India and Bangladesh: Wind of change in political thinking

It seems that some Bangladeshis won’t play politics when it comes to the interests of Bangladesh abroad.

One can easily detect a ‘climate change’ in the intellectual geography of Bangladesh today. It has yet to make an impact on the political scene; the change is real and unmistakeable nonetheless. Nothing evidences such a shift quite as neatly as a rich crop of post-editorials penned by a group of eminently distinguished columnists. More significantly, such columns can hardly be dismissed as the offerings of some newspapers of lesser pedigree, since they are carried by the countries hugely celebrated dailies; such as the Prothom Alo – the highest circulated daily, the Juganor – the second most widely circulated, as well as the New Nation and the Ittefaq – traditionally regarded to have pro- Awami League and secular sympathies and the left-leaning Weekly Holiday. None of these papers could be tainted for having even the slightest tinge of fundamentalist fervour. But the message they are disseminating is warming the hearts of all patriotic Bangladeshies.

Countries leading columnists and editors such as Farhad Mazhar, Sadeq Khan, Dr. Asif Nazrul and Barrister Moinul Hussain are putting forward powerful arguments on the need of managing threats posed by an image of Bangladesh painted by negative externality and aided and abetted by a group of internal self-serving quislings from both among the media and political arena. These authors command more attention and respect of the nation than rest of the leader writers in the print media put together. They present, perhaps for the first time, a plausible overview of Bangladesh’s helplessness in the face of unending interference and meddling in its internal affairs by some foreign powers. There are riveting accounts of ‘bended-knee’ policy and even partial surrender of national sovereignty by the opposition politician and media and even in some cases the government.

Rice’s Indian curry
Condolezza Rice’s recent observation in Delhi that Bangladesh is ‘ a place that is becoming quite troubling’, triggered a media mayhem, first fomented in Indian press and then slavishly parroted by its most-obedient counterparts in Bangladesh. Opposition politicians could hardly believe their luck and promptly jumped in to exploit this god-send adding their voice to the already deafening chorus. Yet, unlike in the past, when utterance of this magnitude when rolled out of the lips of the first diplomat of world’s only super power, would have send shock waves in Dhaka; Dr. Rice’s diagnosis merely succeeded to create amusement and a little anxiety in the gossip tables and genuine political analyst circles in Dhaka.

Writing in the countries largest circulated daily Prothom Alo on 30th March, Asif Nazrul a commentator and professor of Law in the Dhaka university was contemptuous of the political leaders who shamelessly try to cash-in on such remarks and said, ‘the behaviour of some political leaders suggests that it is not only the people but the foreign missions and aid-giving nations are also a source of power in Bangladesh’. It is not just Dr. Rice, in his view, but also aid-giving countries and the foreign diplomatic missions are increasingly trying to ‘tighten their grip on Bangladesh’s socio-economic and political affairs in the name of good-governance, human-rights and introduction of free-trade’. Asif Nazrul has little doubt that some of these diplomats may be at the lower down the civil service ladder in their own country, yet in Dhaka they are behaving more or less like colonial viceroys. “They are ordering round our government on issues such as, ‘how the government will run’, ‘what kind of electoral process to be adopted’, ‘ what industry or what subsidy to be abolished’, ‘ what is to be taught to the Bangladeshi children’ etc.”. This gradual encroachment of countries’ sovereign rights should have alarmed all politicians and patriotic people in the country. It is unfortunate that they are unable to set their sights much above narrow, short term political gains. Describing this rather unwholesome state of affairs, he says, ‘our larger political parties are busy in mutual strife in their pathetic quest for power, they neither have the will nor the intention to grasp the real magnitude of these issues in order to establish a truly respectable and sovereign nation’. But it is not only the politicians, ‘a group of intellectuals and local NGO leaders are also behaving like colonial puppets and actively contributing to create an atmosphere conducive to foreign interference’.

In his popular post-editorial column in the second largest circulated daily Jugantor ( 23 March 2005), political analyst and poet Farhad Mazhar, who earned his name as the most effective advocate of secular-left thinking, was far more critical. Writing under the heading, ‘What did Condolezza Rice say?’, he said, ‘ if you show even slightest sympathy to Islam or write on any Islamic issue, you will be automatically tainted as terrorist…… we were told that there is some thing called ‘freedom of expression’, well if there is, such luxuries are accorded only to the Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen’s of the world, and instantly denied to all those who wish to speak against injustice and torture, from an Islamic point of view.’ He reminded his readers that it was ‘Dr. Rice who presented her thesis to the US State Department’ that the, ‘madrasas (religious seminaries) are responsible for training terrorists’. And as soon as she uttered those words, ‘some of our own newspapers started, with indecent haste, to publish stories complete with photographs, of how madrasa’s are conducting such training.’ The ‘fascist’ intolerance to Islam such quarters demonstrate is really amazing and all in the name of ‘democracy and secularism’.

