& 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

Hilsa diplomacy

Shahedul Anam Khan
IT Is not my intention to make light of the visit of the Bangladesh foreign minister to India last month but to highlight the importance of personal rapport between leaders of the countries of the region, that is so very essential to foster better understanding between states. But one must also be careful against depending too much on personal equation when it comes to serving the interest of one's country.
Interestingly, insofar as Bangladesh-India relationship is concerned, special predilection for a particular party in authority at the centre, both in India and Bangladesh, has been the hallmark of the relationship between the two countries. Whether that is the ideal situation is for experts to comment, but I for one feel that states deal with governments and not parties although the psychological disposition of the ruling party in one country towards the party in power in the neighbouring country is a big factor in determining how relationship between the two develops. The peaks and troughs in the level of relationship between Bangladesh
and India since 1991 have varied with the assumption and relinquishment of political power in these two countries.
One would recall the then foreign minister of Bangladesh rushing to New Delhi in 2001 after the BJP was voted back to power, forgetting that it is not the party that is important but the permanent interest of the country and that any political party worth the name, and one which has the best interest of its country at heart, would be motivated by this fact alone.
Interestingly too, there is clear divide of opinion in Bangladesh when it comes to our India policy. While a section of our political leadership is wary of any India-related issue, and is inclined to view with suspicion any suggestion that originates from India, the other segment is criticised for bending over backwards to accommodate India's strategic requirements.
It needs hardly be said that IndoBangladesh relationship has suffered due to the mindset of the leadership of the two countries, and to some extent the attitude of the establishments on various issues. There is a feeling among many in Bangladesh that India wants its pound of flesh for its role in our war of liberation;
and they cannot be blamed for it since there are many in India who feel that Bangladesh has not been grateful enough for the sacrifice India had made in 1971.
Very few, If any, would contest the fact that the relationship between the two countries was at very low ebb during the 4-party alliance regime. One cannot recall any bilateral visits at foreign minister level taking place, not to speak of visit by the head of state or government, during that period.
If that was the time when the Bangladesh-India relations went out of focus, a situation quite unacceptable and unwarranted, the new dispensation in Dhaka has lost no time to redirect the attention to what must be a very important foreign policy priority. However, to some it may appear that it has been at the expense of other areas of equal priority.
It is in this backdrop that the Bangladesh FM paid a three-day visit to India, where several things have been agreed upon. Some have criticised the quid pro quo nature of the agreement. But anyone who thinks that our demands would be conceded without us reciprocating in equal measure suffers from delusion. The question is how far have our strategic concerns been addressed.
The variegated nature of the issues were rightly acknowledged and in stating that the recent elections have provided both countries with a historical opportunity to take India-Bangladesh relations to greater heights acknowledged the special relationship between the Congress and the Awami Teague.
However, if, as the joint statement stated, both ministers discussed the entire gamut of bilateral relations the joint statement did not reflect that at all. Vital bilateral issues that are of special relevance to Bangladesh were glossed over at best, and that includes trade.
The agreement to Immediately commence Joint Hydrological Observations on the river Teesta is a step backwards, since, according to knowledgeable sources, an agreement was all but signed during the last tenure of BNP.
As for the land boundary issues, it is interesting to note that "both sides expressed their intent to resolve outstanding issues relating to Dahagram and Angarpota enclaves and the Tin Bigha Corridor." One wonders what is there for Bangladesh to resolve about the Tin Bigha Corridor or for that matter if there is anything outstanding on the Bangladesh side regarding Dahagram and Angarpota. The onus of action regarding these two issues is fully on India.
The Nepal-Bhutan transit is an outstanding matter and restating it merely shows lack of action on the Indian side to deliver. The trade issue has remained confined to the realm of rhetoric and the killing of Bangladeshis by BSF was not even brought up. And no one knows when we might get the 100MW electricity, given that setting up the required infrastructure to transfer it to our country is time consuming.