What does the Congress victory mean for Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee immediately conceded defeat, tendered resignation and pledged all co-operation to the future government. He said his party had lost but India won, signifying Indian democratic process continued unabated. He also said that he had lost the election but not determination, Amplifying the phrase, he spoke of his continued will to do well for the people at home and to promote peace in the region.

Vajpayee's ambition found expression in his efforts, representing almost the last wish of his life, to establish peace with Pakistan. He thought he would make a mark in history by promoting a solution of the Kashmir issue, which caused wars between the two neighbours and deprived their peoples of their legitimate rights to a better life. The huge resources diverted by these two powers to wasteful war efforts were also criminal to the overwhelmingly poor and needy people of the two most populous countries of the sub-continent.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

One need not recount the complexity of the Kashmir issue, which stands at the pivot of all major problems facing the two nations. Notwithstanding the stand-off at Kargil and the terrorist attack in the parliament, Vajpayee waved an olive branch to Pakistan. The resumption of bus service between the two countries was a clear manifestation of his will to reconcile. He said he would make one last effort and set out for Pakistan to attend the SAARC Summit. He went there not so much for his commitment to SAARC than to promote understanding with President General Musharraf.

Despite the stamp of communalism on his party and colleagues, Vajpayee's personal attitude towards establishment of peace with Pakistan was recognised much earlier. He was also Foreign Minister in the coalition government of Prime Minister Morarji Desai in 1977 when the Interim Agreement on the Sharing of Waters of the Ganges was concluded between Bangladesh and India. Being posted in Delhi, I had the opportunity of observing his role closely. His ambition to improve relations with the neighboring countries found expression even then. However, the Indian electorate this time cut short his ambition prematurely.

What will then be the attitude and approach of the Congress-led coalition government to Pakistan in the context of the complex issues and the perennial distrust characterising relations between the two neighbours? Recently, the sports diplomacy was conducted through the highly successful visit of the Indian cricket team to Pakistan. People to people contacts have worked marvels and hold greater prospect to ease the uneasy situation facing the two adversaries. But the claim of the diehard rightists of the BJP that the NDA had lost election and with it also lost the people's mandate for Vajpayee's overture for making peace with Pakistan, rendered the situation even more complex and difficult.

The challenge faced by the new Prime Minister of India, therefore, lies in his determination and ability to match with Vajpayee's initiative and efforts. He may even have to take a step forward in the process of reconciliation, not only to do better than the previous regime, but also to substantiate his party's commitment to the ideals of secularism, peace, and cooperation in the region. It will be interesting to see the future interaction between the two arch enemies without sacrificing their genuine national interests. Similarly, President Musharraf will not only have to react positively, but to be proactive in his dealings with the new Prime Minister of India.

As for Bangladesh, the policy and actions of new New Delhi will certainly be guided by a set of heterogenous factors. The friendship and co-operation between the two countries during the liberation war was followed by the vicissitudes of policies with the passage of time and change of regimes in both the countries. Both the Awami League and the Congress Party, having enjoyed near-monopoly power and confidence of their respective peoples, are no longer the same political parties. Many who had worked hand in hand then in the same party are now political adversaries. It may be recalled that the two most important agreements concluded between Bangladesh and India, both on water sharing, took place during the tenure of non-Congress governments. The Interim Agreement was signed during the regime of Janata Party-led coalition of Prime Minister Morarji Desai and the Long Term Agreement was concluded during the Prime Ministership of Dev Goda. The rulers of Bangladesh then were President Ziaur Rahman and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina respectively.

What will then be the attitude of the new government towards Bangladesh? The sixty-four thousand dollar question. Bangladeshi Prime Minister will send a Special Envoy in reciprocity of the move made by the Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee following victory of the BNP in 2001 election. Brojesh Mishra, Special Assistant to the Indian Prime Minister, carried a goodwill letter from the Indian Prime Minister and delivered it to the new Bangladeshi Prime Minister. The good wishes and pledges of co-operation contained in the letter were reciprocated warmly by the latter. One may view this as customary between states, though it is not absolutely necessary. But one must admit that such an explicit expression of desire constitutes the foundation on which the edifice of trust, friendship, and mutual co-operation could be built. So, having the will for friendship expressed and the scope of cooperation defined with the first official contact, what are needed most are the sincerity, determination, mutual understanding and sustained efforts through continued dialogue. This is sine qua non of promoting better relations between neighbours. But during the past two and a half years of the BNP rule, the expressed will of the two governments have not yielded the desired result. Why was it so?

One must admit that the importance of Bangladesh in the geo-political strategy of India is evidently much less than what India is for Bangladesh. Yet, India's relation with Bangladesh is unique for more than one reason. The geographical location of Bangladesh, surrounded by India on all sides, is a factor that may be regarded both in positive and negative dimensions. Secondly, the most helpful role played by India during the birth of the new nation, Bangladesh, generated a feeling of sympathy and a sense of camaraderie, which though may now be on the wane. Thirdly, the people to people contacts between the two countries fostered by cultural exchanges and goodwill visits by law-makers. civil society stalwarts, academics, journalists, sportsmen, artists and such others will surely prove highly positive towards achieving the common objectives. Such measures, of course, are applicable to other countries too. Fourthly, the tendency to hold the bull by the horn to knock off the big and difficult problems first must give way to the efforts to solve those which are less controversial and simpler to deal with. A sense of achievement will bolster hope and chances for even greater achievements. Finally, the vision and resolve of the political leaders must be shared and duly backed by the bureaucracy for realisation of the desired goals.

The most important issues that need to be addressed now to promote better relations between India and Bangladesh include massive trade imbalance for Bangladesh, transit and transshipment controversy, delimitation of land and maritime boundaries, alleged camps and presence of terrorists in each other's country, border skirmishes, and the recent disclosure of the ambitious plan for linking the river network of northern India. Trade talks, especially on Free Trade, SAPTA and WTO, are going on, hopefully, in a positive manner. Transit and transshipment appear to have lost their urgency following the Indian decision to build an alternative route outside the northern boundary of Bangladesh. The delimitation of land boundary can be taken in hand immediately and be satisfactorily completed. There are, indeed, differences on the question of existence of rebel camps and terrorists, but these call for continued dialogue in a spirit of tolerance and respect for each other's views. Border skirmishes can be avoided with greater vigil, communication and guidance on the part of both. The river link project, it appears, is likely to be opposed by some partners of the new Indian government itself and will, to that extent, help remove the deep concern of Bangladesh.

What is left then? What is left is the priority to be assigned and determination shown by the two countries to resolve their problems. They must work in all earnest for this purpose. Bangladesh has no reason whatsoever to denigrate importance and urgency to solve the bilateral issues with India. But such a postulate may not hold good for India, for various reasons, including existence of other issues deserving greater and immediate attention. But India would still be well advised to enhance its priority towards Bangladesh which will be happily reciprocated. Positive outcome of such efforts will evidently constitute a precursor to the establishment of a congenial atmosphere for the promotion of peace and co-operation in South Asia. And this will, no doubt, earn a welcome laurel for the new government of India.

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.