Farhad Mazhar was certain that toeing the line in such slavish fashion will not be sufficient to save Bangladesh from the wrath of the imperialist super power, in his words ‘there is no barrier that might protect us from this all engulfing fire’. Although he argues that everything is not black and white and even in the State Department there are people who would argue that Bangladesh is a moderate Muslim country. It may be in the interest of their wider strategic equation, yet this view exists. However, some Bangladeshi leaders and intellectuals actively promote a dark picture of Bangladesh. Even during Sheikh Hasina’a tenure when American president Bill Clinton came to visit the country, almost at the same time Bangladesh missions abroad were busily distributing a pamphlet, depicting an assassin’s hand with blood stained dagger on its green cover, which claimed that Bangladesh is fast turning into a hot bed of Taleban, Al-Qaida type Islamic terrorism. ‘Although no one could be in doubt about the intention, the source of this publication still remains a mystery, some suspect it to be a joint operation by the Indian and Israeli intelligence’.

The question remains why Sheikh Hasina’s own government was doing this itself? ‘Sheikh Hasina dug her own grave,… and surpassed not only American’s but also the BJP’s India in anti-Bangladeshi propaganda’.

Sadeq Khan, a senior commentator leaves us in no doubt (US-Bangla relations: Making a mountain out of molehill, Holiday 26 March) that the whole thing was ‘orchestrated’ by India and ‘India-friendly’ Bangladeshi circle. In his view, considering the long list of pressing issues ‘Bangladesh hardly figured except as a passing reference’. No doubt India pressed her hard on the issue, quoting a top us official, presumably the US ambassador in Delhi, Indian papers reported that, ‘ there was an expression of interest that we work together in Bangladesh relating to security as the deteriorating security situation there could affect regional security’. Strong stuff! But the, ‘US response was not newsworthy enough to merit a mention in any official transcript of US-India dialogue’. However, Dr. Rice was little more obliging when pressed by India Today journalist Raj Chengappa during an exclusive interview. Answering a leading question she said, ‘ there is more that we probably need to do on Bangladesh which is I think a place that is becoming quite troubling. So, in the region, there is a great deal we can do. But I think we will also see that India will start to play more of a role’.

Bangladesh understandably was less than amused, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia chided, in the Parliament, ‘foreign diplomats who had openly debated issues concerning the internal politics of Bangladesh’. Which perhaps forced the US Embassy in Dhaka to issue an express and prompt denial, that, ‘there was no actual initiative jointly undertaken by India and the USA to change the situation in Bangladesh’.

Maybe. But there remains something odd about India’s intention. Across Bangladesh, the level of trust in India’s true motives are in terminal decline. When all her actions and noises are taken together, Bangladeshis can not help feeling that a storm cloud is gathering over their country.

Planted terrorists
In an article under the heading, Unholy designs to harm Bangladesh using Islamic militancy as pretext’, in the English daily New Nation (14 March) Mohammad Zainul Abedin was in no doubt that, ‘India is the architect of terrorism in Bangladesh’ and most of the so called militant outfits are the, ‘brainchildren of Indian intelligence agency RAW’. In his view the aim is ‘to justify Indian allegation that Bangladesh is a haven of the Islamic terrorists’. Quoting countries intelligence agencies, a whole range of Dhaka dailies reported on 25 February that both the recently banned JMJB (Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh) and Jamiatul Majahideens (JMB) were, ‘ floated, financed and guided by RAW’ to carryout disruptive activities in the country. In Mr. Abedin’s words, the real aim is the ‘unification of dreamy Akhand Bharat’.As a first step they would like to ‘make the government unpopular … and pave the way to install a puppet government in Dhaka’, and ‘ultimately make Bangladesh a vassal state of India’.

Wishful thinking? Who knows!?

In the beginning it was an inseparable relationship – India and Bangladesh were deeply devoted to each other. In those days politicians used to proudly were their India affiliation on their sleeves. Not any more – ‘pro-Indian’ has become a dirty word in Bangladeshi Politics today. Hobnobbing with Delhi could seriously damage the prospects of any aspiring political hopeful. Even the Awami League is often forced to deny such link. A report (16 March) by Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) , the official news agency, that Sheikh Hasina’s son Sajeeb Wazed Joy (32) met India’s Defence Minister Pranob Mukharjee the day before (15 March 2005) was carried by a number of Bangladeshi news papers on March 17 2005 creating quite a stir in the country. Awami reacted sharply with violent anger. Party general secretary Abdul Jalil, who incidentally himself had a meeting with Pranob Mukharjee on March 15, it later transpired, vigorously dismissed the report as ‘totally baseless’ and ‘fabricated’. Joy himself was forced to issue him own internet statement expressing his shock and describing story as a government attempt to ‘malign my image’.

One wonders – in what way? Perhaps a sign of changing time in the political climate of today’s Bangladesh.