***The Vajpayee led Coalition Government’s priorities in our bilateral relations are not yet known. However the unilateral assertions on the theme of the so-called “illegal immigrants” cannot of course be acceptable to Bangladesh.

IN the Indian general elections of 1984 the BJl was able to secure only two seats in the Lokshabha. It was regarded as politically "untouchable" by the secular parties and looked down by them with a dismissiveness not unmixed with contempt. It was viewed as a North Indian, Hindi belt, reactionary caste Hindu party of limited geographical and ideological appeal. However, since then by its progressive success in the four successive general elections, demonstrating an impressive geographical, linguistic and caste spread, the party has indeed confounded its critics. At the same time it has raised questions as to the future direction of politics in India.

Since its defeat in the Vote of Confidence in 1996 the BJP behaved with remarkable self assurance and went into the last elections with a number of cleverly crafted political moves and alliances. Inspite of the "Sonia factor", BJP was thus able to improve upon its position in the last election and together with Its allies came respectively close to an overall majority. In the name of stability and ability it attracted the support of the burgeoning Indian Hindu middle class and entrepreneurs and was able to garner the support of a quarter of Indian voters. It also showed that it was a quick learner and for the first time in its history, with remarkable guile and agility, made prepoll alliances with a number of regional parties, beating, as it were, its major opponents at their own game. It kept, what its opponents suspect, a feigned distance from the members of its "joint family", viz., aggressive Hindu organisations like the RSS and the Bajrang Dal. to pacify the moderates among its supporters and moved swiftly in the game of post-poll give and take. These moves not only stood it in good stead at the elections but also

helped it win the confidence vote with support from unlikely quarters like the Telegu Desam of Andhra Pradesh and the National Congress of Kashmir. Soon after the elections. it drew up an agreed docu-ment entitled the "National Agenda for Governance" with its coalition partners, leaving out of it. controversial "Hindutva" questions like the construction of the Ram Temple, Common Civil Code and the scraping of Article 370 concerning the special status of Kashmir.

However, the fact remains that though compromising its stance, when it came to retaining or capturing power, the BJP has not in fact abandoned its policies outlined in its election manifesto. Indeed, holding aloft its "Hindutva" banner, it emerged out of the last two general elections as the single largest party in the parliament. Half a century ago, this would have been unthinkable in Jawaharlal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad's secular India, when in the former's words, with the 'stroke of midnight hour' of August 15.1947, India awoke to 'life and freedom'. The BJP's 1998 Election Manifesto interalia states. “The BJP is convinced that Hindutva has Immense potentiality to re-en-ergize this nation and strengthen and discipline it to undertake the arduous task of nation building".

Unlike his two predecessors Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee Is therefore not just a Coalition Prime Minister thrown up by the arithmetic and acceptability of a coition partnership. The BJP. in reality, represents 9 new trend in Indian politics-that ls quite different in emphasis and character from that of the Congress and the United Front. A quarter of the Indian voters has voted for the BJP and ever since 1984 the curve of its political fortune has steadily climbed upward. It is therefore unrealistic to assume that the BJP's popularity has peaked. With the growing support that the 'Hindutva’ slogan has already attracted, it does not seem beyond them to one day form the government on their own. If and when that day dawns, it will be Interesting to see whether the BJP remains uncompromising in pursuing its declared internal and external policies.

In this country our basic concern is our bilateral relations with India. The period of the two successive United Front governments saw a remarkable improvement in our relationship. The signing of the Ganges Water Treaty and the return of the Chakma refugees removed the two major irritants in our relations and we seemed Eoised to enter a constructive and mutually eneficial phase of economic and commercial interactions. The 'National Agenda for Governance' sealed, signed and delivered by the coalition partners of the Vajpayee Government is stronger on generalities than on specifics. It is silent on 'Hindutva' related matters like the construction of a Ram temple and the like. This is perhaps to be expected of a coalition of disparate elements. On foreign relations it has only a brief paragraph that says that the coalition partners will "strive to secure for India a place, role and position in the global arena consistent with our size and capability and promote peaceful relationship with all neighbours on a reciprocal basis" This is too general a statement for any detailed comment. But what with the exchange of warm messages between Prime Minister Vajpayee and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the former's appreciative comments in the Lokshabha about Prime Minister Gujral's achievements in the field of regional policies, one hopes that the present Indian Coalition Government will adhere to the outgoing government's positive approach towards Bangladesh. Besides. Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee has had an impressive track record as the Foreign Minister of the Janata Government in the late seventies. He was able to establish good working relationship with India's neighbours and it Is then that India signed a Ganges water sharing treaty with Bangladesh.

But in the long run it is not Vajpayee the man but the emergence of BJP the political party and the ramification of its policies, that matters. An individual, wise and moderate as Atal Behari Vajpayee apparently is. can temporarily smootnen the rough regional and bilateral edges of the declared policies of a political party, but cannot forever control their thrusts. It is in this light that one has to examine the relevant parts of the BJP manifesto concerning its relations with Bangladesh.

