nEWS BD71 LIVE CRICKET SCORE :

Monday, September 12, 2011

Bangladesh The Dictator Is Gone!

Soldier, politician and poet, Hussain Mohammad Ershad is a man who has taken pride in his sense of balance. For almost nine years he managed to maintain his footing in the notoriously slippery ground of Bangladesh politics. Last week, however, the President ran out of ground to stand on. Resigning in a dramatic late-night announcement, he touched off jubilant dancing in the streets by people who viewed his humiliation as poetic justice.

"Ershad is gone, Ershad is gone! Burn his throne!" screamed a flag-waving crowd in Dhaka as firecrackers exploded across the capital. "Catch the thief! Don't let him go!" chanted other marchers. But Ershad wasn't going anywhere. He even personally swore in his successor: Shahabuddin Ahmed, chief justice of the Supreme Court, whom opposition leaders had nominated as caretaker President. Said Ershad: "I want peace to return to society."

The movement to oust the ex-general began in early October. By late November, strikes and demonstrations had reached such fury that Ershad imposed a state of emergency, a stratagem he had used twice before since his seizure of power in 1982.

But the big stick failed to save him this time. Doctors, lawyers, civil servants and merchant seamen refused to work. Journalists and television actors walked off their jobs. Shops remained shuttered, and curfew-defying protesters took to the streets. Said opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia: "The autocratic Ershad had to surrender to the people's will."

Both Khaleda and her partner in the movement's leadership, Sheik Hasina Wazed, now stand a good chance of ruling their desperately poor, densely ) populated Muslim homeland of 110 million. Hasina, 43, is a daughter of Sheik Mujibur Rahman, the 19-year-old nation's founding father, while Khaleda, 46, is the widow of Ziaur Rahman, the South Asian country's military ruler from 1975 to 1981. Both leaders were assassinated in army revolts.

Ershad's exit boosted hopes for democratic succession in a country whose political history has been written in blood. Though he vowed to run for the presidency again, legislators in his own Jatiya Party were resigning last week and even military loyalists encouraged him to go. Scandals, a tyrant's image and a 50% rise in oil prices since the Persian Gulf crisis broke out sealed his doom. Said one movement leader: "From government officers to ricksha pullers, all were out in the street. It was phenomenal." It will also be phenomenal if democracy manages to heal a country that was born in a brutal secession from Pakistan in 1971 and has stumbled from coup to coup since.
 

What does ‘Banga’ mean?

The West Bengal assembly has passed a resolution saying the Indian state of West Bengal will, henceforth, be called Pachchim Banga. Will Bangladesh follow too? No one will tell you what ‘Bang’ in Bangladesh means, except some bold joiners of the dots in ancient history. Bangladesh is old Banga or Bangla with a history as old as 1,000 BC. Does it originate in the Tibetan word ‘bans’ which means wet or moist? Banga (Bengal) is a wet country, criss-crossed by a thousand rivers and washed by monsoons and floods from the Himalayas.
 
Some others believe that the name originated in the Bodo (original Asamese in North Eastern India) ‘Bang La’, which means wide plains. One of the tribes which emerged from the Indus Civilisation after its demise had entered the plains of Bengal, while others went elsewhere. They were called the Bong tribe and spoke Dravidian. We know from many ancient Aryan texts of a tribe called Banga.

Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, who did not include Bengal in the coined word Pakistan, did create an imaginary state among many in India in his dreaming book Now or Never (1931). He called Bengal ‘Bang-e-Islam’ (call to prayer of Islam) and included all of Bengal, West Bengal too. Bengal was a Muslim majority province. Although he had punned on the word, he had hardly explained it.

Two men of south Punjab whose service to Urdu will be remembered are Muhammad Khalid Akhtar and Muhammad Kazim, the latter still living. If you haven’t read much of Urdu literature, read their book reviews.
Kazim, in his book of reviews, Kal ki Baat (Readings Lahore, 2010), tells us that Aurangzeb’s minister Abul Fazl had opined that Bangla was actually Bangal and that ‘al’ in it meant enclosure. Today, ‘aal’ is taken to mean home, from a sense of ‘outer wall making an enclosure’.

