& 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

Contours of possible Indo-Bangladesh relations

KAZI ANWARUL MASUD
INVARIABLY the foreign policy of a country is formulated to serve its national interests. The problem arises in the interpretation of national interest by different governments in power according to their perception, which may be influenced by the ideological commitment of the party in power. The definition of national interest may also change with time and circumstances regionally and/or globally. For the better part of the last century Western interests were aimed at the containment and ultimately the vanquishment of the Soviet empire.
In this quest, Nixon-Kissinger in their power play with the Soviet Union opened up to China, which was seen by Margaret Thatcher in her 1995 memoir Path to Power as a critical element of victory in the Cold War by distancing China permanently from the Soviet Union. But she saw detente, acclaimed the world over, as akin to appeasement, and Willy Brandt's Ostopolitik as endorsing legitimacy of the governments in Eastern Europe. Now that the Cold War has ended and the Soviet Union has become the Russian Federation, sharing intimacy with Franco-German ethos and her security concerns being discussed in the NATO-Russian Council, Western attention has now shifted to the war on terror and to arresting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
In this new matrix Pakistan, at best a country of marginal interest to various US administrations despite SEATO, CENTO and pronounced pro-West Pakistani policy caused by a feeling of insecurity from perceived threat from India, has become a key player in the war on terror. Despite misgivings expressed by many Western analysts about Pakistan's reliability as an ally in the war on terror Bush administration has rewarded Pakistan with the status of a major nonNATO ally with consequent benefits of military assistance. That President Musharraf is deeply committed to the war on terror is not in doubt.
Pakistan army's onslaught on suspected Al Qaida sanctuaries in South Waziristan is proof enough of his sincerity.
The question being raised is about the durability of his commitment. The sudden departure of Zafrullah Jamalifrom Prime Ministership is reportedly due to his
differences with President Musharraf on total alignment with the US on war on terror. Jamali is a Baluch tribal leader. In Baluchistan and NWFP religious parties have formed governments and Islamisation is the official policy, which threatens to undermine civil liberties, freedom of expression, legal reforms, and religious tolerance. Besides, both the provinces are steeped in tribal culture, peopled being fiercely independent minded, impervious to forces of modernity and basically antiAmerican and anti-West due to Western libertarian values seen by Islamists as degenerative at best. The fundamental construct of Pakistani society is such that any long term Pakistani commitment to war on terror, more it is perceived as a campaign of persecution of Islamists, is likely to falter.
As President Clinton recalls in his autobiography, the problems he faced in launching air strikes against Osama in Laden and Al-Qaeda leadership were because of the support extended by then Pakistani government to "the Taliban and by extension Al-Qaeda. Pakistani intelligence used some of the same camps that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda did to train the Taliban and insurgents in Kashmir. If Pakistan found out about our planned attacks in advance, it was likely that Pakistani Intelligence would warn the Taliban or even the Al-Qaeda." Regarding India, President Clinton felt that the
"Cold War and clumsy diplomacy" had kept India and the US apart for too long and with the Cold War being over he had "an opportunity as well as an obligation to improve US-India relations". So Bill Clinton wanted to rectify the mistakes of the past US policy that pushed India towards a Russia-India-China nexus aimed at
preventing US global domination.
The new US policy towards South Asia is aimed at, inter alia, deterring a regional arms race, preventing nuclear proliferation, and precluding Pakistani nuclear capabilities from falling into wrong hands. Besides Clinton administration was acutely aware of the fact that unlike the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, India and Pakistan knew little about each other's nuclear capabilities and policies for using them. Notwithstanding Pakistan's newly acquired status as a front line state in the war on terror the US administration lost no time to realise that the largest democracy in the world would by 2006 (according to IMF calculations) have a larger GDP than Italy or the UK and by 2025 could surpass those of France and Germany. That would make India the fourth largest economic power after the US, Japan, and China. Perhaps such realisation is already there in the minds of the big powers.
