A bagful of commitments
THAT the meeting between two leaders of Bangladesh and India at the highest political level has taken place on bilateral plane after many many years is in itself a ground- breaking event. No two countries can exist in an environment of animus and distrust as Bangladesh and India have done in the last several years (Bangladesh alone is not to be blamed for it), and it is in that perspective that Hasina's India visit must be seen.
The hype that was generated on the eve of the visit and the expectations built up by various quarters was but only natural. And one is certain that Sheikh Hasina was fully aware of the fact that she was representing the hopes and aspirations of fifteen million Bangladeshis, many of whose psyche has been shaped by the fact that some commitments by India have remained unfulfilled.
Many are inclined to see the outcome of the summit as 3 agreements, 2 MOUs and a bagful of commitments only, while some see it as a foundation on which future relationship can be built upon. Some have dismissed the Bangladesh-India summit as an exercise in void, that Bangladesh has come away with very little of immediate consequence but has given away too much to India. I am disappointed that some of the past unresolved issues did not feature specifically in the talks.
Thankfully, terrorism and security were not the only issues on the agenda, and one must feel happy that a large number of issues have featured in the talks, including the Tipai Mukh on which a solemn commitment has been made by India. However, inclusion of some issues has surprised many since they were not specifically subjects of public discourse prior to the PM's visit, nor were they mentioned directly or indirectly in official pronouncements, like the one related to the use of Chittagong and Mongla ports by India. But this falls within the rubric of connectivity, one could say.
In the absence of details and without going into the fine prints of the agreements a detailed critique is somewhat difficult. Therefore, for the present we shall dwell only on a few issues and, basing on the materials appearing in the media, it will be worthwhile to go into the three agreements before going into one of the other issues that found mention in the communiqué. These are all related to security with terrorism being the main focus.
There is nothing new as far as the agreement on cross-border terrorism is concerned. There are existing Saarc protocols that already mandate the regional countries to cooperate on the stipulated issues of cross-border terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking.
We are not aware of the details but intelligence sharing is one of the provisions stipulated in the recent agreement, something that is also provided for in the Saarc protocol. This is perhaps mere reaffirmation of our commitment to combat terrorism, both on bilateral and regional basis, and given the nature of terrorism that has evolved over the past several years in South Asia there is the imperative to address the matter regionally. And such reaffirmation with other countries of the region also would make eminent sense.
Of the two other agreements, the motive behind one that relates to handing over of convicted prisoners has perhaps to do with a particular individual wanted by India, whose handing over to it would be facilitated by this agreement. It is my belief that a single individual or event should not be the criterion for entering into mutual agreements but principles and values that we hold true to our hearts. Otherwise, we tend to become servants of expediency rather than upholders of principles. Lack of formal agreement should not stand in the way of acting on moral convictions and principles, and exchanges can be done without any quid pro quo.
Of the other issues that has surprised many is letting India have use of the two ports, one, because it was not in the original agenda, and two, because of the so called security implications related to it. In principle, there should be no harm in letting others have the use of one's communication and trade facility. The question is what are the economic and strategic gains for us? The former I shall leave to the economists to work out, but the potential of Chittagong becoming an international maritime hub should not be lost on the critics of the policy.
Insofar as its security implications are concerned, one finds it very weird the argument that the use of the ports by India will be fraught with danger, and that it will involve us directly or indirectly with the insurgency movement in the Indian North East. By the same argument are we to believe that those, who are cooperating militarily with India or supplying them with arms and ammunition, and which are being used against the insurgents, are indirectly parties to the anti-insurgency campaigns?
There is a need too look into the outcome of the visit in a dispassionate manner. Certainly it is a bagful of commitments, and they are all in black and white, unlike in the past, which no party should be able to wriggle out of. The important thing is to work out the minutiae of implementation of the commitments made.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments