The BNP and India

By Padmaja Murthy

ON OCTOBER 1, Bangladesh went to the polls to elect the eighth Jatiya Sangsad (Parliament). The Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led four-party alliance won a two-thirds majority - 201 seats out of the 284 for which results were declared unofficially as on October 4. The BNP alone won 186 seats and the Jamaat-e-Islami, one of its partners, got 16. Sheikh Hasina's Awami League, in power for the past five years, was left with just 63 seats.

What does this change of guard mean for India? The popular perception in India is that the Awami League is favourably disposed towards it while the BNP is not. However, India's experience of working with both when in power indicates that apprehensions about the BNP are undue. True, their manner of conducting bilateral relations is different. However, positive strides were made even under the BNP; further the Awami League and the BNP have common positions on certain issues of concern to India. It should be remembered that nations do not have permanent friends or enemies but only permanent interests. Public postures of belligerence or otherwise are guided many a time by domestic compulsions. What matters is action on the ground.

India should not view either of the parties solely through the prism of the past - particularly with regard to their role in the Liberation War and the nature of the governments they ran. Doing so now will result in our bias showing to the detriment of furthering our national interests. While the positive steps taken under Sheikh Hasina such as the conclusion of the Treaty on Sharing of Ganga Waters at Farakka, voluntary return of Chakma refugees to Bangladesh, inauguration of the bus service from Calcutta to Dhaka were well highlighted, the same is not done for the period when Begum Khaleda Zia was in power. With the return of democracy in Bangladesh, it was the Government under Khaleda Zia which set the tone for positive relations with India. High- level joint working groups and expert committees on trade, security and water issues were set up, thereby institutionalising relations. The two parties, however, differed in their approach to resolving bilateral issues with India. While the Awami League, like India, believed in bilateralism, the BNP internationalised bilateral issues which soured ties. Though the BNP's election manifesto calls for the revision of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Accord and the Ganga water treaty, it cannot undo the positive steps which the Awami League Government has taken towards India. One can also anticipate that business interest groups will play a constructive role in Bangladesh politics which will influence relations with India.

There are, however, issues of concern to India on which both the major parties in Bangladesh have a similar stand. The porous border which enables a massive illegal movement of people from Bangladesh has important consequences for India's internal security. The rigid Bangladesh official position, whichever party is in power, is that there is no illegal migration of people. While there are some apprehensions regarding the possibility of insurgents in the Northeast getting sympathy from the new Government, one should not overlook that the issue of illegal migration is an important dimension of the Northeast insurgency. India's programme of fencing the border is met with equal disapproval, whichever the government in power in Dhaka. Similarly, the trade deficit is another issue which has become emotive in Bangladesh under both the BNP and the Awami League. What is overlooked is that Bangladesh also has trade deficits with China, Singapore and other countries. Neither of the two parties differ much on the issue of provision of transit to India. Their views on export of gas show an interesting difference. While the BNP's manifesto spells out that the export of natural gas would take place if profitable, the Awami League manifesto calls for the export of natural gas only after assuring 50 years reserve. India has always viewed with caution its neighbours' relations with China. Even on this issue there is a national bi-party consensus and the change in government in Bangladesh has not had any impact on its relations with China. Both the leaders upon coming to power first visited China and only then India.

An interesting aspect of the election campaign was that issues of terrorism, illegal arms, law and order, corruption, economic development, debate about the pro and anti-liberation forces occupied the major political space. Relations with India did figure, but not in a major way. The immediate analysis of the commentators within Bangladesh explaining the Awami League's debacle has primarily pointed to the BNP's alliance with the Jamaat-e-Islami, the overwhelming negative vote against the Awami League because of corruption and terrorism, increasing violence, issues of law and order, shift of vote banks in rural areas to the BNP, which was overlooked, and similar domestic factors. India as a factor, or the Awami League being seen as pro-India, has not been cited as a major factor. This is indeed a positive aspect for bilateral relations. An analysis of the votes cast in the election has brought out that the Awami League secured 40.24 per cent, while the BNP's four-party alliance together got 46.9 per cent.

An additional aspect to be noticed while India conducts its bilateral relations with Bangladesh is that over the years, especially since the beginning of the 1990s, Bangladesh has carved out a positive international identity with contributions to the U.N. peacekeeping operations, an active role in forums dealing with Least Developed Countries, regional groupings in South Asia and those dealing with the Muslim countries. Mr. Bill Clinton's visit, as U.S. President, furthered its image of a democratic, moderate Islamic country.

The just-concluded general elections have been monitored by various international observers who have certified it as fair and free. The working of the caretaker Government and the conduct of elections should strengthen the democratic credentials of Bangladesh. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., Bangladesh agreed to an American proposal for assistance in the global coalition against terrorism. Bangladesh would provide airspace, sea port, airfields, and refuelling facilities to the international coalition. These international measures would put pressure to check the rise of fundamental and radical elements in Bangladesh too.

Begum Khaleda Zia's initial reaction following the landslide victory reflects that a mature leadership is at the helm of affairs. She stressed the need to combat terrorism and asked the people not to take law into their own hands. Bringing out the need for peace, stability and patience, she asked the people not to show disrespect to any picture or shrine nor to misbehave with any person and not to run after others' property. The Awami League is, of course, shocked with the results and has alleged that `crude rigging' had taken place. However, one is hopeful that both domestic and international pressure will result in a constructive opposition and that differences are resolved in Parliament and not through hartals.

India should note this changing image of Bangladesh - of its leadership, its democratic institutions, its regional and global agenda. India should not get identified with a particular party or a leader since on some crucial areas both the parties have similar views. India and Bangladesh should focus on issues for, while conducting foreign policy the one factor that guides countries is not the question of friends or enemies but permanent interests.

(The writer is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. These are her personal views.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The task ahead
Next     : Resisting evil