& 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

Recipe of American Rice and Indian curry

But one may ask, is the "quite troubling" situation beyond redemption? Is it something that needs a recipe fron outside? The message to our political leadership is loud and clear. Wake up to the realities; not because th< international community demands so, but because the political leaders owe it to the people of Bangladesh to do so.

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam Khan ndc, psc (Retd)
THE title of this piece was motivated by a comment to a question posed to the US secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by an Indian journalist, Raj Chengappa, during her recent visit to that country. But, let us begin from the beginning.
Dr. Rice commenced her visit of Pakistan and India with a two-day stopover in New Delhi as a part of her South and East Asia tour. Noticeably excluded from her South Asian itinerary were the otherfive countries of the region.
Whatever notion of importance the other South Asian countries may have nurtured in their hearts about their strategic equation with the big power have perhaps disappeared by now, since, by Dr. Rice's own admission, certain political, strategic and economic attributes of India and Pakistan have accorded them a different status in the eyes of the foreign policy planners in Washington to merit its attention. Clearly, the other countries of the region do not have those attributes, at the moment, at least.
According to Dr. Rice, it is
India's "rising status," its "vibrant democracy," a relationship of great "international dimensions," and "shared values" that have merited US interest in garnering a more intimate relationship with India.
As for Pakistan, it has to be grateful to the so-called US war on terrorism, in which it is a frontline state, and to the Afghan situation which has bailed it out twice in the last two decades, from
to the two South Asian states for later. What has attracted our interest, though, and on which we wish to discourse a bit more, are the comments that we referred to at the very start.
Although Dr. Rice did not choose to visit the other countries of the region, since they do not merit high in the strategic continuum, she nonetheless was more than forthcoming regarding her recipe to deal with the "problems"^
the reality on ground. Some even contend that it was so formulated to draw out a particular response from the Secretary of Sate that would in essence consecrate India's current and future policy in the region vis a vis the other states.
Regrettably, there has been a marked propensity by some in India journalists to attribute the phrase "failed state," as clearly noticeable in this instance, with-
used in rather a perfunctory manner, can be also applicable in the reverse. What some in India, like Mr. Chengappa, fail to acknowledge and conveniently forget is the fact that similar problems beset his country too. In some cases it is India that had induced some of the problems that exist today in some of the countries of South Asia.
The reply to the question also needs to be read between the
a country that was projected out of the US strategic reckoning after the Soviet departure from Afghanistan, to a frontline state following the US invasion of the country as a part of its anti terror campaign, eventually graduating to an MNNA, only the fourth Muslim country to be granted the favour.
However, it would be disingenuous to question the relative importance of both India and Pakistan in the overall matrix of the power game that motivates US policy in the region and indeed in Asia. But such strategic value is both situation and time-related, and remains only a transient phenomenon as apparent from the peaks and troughs that some countries in the region encountered in the rather volatile power game of the Cold War era.
But we shall leave the discussion on the actual US motivations behind its Secretary of State's trip
that beset the other countries of the region, except, of course, India. It would not be wrong to suggest that both, the question and the reply thereto, have ruffled feathers in Bangladesh when the press latched on to Dr. Rice's comments, which some suggest was done out of context, while others give it an entirely different tilt.
But, be that as it may, let us examine the formulation of the question first. What the journalist asked her was, "Looking at the region, you know, we're surrounded by failing states and problems, you know, whether you look at Nepal or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh and, of course, Pakistan.EWhat is the sort of role you think India should be playing in the region?"
Of course, the question which, with its journalistic formulation, was heavily loaded, fails to reflect
out reality enunciating the criteria on which they base such characterisation, and that too in the most casual and perfunctory manner, without perhaps even realising the implications of such remarks. Except for India, it would appear from the remarks, all other states are failing or have failed or are problematic for it. The travesty of geography is that while India has common borders with the other countries of South Asia no other country has common borders with any other, thus such perception of the Indian journalist about its neighbours.
While it is not deemed necessary to go into the discussion on what is a failed state, it may be worth mentioning that some of the countries in the region had been doing rather better in many aspects of development indices than India, not very long ago. The "problems," which have been
lines. Dr. Rice replied thus: "Well, there are several ways in which India, and then India and the United States together, can help in this region." While she drew a rather broad brush over the region from Afghanistan to Bangladesh this is what she said about us: "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 that we can do." She seems to give the impression that the US and India working together or alone have the recipe for the problems that are facing the countries of the region. And this is perhaps what the interviewer wanted to hear.
No doubt there are problems that Bangladesh is encountering that currently need more prudent handling. There have been disquieting developments of late. What was once seen to be elements on
the fringes of the political spectrum, or obscurantist at worst, seem to be more entrenched than appeared at first sight. Unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of religiously motivated elements has called into question the government's willingness to combat these phenomena with any degree of forthrightness.
There is also no denying that much of the criticism that we have invoked from outside is due to our own making, due to inept handling of the events, and most importantly, due to the political equation that exists between the ruling and the opposition parties in Bangladesh.
But one may ask, is the "quite troubling" situation beyond redemption? Is it something that needs a recipe from outside? The message to our political leadership is loud and clear. Wake up to the realities; not because the international community demands so, but because the political leaders owe it to the people of Bangladesh to do so.
No self-respecting nation can bear to have externally induced solutions to its problems although their assistance in countering common threats is always welcome.
In spite of the Bengali's predilection for rice and curry, not always will a recipe of American rice and Indian curry be easy to stomach.
The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.