An ill-advised visit?

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that "a strong, stable, and prosperous" Bangladesh was in the interest of India, in the interest of South Asia and the region, words sweet to the ears of Bangladesh delegation. What was, however, missing was a salvo of 19-gun salute, which would have added grandeur to the occasion, befitting Delhi's majestic past and India's traditional generous hospitality.

It seems India's charm offensive worked well. Bangladesh positively responded to India's concerns and interests. Short of agreeing to India's request for transit per se, the two countries agreed to transport goods through each other's territory. Under the revised bilateral trade agreement, originally signed in 1980: "both countries would make mutually beneficial arrangements for use of their water ways, roadways and railway for commerce between the two countries and for the passage of goods between places in one country through the territory of the other."

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Under the new arrangement, Bangladeshi trucks and boats can transport Indian goods through Bangladesh to another point on the Indo-Bangla border. The Indian interest in transit through Bangladesh was reiterated by President Abdul Kalam in course of his meeting with the Bangladesh PM when he said "more air, road, and rail connection will bring the two countries together," adding that "physical connectivity will bring connectivity of the mind." According to observers, the agreement is a prelude to agreeing to transit of Indian transports through Bangladesh, pending the construction of infrastructure facilities in Bangladesh.

Another substantial gain for India is the operational decision to start railway service from Sealdah to Joydevpur. It is understood that both sides discussed steps towards operating a railway service between Akhaura and Agartala soon. India's security concerns, arising out of presence of Islamic extremists and alleged cross-border terrorists trained by ISI agents in Bangladesh, were taken care of when both the countries agreed to cooperate to fight terrorism together. When India said that Bangladesh should cooperate in ensuring that its territory is not used by elements acting against the interest of Delhi, it underlined India's frequent accusation against Bangladesh for harbouring Indian separatist insurgents in Bangladesh soil. These are major concessions by Bangladesh

In return, what Bangladesh received about its concerns and priorities were some verbal assurances and empty promises only, without any tangible and substantive gain. With respect to Bangladeshi concerns about Delhi's $200 billion mega river interlinking plan to divert water from transboundary Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers adversely affecting Bangladesh, the Indian PM reportedly assured Khaleda Zia that nothing would be done harmful to Bangladesh.

The statement is in sharp contrast to the address by Indian President Abdul Kalam in the Lok Sabha some time back, reiterating the importance of the river linking project for agriculture and economy of India. As regards Bangladesh's concern about the proposed Tipaimukh dam, potentially damaging river water flow of Surma, Kushiara and Meghna, India dismissed Bangladesh anxiety by saying that it was a hydro-electric project and not for irrigation purposes.

Bangladesh concerns about frequent border conflicts resulting in clashes between security forces of the two countries over construction of fences within 150 yards of its 6.5 km undemarcated border and occasional push in of alleged Bangladeshi so-called infiltrators to India, the yawning trade imbalance, and sharing of water of common rivers including Teesta was swept under the rug of inconclusive and interminable deliberations of dysfunctional Joint Economic Commission, Joint River Commission and Joint Border Working Groups, pious wishes and the platitudinous diplomatic language of the joint statement notwithstanding.

The issue of adverse possession of enclaves particularly the lease in perpetuity of Tin Bigha corridor to connect Dahagram and Angortpotta did not find any mention despite the Indian Supreme Courts ruling to implement Indira-Mujib agreement of 1974 granting Tin Bigha corridor. It is not understood why the Prime Minister's official delegation did not include representation from the Ministry of Water Resources, Home and Commerce. It might have sent wrong signals that we do not attach as much importance to issues of these ministries as we profess..

The visit ended in a disaster when the BJP leader LK Advani, contrary to all norms of diplomatic nicety, in course of his meeting with PM Khaleda Zia, frontally attacked her for fundamentalist forces in Bangladesh, illegal migration of Bangladeshis to India, and sheltering Indian North Eastern separatist insurgents in Bangladesh territory to promote anti-Indian insurgency.

Was it a deliberate ploy to convey a message of displeasure of the UPA government headed by Manmohan Singh against the Bangladesh government, expressed by proxy through Advani, a known compulsive anti-Bangladeshi hardliner and staunch preacher of Hindutva?

Was it a retaliation for what the Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran some time ago described as "intemperate and hostile acts" of some neighbours, meaning perhaps sharp reaction of Bangladesh government to the last minute cancellation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Dhaka in early February last year to attend the Saarc summit due to what India claimed was an adverse security situation in Bangladesh.

There is a long litany of anti-Indian campaigns by Bangladesh government leaders. Comments by Jamaat-e-Islami leader and Industries Minister Nizami, accusing RAW of involvement in terrorist activities in Bangladesh, the statement of former Director General of BDR, Jahangir Alam Chowdhury, later confirmed by a statement of Director General External Publicity that "Indian criminals along with Bangladeshi criminals" were responsible for hundreds of bomb explosions on August 17 last year, was deeply offensive to India.

Later, Bangladesh had to retract the statement during Home Secretary-level talks between the two countries held in Delhi. Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan's public denunciation of India at a function in presence of Indian High Commissioner Veena Sikri, particularly about the vulnerability of India's North Eastern states surrounded by Bangladesh, was not the language of diplomacy, prompting a diplomatic row and protest by India.

The continuing veiled anti-Indian rhetoric by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia in her election rallies must have aggravated the sore feelings of the Manmohan government toward Bangladesh. Besides, it is no secret that India is deeply suspicious of Khaleda Zia's government which accommodated anti-liberation Islamic fundamentalists parties. But Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was on a state visit to Delhi representing a nation and not only the BNP-led coalition government. India must be mature enough to know the fine distinction between the two. Advani's behaviour was extremely indecent, inappropriate, and humiliating to Bangladesh.

It is not known why Prime Minister Khaleda Zia gambled a visit to India on the eve of election, four and a half years after assuming power. The visit turned out to be deeply flawed and troubling. By all indications, India played down the visit. According to Indian correspondent Pallab Bhattacharya, the Ministry of External Affairs of India did not hold any formal briefing on Prime Minister Khaleda Zia's visit. Contrary to the usual practice of announcing a VVIP visit about a week ahead of the visit, it announced the visit over its website only a few hours before Prime Minister Khaleda Zia's aircraft touched down at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi. Again, the high level Manmohan and Khaleda Zia official level talks were held in the evening at 6:30 pm, a time for tea, relaxation, and exchange of pleasantries, and not for serous business.

Perhaps the Prime Minister was ill-advised by the Foreign Office to go ahead with the visit, given the existing extremely strained relations, fraught with mutual deep distrust, suspicion and bitter and acrimonious accusation and counter-accusation not infrequently traded between the two governments.

The buck must stop on the watch of the Foreign Office and its outfit in Delhi which showed extreme incompetence and ineptitude in failing to assess and anticipate the mood and situation in India.

It was an unproductive visit which shredded the bilateral relations between the two countries into fragments and it will take quite a while to pick up the pieces to repair the damage. For now, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia's hope of "perceptible improvement in ties" that will usher in "a new phase of friendship" and cooperation between the two countries will remain a distant mirage.

Abdul Hannan is a former Press Counselor, Bangladesh UN Mission in New York.