Place names today usually end in ‘aal’ or ‘aala’, giving the meaning of home. The most beautiful among them is Chitral, literally meaning home of beautiful/colourful pictures. In pre-Partition Lahore, there was a film magazine in Urdu named Chitrali. Of course it did not mean a magazine devoted to the people of Chitral!
Anciently, Sri Lanka was Singhal, home of lions, which changed to Sihala (sic!) in 543 BC. (We have our Sihala near Islamabad.) The Portuguese called it Cilaon probably from Sanskrit Sri Lanka, which the Sri Lankans prefer today. The Portuguese are funny. They changed Arabic ‘mausim’ to ‘monsaon’, which has given us the word ‘monsoon’.

In Punjabi, the word ‘aal’ is found in two words: ‘aalna’ (diminutive) for nest and ‘aalay-dawalay’ for ‘that which surrounds’. The name Gujranwala was formed from Gujran-aala. ‘Him’ in Sanskrit means ‘frozen’, from where we have the word Himal or Himala. ‘Shivala’, used by Allama Iqbal in Urdu, means home of Shiva.

From the sense of ‘surrounding’ we get the Hindi word ‘aali’ which is the root of our Urdu word ‘sahaili’ meaning ‘friend of the bride’ because girlfriends sit ‘around’ the bride. ‘Sa’ is the prefix for ‘good’. This could be cognate with ‘saali’ (sister-in-law) and ‘saala’. The home of the father-in-law (sassur) is called ‘sassur-aal’. Lovers too are included, as in the bhajan ‘angana main ayay aali’. Here ‘aali’ is master (of home).

In Sanskrit there are dozens of words for home, many of them indirect like ‘aal’. In the Urdu word ‘ghonsala’ (nest) there is ‘ghun’ (concealed) and ‘shala’ (home). A whole lot of them come from the sense of being ‘cut off’. Of that next time.

BY :  Khaled Ahmed.
 

Politics And Economics Of Indo-Bangla Interdependence

Much to the dismay of all and the disbelief of many, India has turned the clock back — defaulting to strike the much hyped and hoped deals on the Teesta water sharing — leaving Bangladesh with little choice but to table the “transit deal” with India; instead both sides signed some broad-based agreements whose significance are dwarfed by breakdown of the much anticipated Teesta deal.
 
One significant and thorny issue — the lingering border disputes with enclaves and exclaves inhabited by 55,000 people — who were often targets of Indian BSF shooting may have been resolved — hopefully, diffusing border tensions between the two nations.

Another important deal Bangladesh is the duty free access for 46 garment products to Indian $27 billion market — estimated to slash some of the $3.5 billion annual trade deficit with India. India however denied duty-free entry of as many as 480 potential Bangladesh export items, which the business community had long been striving for.

While Bangladesh government was warming up to sign the Teesta deal, New Delhi postponed it at the last minute – making it contingent on its approval by Paschim Banga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Against this backdrop of information asymmetry some Awami League MPs have resented and blamed the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s advisers and her foreign minister for their dreary performance leading to the miscarriage of having the Teesta water sharing a done deal. Manmohan Singh has defended the fiasco saying that he was also taken aback by CM Banerjee’s last-minute disapproval. Can this be a norm in diplomacy?
One wonders if — by putting off the water sharing accord— India is poised to press for more concessions from Dhaka on transit or other pent up issues. Or it could be that India wants Bangladesh to begin constructing the necessary transit specific infrastructure before the Teesta deal is signed. How surreal it is that Manmohan Singh would take his historic visit without locking prior acquiesces about the Teesta water sharing from Mamata Banerjee?

This last minute aberrant and crass maneuvering by India will only reinforce the skeptics view about India’s ham-fisted attitude towards Bangladesh –let alone the uncalled for embarrassment it brought on the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The two sides have signed memorandums of understanding (MoU) on some ancillary areas such as cooperation in the field of renewable energy, overland traffic between Bangladesh and Nepal through Indian territory, conservation of the Sundarbans and its endangered Bengal Tigers.

