Cooperation not confrontation

The idea behind the dialogue was to get journalists from both countries together to discuss issues of bilateral concern, and to see if anything could be done about the gap in perception that exists between the two countries, and especially the gap in perception between the media of the two countries.

It was hoped that this kind of person to person contact would help the Indian media see things from the Bangladeshi perspective, and vice versa, and that this would go some way towards closing the perception gap that exists between the media of the two countries.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The dialogue was, to my mind, quite a success. We spent two days discussing and debating the main issues of concern between the two countries: trade and economic relations, water, security, perception of each other's policies, and so on.

The debate occasionally became pointed, but people listened respectfully to opposing viewpoints, and engaged with them in a meaningful way, and speaking with the other participants both during and after the conference, there seemed to be a general consensus that hearing the other side's perspective on issues had been an invaluable experience.

The discussions were very fruitful and there was more agreement than disagreement, perhaps because the journalists who would come to such a dialogue, almost by definition, are the type who would be more responsive to the opposing point of view in the first place, and believe that cooperation rather than confrontation is the way to solve our problems.

I really think we opened the eyes of the Indian delegation, who will return home armed with a more sophisticated understanding of our concerns and the awareness that, popular perception to the contrary notwithstanding, Bangladesh is not at all a seething cauldron of anti-Indian sentiment.

For our part, we got a fuller understanding of Indian concerns, and, more importantly, came away with appreciation for the fact that there do exist within India constituencies who are willing to give Bangladeshi concerns a patient hearing, and that India is also very far from being uniformly hostile or unsympathetic or dismissive towards Bangladesh.

But the real lesson that I learned during the two days was that, as useful as the dialogue had been, what we need even more than dialogue with Indians on the bilateral relationship is dialogue within each country on the bilateral relationship.

Neither the Bangladeshi nor the Indian delegation was fully representative of either media or popular opinion in each country. In both countries there exist significant constituencies that prefer confrontation over cooperation as a means to advance their nation's agendas, and it is these constituencies that are the impediments to a more mutually beneficial relationship.

The fact that there exist constituencies within the media and the general public in India that are implacably opposed to Bangladesh needs little elaboration. Recent editorials in The Statesman and an op-ed in The Hindu do nothing more than reiterate the popular belief that Bangladesh has emerged as a nation hostile to Indian interests and that India should stand prepared to counter such hostility by any means necessary. There clearly exist hard-liners in India who are not our friends.

The question for Bangladeshis -- and the debate that I believe needs to take place within the country -- is what should be our attitude and posture towards India given that there are elements within India that are both friendly and unfriendly towards us.

The debate we need to have is whether a cooperational or a confrontational approach is more likely to be in our national interest.

There are many on both sides of the border who believe that confrontation rather than cooperation is the more effective way in which to advance their country's national interests.

The confrontational approach appears to have an eloquent advocate in the person of our honourable Foreign Minister Morshed Khan who, apparently unmindful of the occasion, took the opportunity to launch a broadside against India (not just the Indian media as has been reported by some), in the speech with which he opened the dialogue on Tuesday.

What was noteworthy about Morshed's rather undiplomatic outburst (apart from the fact that the Indian High Commissioner was sitting on his right when he delivered it) was the confrontational tone and posture that he took.

I doubt that too many people in Bangladesh would argue with the minister's complaint that India has not done nearly enough to open up its markets to Bangladeshi goods, but his threat that Bangladesh might take retaliatory action to bring India's $3 billion trade with Bangladesh grinding to an immediate halt certainly raised eyebrows.

I don't think that there is any other word to describe the minister's speech than confrontational.

The question is whether such an approach is likely to be effective.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Now, to say that a confrontational approach is unlikely to bear dividends is not the same thing as saying that we do not have legitimate grievances, nor is it the same thing as saying that India is right and we are wrong.

It is simply a question of diplomacy.

From a simple practical point of view, the idea that we could wage a trade war with India is laughable.

The $3 billion dollars of Indian exports to Bangladesh that the foreign minister threatened he could bring to a halt "like that" is a small piece of India's total economy of $650 billion. One half of one percent, in fact.

But as our export and domestic economy is heavily reliant on Indian inputs, halting Indian exports would have a catastrophic impact here. To say nothing of the fact that most Indian goods would simply find their way here through unofficial channels, thus denying us much needed customs revenue.

I actually don't know why I am even responding to the minister's words as though they were an actual policy proposal.

The foreign minister is a smart man and he knows as well as anyone that the Bangladesh economy cannot do without Indian inputs, and that threats to issue a statutory regulatory order on Indian goods are nothing more than chest-thumping rhetoric.

Now, as I have mentioned, we certainly do have legitimate grievances when it comes to the bilateral relationship, and the minister did an effective job of enumerating them -- trade, water-sharing, unsubstantiated allegations of insurgent training camps, etc.

But the question is whether taking a bellicose posture towards India and threatening a trade war is the best way to advance the Bangladeshi agenda.

This is an internal debate we need to have within the country.

Now, one could argue that the approach we take depends on the approach that the Indians take, and if they are uncooperative and confrontational, then we gain nothing by being conciliatory and accommodating in return.

But this would only be true if India were monolithically anti-Bangladeshi, and it isn't, any more than Bangladesh is monolithically anti-Indian.

The simple fact of the matter is that the more bellicose and confrontational our attitude towards India, the more we empower those elements in India that are implacably opposed to us.

If the hard-liners on both sides get to dictate policy then we stand to lose far more than India does.

Confrontation would cost both countries, but there can be no doubt that it would cost Bangladesh more.

There are many things that we want from India -- indeed that we believe we should get as a matter of right -- such as trade concessions and a more equitable water-sharing deal -- but something tells me that we are unlikely to get them if we continue to take a confrontational "bring it on" approach to the bilateral relationship.

Zafar Sobhan is an Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.