Neglecting neighbours

By Inder Malhotra

Even before September 11, when the World did change, this country, including its lively media, had paid scant attention to Bangladesh and the campaign for the election there that has ended in the victory of Begum Khaleda Zia, heading a four-party alliance built around her Bangladesh National Party (BNP). This was a measure not so much of neglect of Bangladesh alone but of all our immediate neighbours except Pakistan.

Indeed, so great is the Indian focus on Pakistan - some call it ``obsession with it'' - that one begins to wonder if this country has any neighbour other than the one currently ruled by General Pervez Musharraf. In all fairness, it must be added that the domination of Pakistan consciousness and psyche by India is much the greater, but that is a different story.

The pertinent point for the present is that the Indian political class in general and the makers of policy and opinion in particular ought to take greater interest in and show more empathy with neighbours like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka than has been the case so far. It is neither proper nor politic to suddenly become aware of them only when there is some terrible disaster such as the horrific royal massacre or the hijacking of the IC-184 in Kathmandu or the horrendous and macabre clash on the Indo-Bangladeshi border. Sadly, the destruction of nearly half of Sri Lanka's civilian aircraft by the LTTE did not register adequately on New Delhi.

Today it is entirely understandable that India, like the rest of the world, should be preoccupied with the U.S.-led ``war on terrorism'', with Osama bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan as its first target and Pakistan as America's ``frontline ally'', as in the previous Aghan War in the eighties. But that should be no obstacle to recognising the crucial importance of the Bangladeshi poll and, more important, making a new beginning with the newly elected Government in Dhaka.

Some might say that this is easier said than done. But because a task is difficult it is all the more reason that it should be taken up in right earnest and without delay. An immediate problem is likely to arise. The new ruling alliance includes two Islamic parties - Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Oikkya Jote (Islamic Unity Front) - and this could have a negative impact on not only Bangladesh's secular ethos but also on its attitude towards India.

All through the election campaign, Sheikh Hasina's party, the Awami League that has suffered a shattering defeat, kept on hammering home that a victory of the BNP-led alliance would lead to the ``Talibanisation of Bangladesh''. Like all election propaganda this is perhaps an exaggeration. However, the Islamic allies of Begum Khaleda have made no bones about converting their country into an Islamic State and running it in accordance with ``sharia''. They, along with several members of the BNP, have also described India as a ``large and overbearing'' neighbour that Dhaka must stand up to. Towards that end there has been some talk about an expansion of Bangladeshi defence forces. It is also remarkable that on Bangladeshi walls, posters of Osama have been competing for space with those of candidates.

The flip side of the same coin is that over recent years this country has given most Bangladeshis the impression that New Delhi considers Sheikh Hasina a friend and Begum Khaleda an adversary. This impression can and must be dispelled. Countries deal with the governments of each other, not with individual leaders of their choice. Also, it is reasonable to expect that Begum Khaleda Zia and the BNP when back in power would be different from when they were in opposition. After all both Dhaka and New Delhi have to be pragmatic in the conduct of a relationship that, despite its delicacy, is vital to both.

Even so, what could queer the pitch for all concerned is a purely internal problem of Bangladesh - the incredibly intense hostility between the two Begums around whom revolves the country's entire politics. In comparison with this, polarisation of the polity here or in Sri Lanka, though divisive enough, pales. Whoever of the two is in power - so far they have been alternating since 1991 - the other makes it her business to bring her down by fair means or foul. In the words of The Economist (September 29), the `two leading ladies appear more interested in trading ever more vitriolic insults than in holding a serious exchange'.

At the time of writing there are disturbing reports that Sheikh Hasina might refuse to accept the voters' verdict and challenge it. If so, it would be a grievous and destructive mistake. The elections were held under a neutral dispensation. Most foreign observers have testified to their fairness. At the time of the 1996 poll that Sheikh Hasina had won, Begum Khaleda had also initially decided to challenge the verdict on the streets. She was dissuaded by friends, including influential foreigners, with the argument that in South Asia whoever loses an election and gracefully accepts defeat is invariably the winner the next time. This advice is as sound now as it was then.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Defining moment for WTO