These MoUs are non-binding and so are all negotiated agreements unless ratified by parliaments of the respective countries. How can we forget the historic Mujib-Indira 1974 Land Boundary Agreement — demarcating the borders between the two countries? Dhaka immediately ratified the agreement by amending the constitution while Delhi reneged, leaving the dispute protracted only to inflict dreadful deaths and miseries to many innocent civilians, mostly Bangladeshis, by the trigger-happy Indian BSF.

Signing no deals is indubitably preferable to bad deals. Efficacious international agreements and treaties between nations is largely a function of the degree of their interdependence and the size of the benefits to be enjoyed by each. Obviously, the countries involved would weigh the pros and cons of the deals; recalibrate their negotiating strategies at various stages until an optimal solution is stuck.

A big country like India can easily afford to give in a little and avoid pressing hard for an optimal solution with its much smaller neighbour. Over the years India has been grouching about illegal migrant workers from Bangladesh taking away jobs and in some cases, creating security issues. India must recognise that joblessness and lower wages in Bangladesh are the precursors to such illegal flow of migrant workers across the borders.

For some time now, India has also shown concerns over possible escalation of religious extremism in Bangladesh threatening adverse spillover effects in India. By delaying and depriving Bangladesh of its rightful claim over waters and trade balance, India will only depress Bangladesh economically with contagion effects in politics while at the same time letting, rightly or wrongly, the prevailing distrust and anti-India sentiment escalate.

By resolving all outstanding water sharing issues, allowing duty-free market access, and removal of other market frictions, India will not only create good will and a bigger market for its own goods in Bangladesh, it will also help the Bangladesh economy grow faster creating jobs and higher income which will deter illegal migrant workers. Higher income in Bangladesh will not only foster political and social stability, it will subdue all forms of potential extremism also.

Notwithstanding the ongoing pessimism and fear from many quarters, I am encouraged somewhat to India is negotiating for transit facilities for its landlocked north-eastern states through Bangladesh territory using Chittagong and Mongla ports. My rationale for positive fallout is guided by economics for Bangladesh, revenue earnings from transit fees and future increased access to Indian market for India, transit time and cost savings plus increase access to Bangladesh market and goodwill. This will make the two countries friendlier and interdependent both economically and culturally, benefitting the citizens of both nations.

Economic interdependence is known to lessen frictions or even war between nations? The Post-Cold War era shows trade levels and cooperation in various fronts between the US and Russia and emerging powers such as Japan, China, and Western Europe elevated to new heights.

Dale Copeland argues, “When expectations for trade are positive, leaders expect to realise the benefits of trade into the future and therefore have less reason for wars. If, however, leaders are pessimistic about future trade, fearing to be cut off from vital goods or believing that current restrictions will not be relaxed, then the negative expected value of peace may make war the rational strategic choice,” (Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations (spring 1996).

The Post-Cold War experience also underscores evidence in favour of the view that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of conflicts between nations by increasing the gains from trading over the alternative of aggression: “interdependent states would rather trade than invade”.

Interdependence thus fosters peace and more so when nations expect trade levels to grow to a higher level into the future. Even if the current trade volume is low, expectations of higher future trade will act as an inducement for sustained cooperation on friendly terms.

In the 1850s, Richard Cobden asserted that free trade “unites” nations, “making each equally anxious for the prosperity and happiness of both”. This view was restated in The Great Illusion by Norman Angell prior to World War I and again in 1933.

I believe allowing transit facilities to India on good terms will make India dependent on Bangladesh, however weak that may be, benefiting both nations while giving Bangladesh some leverage over issues of trade and commerce with India.

I do not subscribe to the view that granting transit facilities to India will open Indian domination of Bangladesh politically or economically. If wisdom is an asset of a nation, India has no dearth of it. My point is why India would resort to undesirable activities risking an unstable Bangladesh to emerge along its border like that of Pakistan; that does not necessarily mean India would not like to see a friendly and secular political government in Bangladesh. Which country would not?

