& 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

STRATEGICALLY SPEAKING

It's a matter of marking time for Bangladesh
The
accuracy of the prime minister's very recent assertion that the bilateral relations between the two close neighbours is on a new height and the equally positive comment of the foreign minister that the bilateral relationship is on the right track will depend on from what level one is looking at the bilateral ties. True, there has never been a better state of relations at the government level than now. The common man's perception of the issue is perhaps different.
In so far as Bangladesh is concerned it has been a matter of marking time for the smaller neighbour. We have been marking time in practically every aspect of our bilateral relationship. Marking time for the Ganges (for 22 years), for Teen Bigha, treading water forTeesta, and marking time for the implementation of the Mujib-Indira Land Boundary Agreement... the list goes on. And the recently concluded home ministers' meet in New Delhi suggests that we should brace ourselves for more of that.
Since the very beginning it has been one of struggle for formulating appropriate strategies to exist in the shade of a vastly predominant neighbour. The problem has been of determining the relevant factors in going about devising that strategy. But no strategy can work when one of the interlocutors is so deeply engrossed with owncountry focus that the principle of give and take, which is the norm of conducting interstate relations, suffered badly. And that has been the case with our equation with India.
One can easily blame our leadership that have led the country since independence of being psychologically weighed down by the smallneighbour syndrome, but it is true that for a greater part of our existence we have failed to demand firmly whatever is our right by international law, but given rather compliantiy whatever had been sought for by the other side. In fact, in recent times our eagerness
to give has not been matched by India's willingness to reciprocate. Of course there is always the 43 items delisted by India after Manmohan Singh's visit to Dhaka in 2011 to show for India's magnanimity, but there is very little progress on other matters of serious concern to Bangladesh.
We should feel happy that we have India's assurance that the 1974 Mujib-Indira Land Boundary Agreement is going to be ratified, at long last. At least that was what the Indian prime minister is reported to have told our home minister, that the Treaty was likely to be approved in the forthcoming Lok Sabha session. I am an inveterate optimist but in this case I shall
keep my fingers crossed. I am worried because of one single word, "likely" that precedes "to be approved." In deeding with our big neighbour the concept of probability plays a very significant part, because, according to statisticians, the confidence one can have in such a probability estimate (India delivering) decreases in proportion to the number of observations (India falling short) on which it is based.
There is bad news about Teesta so aptly couched in the statements emanating form both sides. Our effervescent adviser to the PM on foreign affairs indirectly asks us to be ready for more mark time when he says that
more work needs to be done, without amplifying which side it is that needs to do "more work" and indeed the nature of the work. One can call the "Didi without mamata" anything for the Teesta fiasco, but none can blame her for upholding her state's interest. Isn't that her job? The question is have we been able to uphold our country's interest?
There is nothing new in Manmohan's, "we are trying to solve the Teesta issue" or the Bangladesh foreign advisor's suggestions for need for more work What is worrisome is that nobody in the Bangladesh government ever tells the truth about Teesta. The fact is we should brace ourselves for a long haul on it. Furthermore, the finance minister’s putting a timeframe on the resolution of the matter, as he did when the issue was scuttled by Mamata, dilutes our case.
As for the border killings, this time we have a conditional commitment, which is that the BSF will not open fire except in self-defence, i.e. unless they feel threatened. That point was flagged by certain speakers at a seminar on Indo-BD relations held in Dhaka recently. And again, perception of threat is highly subjective. One will not deny that border guards can be susceptible to attack by miscreants, but so far we have not seen a picture of the weapon the dead Bangladeshi "miscreants" were supposed to have threatened the BSF with. And whatever happened to the rubber bullets?
One finds very little to be optimistic about the quick resolution of the outstanding bilateral issues even after the recent Sahara-Chidambaram meeting given the very ritual, customary and uninspiring statements made by both sides. We have our minister's word that the meeting has been successful, but success may be defined differently depending on what one is aiming for. As for Bangladesh, it has to remain satisfied with assurances and platitudes for the time being, and see whether India will deliver this time on what it had promised.
The writer is Editor, Oped and Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.