& 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

PLEASURE IS ALL MINE

Bangladesh should feel sought after

Shah Husain Imam
A former Indian petroleum Z—< minister, Moni Shankar
■*Aiyar, on a visit to Dhaka had said, wat is in India's interest, more than Bangladesh's that New Delhi needed Dhaka's friendship. This may not be an exact reproduction of his words, but that is the essence of what he
wanted to convey.
He had come on an agenda of finalising a Myanmar-Bangladesh-India gas pipeline deal. The then BNP government linking it to trade imbalance and transit to Nepal, an originally perceived purposeful visit turned
out a "goodwill" one.
What Aiyar said with his characteristic eloquence and candour half a decade ago, sounds prescient by hindsight, even prophetic. The underlying significance of Aiyar's statement had to do with India's transit, anti-insurgency and port use agenda, topped up by a geopolitical concern.
The impression in Bangladesh is that India has got much more than what it gave to Bangladesh through Manmohan's recent visit. The main bone of contention doesn't at the moment centre on the aborted Teesta deal. In fact, the focus has swung on certain Articles of the Framework Agreement on
Cooperation for Development between Governments of India and Bangladesh.
Critics have principally taken issue with Articles 9 and 12. The articles to my mind are open-ended and not as set in stone as is being made out to be. For instance, Article 9 states they "will cooperate on security issues of concern to each other." The operative words here are "of concern to each other." I would argue that they will enjoy freedom of action in security matters that are not "of concern to each other." This freedom is underpinned by the clause — "fully respecting each other's sovereignty." So it is far from "a mili-
tarypact.'’
Article 12 has come in for a good deal of criticism but this is assailable. It provides for termination of the agreement by mutual consent reached through an elaborate process in a joint consultative commission to be set up as the nodal implementation agency. Like in all international agreements, the provision to opt out is very much there.
Particular exception has been taken by the critics to the proviso: "Actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to the Agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination." Obviously, this clause is a necessary extension of the termination provision keeping in view political vagaries and eventualities in
either of the two countries. If an agreement does not protect what it had achieved prior to its expiry or termination, then what it is worth? More to the point is, even during the implementation, if it is found that something is not to the benefit of one of the high contracting parties, it can invoke the option of coming out of it.
Whilst in the opposition BNP plays its anti-India card; in power, because it has to deal with India it conducts its relations with New Delhi keeping to normal diplomatic niceties. There is no reason to believe that BNP's ideological anchor has come unstuck from its previous mooring, yet its current posturing towards
India shows a sign of change. It has scaled down the strident rhetoric against India. From a recriminatory banter of "an AL sell-out to India" that New Delhi couldn't have savoured, the opposition party has softened its attitude towards the neighbouring country.
It all started with Begum Khaleda Zia admonishing a party leader who spoke of calling a hartal to coincide Dr. Manmohan's visit to Dhaka. Shiv Shankar Menon, Indian security adviser called on Khaleda Zia saying Dr. Manmohan's itinerary included a tete-a-tete with Bangladesh's opposition leader. In the talks the Indian PM invited Begum Zia to visit New Delhi. This was followed by an appreciative letter from the Indian PM to Bangladesh's opposition leader.
Understandably, Begum Zia's advisors are planning a trip to India ostensibly on pilgrimage to Azmeer Sharif, but with a purpose of meeting Indian leaders.
India is seeking to cultivate both parties, and that is about far-sighted, visionary leadership.
Speaking of a strategic vision and given our geopolitical circumstances, we believe, Bangladesh's simultaneous cooperative relationship with both India and China need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, pragmatism dictates Bangladesh to have a balanced relationship with both China and India as was reflected by Sheikh Hasina's first international trip to China which was
followed by that to India.
There is no permanent friend or foe in international relations but only permanent national interests.
With India it is a matter of heart. That's why we are hurt by barbed wire fence along the border and the border killings. With China it’s cerebral. But now that we are getting into a deeper phase of engagement with India, based on long-harboured expectations for speedy resolution of our outstanding problems with her, we would need to use the brain, too.
The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star. E-mail: husain.imam@thedailystar.net
***With India it is a matter of heart. That's why we are hurt by barbed wire fence along the border and the border killings. With China it's cerebral. But now that we are getting into a deeper phase of engagement with India, based on long-harboured expectations for speedy resolution of our outstanding problems with her, we would need to use the brain, too.****