After the Georgia G-8 Summit, Tony Blair publicly announced that G-8 was considering expansion of the group by co-opting China and India as members. Besides, increasingly many countries are favouring permanent membership for India in the UN Security Council. Late last month a senior Chinese cabinet minister for the first time supported a "greater role" for India in international arena including the UN. His remark is one of the most explicit public statements from a senior Chinese leader on India's bid to become a permanent member of the UNSC. China now wants the reform of the UNSC to reflect the interest of all parties, particularly those of the developing countries, principle of equitable distribution etc. It, however, becomes difficult for a country to claim such an
exalted position in an international organisation like the UN if it cannot muster supportfrom regional countries.
While Pakistani opposition to Indian aspiration for permanent membership of the UNSC is likely to remain implacable unless there is a solution of the Kashmir issue on Pakistani terms, India has to court the other South Asian countriesfor peace and economic development in the region. But then one is struck by the paucity of reference to regional countries (exceptfor Pakistan) in the Congress (I) policy document titled Issues Before the Nation, Security, Defence and Foreign Policy. According to an analyst lack of clarity on policy relating to regional countries could be due to as yet new Indian government's undecided policy towards Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal (though in case of Nepal the recent visit of the new Indian Foreign Minister to the Kingdom has seen the reappointment of Sher Bahadur Deuba as Prime Minister).
Indian policy towards Bangladesh is clouded by Indian allegations of Dhaka's support to antiIndian terrorists and insurgents. Hindustan Times recently reported on the "confessions" made by an activist of the militant Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Asom that proAl-Qaeda groups based in Bangladesh have been talent-scouting among Muslim settlers in Assam who once recruited are provided with six months crash training course in Bangladesh for insurgency in Assam. Dr. Subash Kapila of South Asian Analysis Group in a paper has alleged that Bangladesh has emerged as alternative basefor Pakistan's proxy war against India. He argues that since Pakistan's proxy war against India along the
Line of Control in Kashmir has become difficult both due to increased vigilance by India and close scrutiny by the US, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) finds Bangladesh territory adjoining West Bengal, Assam, Maghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram with multiple ingress routes as attractive for facilitating destabilisation of North East India.
According to Dr. Kapila, ISI and Islamic Jehadi organisations enjoy pan-Islamic linkages with corresponding groups in Bangladesh. He suggests that Bangladesh's interests would be better served by preventing "Talibanisation" of IndoBangladesh border. It should, however, be noted that Bangladesh has time and again rejected these allegations as ill-founded and ill-motivated. Besides, Bangladesh is deeply concerned over Indian plan for the inter-linking of Indian rivers which will provide Tamil Nadu with more water for drinking and irrigation purposes, but would drastically reduce water in the river system of Bangladesh. As DMK is a coalition partner in Delhi it is expected to keep up the pressure on Indian central government causing tension in IndoBangladesh relations. From available public records it does not appear that Bangladesh occupies any significant space in the foreign policy matrix of the new Indian government. Suchmarginalisation of Bangladesh is surprising given the facts that Indian humanitarian intervention in 1971 helped the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country; close ethnic, linguistic and cultural ties with West Bengal; and no less importantly Bangladesh remains a very important destination for export of Indian goods. Since the Indian government is believed to have an agnostic attitude as to which major political party rules Bangladesh at any given time India may wish to give greater attention to its regional neighbours.
Conversely, since South Asia is India-dominant and not Pakistan-dominant, it would serve Bangladesh's interest more by cooperating with India more intensely by freeing ourselves from the ghosts of the past. Argument advanced that co-operating with India will some how devalue our sovereignty is asinine. Europeans are moving towards greater integration by pooling their sovereignty. Canada is living happily with the US without losing any of its freedom of action. Indonesia and Brunei co-exist within ASEAN. In today's world of globalisation, India will be courted by others on its way to becoming a global player regardless of lack of co-operation from Bangladesh. It would make far better sense if we intensify our relations both bilaterally and through SAARC to further our mutual interests. Following a confrontational policy will lead us nowhere as it will be a barren policy since the two countries are not political contestants for regional hegemony.
Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.