Cynics in both countries must recognise that democracies do not exploit democracies or wage war for economic gains. It is as much of interest for India to see Bangladesh flourish politically as a secular democracy and economically a developed progressive country as we Bangladeshis wish it to be, and that is the kind of wisdom I believe India would nurture looking at Bangladesh.
The writer, formerly a Physicist and Nuclear Engineer, is a Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.

Much to the dismay of all and the disbelief of many, India has turned the clock back — defaulting to strike the much hyped and hoped deals on the Teesta water sharing — leaving Bangladesh with little choice but to table the “transit deal” with India; instead both sides signed some broad-based agreements whose significance are dwarfed by breakdown of the much anticipated Teesta deal.

One significant and thorny issue — the lingering border disputes with enclaves and exclaves inhabited by 55,000 people — who were often targets of Indian BSF shooting may have been resolved — hopefully, diffusing border tensions between the two nations.

Another important deal Bangladesh is the duty free access for 46 garment products to Indian $27 billion market — estimated to slash some of the $3.5 billion annual trade deficit with India. India however denied duty-free entry of as many as 480 potential Bangladesh export items, which the business community had long been striving for.

While Bangladesh government was warming up to sign the Teesta deal, New Delhi postponed it at the last minute – making it contingent on its approval by Paschim Banga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Against this backdrop of information asymmetry some Awami League MPs have resented and blamed the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s advisers and her foreign minister for their dreary performance leading to the miscarriage of having the Teesta water sharing a done deal. Manmohan Singh has defended the fiasco saying that he was also taken aback by CM Banerjee’s last-minute disapproval. Can this be a norm in diplomacy?

One wonders if — by putting off the water sharing accord— India is poised to press for more concessions from Dhaka on transit or other pent up issues. Or it could be that India wants Bangladesh to begin constructing the necessary transit specific infrastructure before the Teesta deal is signed. How surreal it is that Manmohan Singh would take his historic visit without locking prior acquiesces about the Teesta water sharing from Mamata Banerjee?

This last minute aberrant and crass maneuvering by India will only reinforce the skeptics view about India’s ham-fisted attitude towards Bangladesh –let alone the uncalled for embarrassment it brought on the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

The two sides have signed memorandums of understanding (MoU) on some ancillary areas such as cooperation in the field of renewable energy, overland traffic between Bangladesh and Nepal through Indian territory, conservation of the Sundarbans and its endangered Bengal Tigers.

These MoUs are non-binding and so are all negotiated agreements unless ratified by parliaments of the respective countries. How can we forget the historic Mujib-Indira 1974 Land Boundary Agreement — demarcating the borders between the two countries? Dhaka immediately ratified the agreement by amending the constitution while Delhi reneged, leaving the dispute protracted only to inflict dreadful deaths and miseries to many innocent civilians, mostly Bangladeshis, by the trigger-happy Indian BSF.

Signing no deals is indubitably preferable to bad deals. Efficacious international agreements and treaties between nations is largely a function of the degree of their interdependence and the size of the benefits to be enjoyed by each. Obviously, the countries involved would weigh the pros and cons of the deals; recalibrate their negotiating strategies at various stages until an optimal solution is stuck.

A big country like India can easily afford to give in a little and avoid pressing hard for an optimal solution with its much smaller neighbour. Over the years India has been grouching about illegal migrant workers from Bangladesh taking away jobs and in some cases, creating security issues. India must recognise that joblessness and lower wages in Bangladesh are the precursors to such illegal flow of migrant workers across the borders.

For some time now, India has also shown concerns over possible escalation of religious extremism in Bangladesh threatening adverse spillover effects in India. By delaying and depriving Bangladesh of its rightful claim over waters and trade balance, India will only depress Bangladesh economically with contagion effects in politics while at the same time letting, rightly or wrongly, the prevailing distrust and anti-India sentiment escalate.

By resolving all outstanding water sharing issues, allowing duty-free market access, and removal of other market frictions, India will not only create good will and a bigger market for its own goods in Bangladesh, it will also help the Bangladesh economy grow faster creating jobs and higher income which will deter illegal migrant workers. Higher income in Bangladesh will not only foster political and social stability, it will subdue all forms of potential extremism also.

