& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

BETWEEN THE LINES

Looking at Bangladesh

Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi
Atop official in Dhaka wel-comes the audience at a cultural meet. He recalls the Bangladesh liberation struggle and hails the leadership of the late Sheikh Mujlbur Rahman. But he forgets to address him as Bangabandhu. There is furore in the crowd, which demands an apology for 'insulting' Mujib. No explanations help him. He is swept
Elsewhere, a sector commander of liberation days commits a similar mistake of not affixing the title of Bangabandhu with Mujib. He is hack-led. He recalls nis own sacrifices but to no avail. Supporters of the ruling Awami League refuse to listen to his speech which, they feel, derogated Mujib from his exalted position.
Understandably, the pent up feelings against those who denied and denigrated the role of Mujib. father of the nation, had to find a vent. The rulers after his assassination had gone out of the way to erase his contribution. They rather had lionised the forces which were against the temper of independence that Mujib represented.
But his stature does not shrink if some leaders, say. of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) refuse to call him Bangabandhu. Sheikh Hasina's order that government offices and public places must display Mujib's photo may do harm. He has been dragged into a controversy when he stands above every din and dispute. I Ie has been reduced to a leader of the Awami League. If and when some other political party comes to power, it may replace his photo.
It is a tragedy that Mujib did not get his due recognition In the last 21 years of military or semi-military rule. His contribution does not lessen. But the imposition may be counterproductive. apart from the authoritarian touch it gives to the rule. In such conditions, musclemen sprout at all levels and they enforce respect not only for their leader but for what they consider right.
Mahatma Gandhi and Qalde Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in Pakistan did not have to earn acceptance. Nor was there any government fiat to compel people to hang their picture They span the history: other leaders are only postscripts. So Is the case with Mujib He freed Bangladesh and gave its people an identity which ft direly needed. By over-owning him the
Awami League may make him a party leader instead of country's founder that he is.
There will always be people to defame founders of nations. For example, we have in India an egoist called by the name of Bal Tnackery. who trades in hatred and communallsm. He recently dubbed Mahatma Gandhi's experiments with celibacy as a complete farce'. His effort was to justify allegation of an illicit relationship between Maharashtra deputy chief minister Gopinath Munde and a woman. Gandhi has not been affected but Thackery has evoked derision and ridicule.
However. Sheikh Hasina's sensitivity is not out of place. The BNP and its leader, former prime minister Khaleda Zia. refuse to give Mujib the respect and honour he deserves. The tragic part is that their opposition to him is in proportion to their hostility towards India.
The first statement Khaleda Zia. after submitting her resignation. made was that the IndoBangladesh friendship treaty nearly 25 years old. was a sign of slavery. An editor rightly pointed out why she did not say
so while she was in power. Her entire posture is anti-India and her party has been plugging the same line. In fact. anti-India was their plank in the last elections which they lost.
The BNP's reaction to the Ganges water agreement betrays the same bias. It has denounced the agreement for political rea sons. There are suspicions of a secret clause. BNP general secretary. Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, gave out his party's intentions when he asked me at Dhaka why New Delhi did not enter into a treaty with Khaleda Zia. The simple reply is that the Congress government was against any agreement. The moment the non-Congress government assumed office. It initiated the process.
Mannan should recall that It was the BNP government, headed by Ziaur Rahman, with which the first agreement was signed in 1977 That was the Janata government. In fact.
1.000 cusecs of water was con traded over and above the agreement settled at the per sonal request of Ziaur Rahman Khaleda Zia could have effected an agreement if she had not listened to her bureaucrats that India would give in If pressured Sheikh Hasina got what she wanted because of her forthright attitude
Yet. It cannot be denied that the assumption of power by
Sheikh Hasina has made the difference in New Delhi's attitude. She has brought back the memory of Mujib's days. And she is correct in her attitude towards India. For example, she has denounced the India-Bangladesh treaty and stands by the demand for its abrogation. At the same time, she recalls the assistance that India gave Bangladesh In Its liberation struggle. Prime Minister Deve Gowda has reciprocated the sentiment by visiting Bangladesh. But it would be wrong on the part of the BNP if it were to consider Deve Gowda's trip was only to boost Sheikh Hasina. It is a message of friendship. It was churlish on the part of BNP to have organised its protest against the government on the eve of Deve Gowda's visit. India wants to befriend Bangladesh. For its domestic compulsions, the BNP should not oppose India for the sake of opposition.
Coming to domestic compulsions. the Awami League and the BNP. the two parties which have emerged, are at daggers drawn. The fallout of theirnos-tllity is low economic growth.
vast unemployment and brawls in the countryside. Investors are scared and donors unhappy. The two parties have to cooperate for the sake of their country's development.
Sooner or later, both the Awami League and the BNP will realise that the country needs more development, less politics. Polarisation on the basis of parties is understandable but polarisation In the economic field will be at the expense of Bangladesh There has to be a pause in the petty fighting which goes on In the country all the time. The nation's interest has to have precedence over other considerations because it has waded a pool of blood to reach the place of pride.
The liberation war was not fought by the Mujibnagar elite alone. It was fought by the people of Bangladesh They may now be labelled as the BNP or the Awaml League But while engaged in their struggle they were one. asserting for their In dependence The BNP is not let Ung that spirit to return It wants to rule either itself or not allow any other party to run the country After me the deluge seems to be Khaleda Zia s thinking It may harm Sheikh Hasina but the greater harm will he that ot the country Per haps the BNP does not see this simple logic