Diplomatic breakdown

New Delhi was at its crudest when it conveyed to Dhaka India's inability to attend the Saarc meeting. Natwar Singh, who presides over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the last person who should be asked to handle jobs demanding finesse. He is too arrogant, too hawkish to care about refinement and delicacy. When the government decided to abstain from the meeting, he reportedly entrusted his foreign secretary with the task of communicating 'no' to India's High Commissioner at Dhaka.

But before the High Commissioner could convey the message to the Bangladesh government, the news was on the TV channels at Dhaka. Even without ensuring that India's decision reached the right quarters, New Delhi disseminated the information to the media.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Naturally, Bangladesh -- the host of the Saarc meeting -- felt cut up. A country, which is always on the edge when it comes to dealing with India, felt humiliated. I can't make out why Natwar Singh could not pick up the phone and inform the Bangladesh Foreign Minister. Would it have ruffled diplomatic feathers or violated some protocol rules? The royal coup at Nepal was good enough a reason for India to abstain. But the whole thing turned out to be different.

Look from the Bangladesh point of view. The Saarc meeting has been cancelled twice when Dhaka was all set to have the spotlight. Without having many opportunities to play a worthwhile role in the region, the Saarc meeting was a break of sorts for Bangladesh. It gave the country a sense of importance. Anyone could have figured out that the cancellation would disappoint the people of that country. And since India's inability to participate led to the calling off of the meeting, the anger was bound to be directed at New Delhi.

India's fault was in confusing the Saarc objectives with its own reactions. It made sense when it was said that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could not be seen shaking hands with the king whose hands were stained with the murder of democracy in Nepal. But why did New Delhi bring in the happenings of Bangladesh while elucidating its absence? The Saarc is the forum of governments, however wanting. India is only a participant. The two cannot be mixed because their purposes are different.

New Delhi could have glossed over the developments in Bangladesh for the time being. No doubt, Dhaka was a security risk in the wake of disturbances due to the murder of the Awami League leader and ex-finance minister Shah AMS Kibria. It is equally true that the horrifying incident came at a time when India was feeling peeved over the murderous attack on the Awami League rally in the presence of its president Sheikh Hasina. Yet, New Delhi had many other avenues to communicate its concern. In fact, it issued a statement when Kibria's murder took place.

Manmohan Singh's security could not have been taken lightly. Surely, Dhaka could have been asked to put more force. We could have flown our own commandos to which, I am sure, Bangladesh government could not have objected to, beleaguered as it was at that time.

Maybe, we are barking at the wrong tree. Our main problem is that we have not been able to get along with the Khaleda Zia government which, to say the least, has not been friendly. The comparison becomes obvious when her predecessor Sheikh Hasina was equally irritating, but not unfriendly. The fact is that elements unaccommodative towards New Delhi have crowded out the pro-liberation elements, which are secular.

The Bangladesh Nationalist Party of Khaleda Zia has been conniving at the activities of anti-liberation groups. But this is not something new. New Delhi has lived with such a situation before. Why should it have gone to the extent of displaying its frustration by withdrawing from the Saarc meeting? It would have given the countries in the region an

opportunity to discuss the situation in Bangladesh on the sidelines of the meeting.

We have been paying very little attention to Bangladesh since the advent of Khaleda Zia. It may sound harsh but there is no denying that there is hardly any mention of Bangladesh in India and its media in positive terms. Illegal immigrants from Bangladesh are all over the press. The BJP-led government killed the work permit scheme for the Bangladeshis. The Congress, even after being in power for nine months, has not thought of reviving it.

People-to-people contact may be the answer. It is, however, strange that there is very little enthusiasm among the Bengalis on both sides for interaction as is seen among the peoples in East Punjab and West Punjab. This should have been more in West Bengal and Bangladesh.

Supercilious as the Bengalis are -- they do not mix with those whom they consider less important than themselves -- Dhaka would not lose its stature or status if it were to shake hands with Kolkata, even though it is not India's capital. Culturally, linguistically and even otherwise, people in West Bengal are closer to those in Bangladesh. But the equation between the two is lacking. Both have to forget the past. Even if they do not now, they will do so one day. At least, New Delhi should be sensible enough not to spoil things till that time arrives.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.