Notwithstanding the ongoing pessimism and fear from many quarters, I am encouraged somewhat to India is negotiating for transit facilities for its landlocked north-eastern states through Bangladesh territory using Chittagong and Mongla ports. My rationale for positive fallout is guided by economics for Bangladesh, revenue earnings from transit fees and future increased access to Indian market for India, transit time and cost savings plus increase access to Bangladesh market and goodwill. This will make the two countries friendlier and interdependent both economically and culturally, benefitting the citizens of both nations.

Economic interdependence is known to lessen frictions or even war between nations? The Post-Cold War era shows trade levels and cooperation in various fronts between the US and Russia and emerging powers such as Japan, China, and Western Europe elevated to new heights.

Dale Copeland argues, “When expectations for trade are positive, leaders expect to realise the benefits of trade into the future and therefore have less reason for wars. If, however, leaders are pessimistic about future trade, fearing to be cut off from vital goods or believing that current restrictions will not be relaxed, then the negative expected value of peace may make war the rational strategic choice,” (Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations (spring 1996).

The Post-Cold War experience also underscores evidence in favour of the view that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of conflicts between nations by increasing the gains from trading over the alternative of aggression: “interdependent states would rather trade than invade”.

Interdependence thus fosters peace and more so when nations expect trade levels to grow to a higher level into the future. Even if the current trade volume is low, expectations of higher future trade will act as an inducement for sustained cooperation on friendly terms.

In the 1850s, Richard Cobden asserted that free trade “unites” nations, “making each equally anxious for the prosperity and happiness of both”. This view was restated in The Great Illusion by Norman Angell prior to World War I and again in 1933.

I believe allowing transit facilities to India on good terms will make India dependent on Bangladesh, however weak that may be, benefiting both nations while giving Bangladesh some leverage over issues of trade and commerce with India.

I do not subscribe to the view that granting transit facilities to India will open Indian domination of Bangladesh politically or economically. If wisdom is an asset of a nation, India has no dearth of it. My point is why India would resort to undesirable activities risking an unstable Bangladesh to emerge along its border like that of Pakistan; that does not necessarily mean India would not like to see a friendly and secular political government in Bangladesh. Which country would not?

Cynics in both countries must recognise that democracies do not exploit democracies or wage war for economic gains. It is as much of interest for India to see Bangladesh flourish politically as a secular democracy and economically a developed progressive country as we Bangladeshis wish it to be, and that is the kind of wisdom I believe India would nurture looking at Bangladesh.

BY : Abdullah A Dewan. 
 

The World: India's Conditions

The Indians are still angry with the Nixon Administration for its one-sided support of West Pakistan during last December's war over East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. They were not mollified by Richard Nixon's offer two weeks ago to hold a "serious" dialogue with New Delhi over mutual problems, provided the Indians had "an interest in maintaining balanced relationships with all major powers." To the Indians, that seemed less an olive branch than a thorn, an effort to justify Nixon's own heavv-handed policy in South Asia.

The Indians are prepared to hold discussions, but they have made it clear to Washington that they will insist on certain implicit conditions: the U.S. should 1) not resume arms sales to Pakistan, 2) recognize Bangladesh, and 3) most important, accept New Delhi's view that the Indian-Pakistani balance of power no longer exists on the subcontinent. In return, the Indian government is prepared to offer guarantees to Washington that it supports the principle of an independent Pakistan and will refrain from any kind of interference in Pakistani affairs.

 

Cooperation And Wise Diplomacy Required For Hydropolitics

Withdrawal of upstream water of the river Teesta by India has drastically reduced its flow in the past 25 years spelling disaster for people living in the downstream in the northern region of Bangladesh. Massive shoals are now visible in the middle of the Teesta at Kaunia upazila in Rangpur as the river's downstream keeps on shrinking fast.