Curiously the BJP in its manifesto has picked up an issue concerning so called "illegal immigrants' from Bangladesh into India. According to its 1998 manifesto this is a prob-.lem, "the Congress and the United Front Governments, for their narrow and selfish reasons have been deliberately negligent of. It does not however elaborate as to what those "narrow and selfish" reasons are. The manifesto also fiuts the figure of these so called "illegal mmigrants" at 1.7 crore. It says that these figures are “officially ascertained", but does not say how this unilaterally determined figure was arrived at.

One may, to catch the nuances of the contents of the 1996 and the 1998 manifestoes In relation to the so-called "illegal immigrants", review its relevant portions.

The 1996 manifesto says-

"In our relations with Bangladesh . illegal immigrants into India from that country have proved a major irritant. This issue has cast its shadow on our bilateral ties and needs to be resolved early.'

The 1996 manifesto also dealt with the same issue separately under the somewhat dramatic heading, “Illegal Immigration: Demographic invasion — A threat to our security”. It said, —

“We believe that illegal Immigrants from our neighbouring countries, especially Bangladesh, have an unsettling effect on our demography. Given the sheer dimension of numbers — tnere are as many as 1.7 crore Illegal immigrants, the bulk of them Bangladeshis, living in various parts of the country — the illegal immigrant is not only transforming the geography but the sociology, the economy, and indeed even the politics of this country. India is facing an explosive issue.

If our demographic balance is allowed to be disturbed by inept policies and political considerations. various demographic entities are " bound to come in conflict, thus adversely affecting our security and environment. The invasion of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh has led to an alarming growth in a section of the popu-lation in our North East, in

Assam, in West Bengal, parts of Bihar and Delhi. In certain areas a section of the population has grown by almost 100%.

The BJP proposes to:

1) Complete barbed wire fencing along the India-Bangladesh border, beginning with the plains, to prevent infiltration.

2) Detect illegal immigrants, delete their names from voter lists and arrange for their deportation without any further delay.

3) Declare all property deals bet ween Indians and illegal immigrants as null and void.

4) Amend immigration rules and other laws to impose stringent checks on illegal entry into India.

5) And expedite the issuance If identity cards to all citizens of the country."

In contrast the BJP manifesto 1998 under the heading “Foreign Policy — Protecting India's National Interest" states as follows:

To reinforce the improving relations with Bangladesh. We however continue to view with, concern the unabated illegal infiltration into India from that country, and will seek the active participation of the Bangladesh authorities in curbing this."

While discussing Illegal infiltration it says —

The total number of illegal infiltrators from Bangladesh Is officially ascertained at over 1.7 frore. The adverse impact of this on our economy and social and -political order poses problems of great magnitude.-This cannot be allowed to continue. Our government will:

1) take more stringent measures to Intercept illegal infiltrators and turn them back. Fencing of the border wherever possible will be urgently taken up. Border patrol will be intensified:

2) Initiate steps to detect illegal infiltrators and delete their names from electoral rolls;

3) maintain a national register of citizens.'

The 1998 manifesto recognizes that improvements have taken place in IndoBangladesh relations and talks about reinforcing it. It does not speak of a demographic invasion from Bangladesh, does not over dramatize the growth of a certain section of population — an euphemism for Muslim population — nor does it seek to declare illegal the property deals by the so-called illegal immigrants. The 1996 manifesto would have Bangladesh completely fenced in. The 1998 manifesto will however have the fence “wherever possible.' Be that as it may, the basic thrust of BJP policy remains unchanged viz., deportation of the alleged illegal imtnigrants.

Interestingly BJP's figure of illegal immigrants of 1.7 crore for 1996 remains the same in 1998; although unlike 1996 they maintain this time that all these immigrants come from Bangladesh. In 1996 it was their stand that they came from neighbouring countries, the bulk of it being from Bangladesh.

The Vajpayee led Coalition Government's priorities in our bilateral relations are not yet known. However the unilateral assertions on the theme of the so-called 'illegal immigrants' cannot of course be acceptable to Bangladesh. India and Bangladesh snare a long common border and a thousand years of history, throughout which people have moved from one part to another. The movement has not been in one direction. Even the other day there were news reports of thousands of Mizos having come over from India to the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Any bilateral discussion on the so-called "illegal immigrants' will have to be on a mutually agreed upon definition and proper identification of the “illegal immigrants". Talks about barbed wire fences and the pushing back of people are not only anachronistic but are also unacceptable.

The BJP manifesto raises certain vital questions. If pursued, what kind of impact. 'Hindutva' related Issues like the construction of the Rama temple will have on the secular perception of the people of Bangladesh? How will it influence those in this country who. like the BJP also try to make a virtue out of religious fundamentalism in politics. What will be Bangladesh's reaction at being fenced in or in confronting pushed back multitudes that it does not recognize as its nationals? What will happen to the ethos of regional development that so happily seemed to have been gaining ground? Do we at the threshold of the twenty-first century go back to the bitter, divisive and barren communal politics of the first half of the century? One only hopes that these nightmarish fears will never come to pass.