, which is important for lasting relationship.

There is no doubt that water sharing agreement and transit agreement would have gone a long way in cementing the relationship. Over-emphasis on these issues, however, blinds us from emphasising the positives of the relationship. It is important to underline that the two countries signed land boundary agreement, exchanging exclaves and land in adverse possession after 36 years. It is no mean achievement for the people living in these enclaves. These people, marginal in the national discourse of the two countries, achieved citizenship after more than six decades of partition, yet the narratives on bilateral relationship have not celebrated their new identity.

Like any other relationship, India-Bangladesh relationship is dynamic. Let us not mourn what we did not get but celebrate what we have achieved. Rather than feeling complacent about the past it is time to put our act together to take the relationship to a new height, the benefits of which should accrue to the people of the two countries who have been at the margins of development. By making it people-centric, the India-Bangladesh relation has the potential to transcend the boundaries of nation and nationality and chart a new path for a regional future.

The writer is Research Fellow, IDSA.
Can an epitaph to India-Bangladesh bonhomie be written?

A very dispassionate analysis.

It is time to realise India's position in the region and how, without belligerent posturing, we can foster friendship all around and negate the ever looming shadow of the Chinese dragon around our region.

Any ideas what should be done?