Although both India and Bangladesh have an arrangement to share 75% of the water, according to available information, flow of water in the Teesta downstream dwindles to 1,000 cusecs from around 5,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) during the dry season. From December to March, the volume of water drops steeply as India holds back almost all the water during the said period. The minimum flow in February used to be 4,000 cusecs before India built the Teesta river barrage at Gazoldoba in the upper stream in 1985. This barrage exclusively controls the amount of water flow to the lower riparian state of Bangladesh.

According to expert view, exclusive control, if badly used, could lead to floods during the rainy seasons and droughts in dry ones, thereby causing immeasurable harm to the people of the lower riparian state. Too much or too little water would adversely impact over 63% of the total cropped area. This would also disrupt agricultural production, create health hazards, change the hydraulic character of the river and dangerously alter the ecology of the region. The United Nations, for instance, recognised scarcity of water in the Ganges as the reason for severe food shortages in Bangladesh during 1982.

Though a signatory to the 1997 UN Watercourse Convention, which stipulates a "no-harm principle" in the use and conservation of trans-boundary rivers, India takes up most of the Teesta waters during the lean period, gravely affecting the lives of the people in the land downstream, press reports said here. Besides, during the rainy season also there is no respite in the untold sufferings of the people since too much water is released from the upstream causing floods in the northern districts. Of the total 300 rivers in Bangladesh, 57 are trans-boundary. And of these 57 rivers, 54 flow through India and 3 through Myanmar.

Originating in the Indian portion of the Himalayas, the Teesta enters Bangladesh at Kaliganj village under Satnai union of Dimla upazila in Nilphamari district. It courses 45 kilometres through Nilphamari, Rangpur, Lalmonirhat and Gaibandha districts before meeting the Brahmaputra in Kurigram.


The Teesta river has become a hot topic of public discussion in Bangladesh, as there were high expectations that an agreement would be reached on water sharing during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Dhaka on 6-7 September. As the deal fell through at the eleventh-hour, the news initiated sharp political debates in the Bangladesh media. If Paschim Banga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had felt that the interests of her state and her popularity would be endangered by a 50-50 share of the Teesta water which made her take the u-turn, can we blame her? No. In fact we should admire her for putting her state's interests before everything else. Similarly, the people of Bangladesh also expect that our government would make certain that this country and its people's interests are not hampered by any bilateral treaty. It is widely felt that the government should have kept the civil society and opposition parties of Bangladesh as well as the media better informed all through the prolonged negotiations and discussions leading Manmohan Singh visit to Dhaka. Details of the negotiations should have been clearly disseminated while the complex issues at stake discussed and explained in the media for benefit and better understanding of the general people. This is standard practice in a democracy, particularly when two Prime Ministers meet. Apart from the people's right to know, constant contact, clarifications and exchange of information between the media and the government would only help to promote a healthy and beneficial relationship between the governments and the people at large.


In this 21st century, it has become a necessity to better manage and make sustainable use of the ever-valuable water resource since demand for water is on the rise while resources are becoming limited. A spirit of cooperation and wise diplomacy is what is required for dealing with hydropolitics &ndash a fast emerging area of international diplomacy.

BY :Naseem Firdaus.
 

Troubled India

In 1962, India was humiliated by China when the Chinese advanced unimpeded into Indian territory. Ever since, a process of internal political deterioration was set in motion in that country. 

When the Chinese advanced, there was a temporary resurgence of patriotic fervor in India. But the Indian rout in Bomdila was the loss of national confidence. Any dynamism which was nurtured by the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru in the early days of India, was decimated when she was unable to strike back against China. Since then the elite of India had settled to a less than confident nation state.

Nehru had in his day crafted a foreign policy for India taking the legacy of national self- doubt into account. His greatest fear was that once he was gone India would return to the age old "nightmare of Balkanisation and internal strife" which was typical of India before the Mogul and British rule.

Nehru therefore took up the theme of a neutralist foreign policy and saw it as the symbol of a resurgent national pride. The heterogeneous Indian people were therefore made to discover a collective identity in international dealings. By thrusting New Delhi onto the world stage as an independent entity seeking out its national interest, Nehru thought that the Marathas, the Bengalis, the Tamils and the Punjabis would perceive themselves now as just Indians.

In the initial days of non-alignment, India therefore played its role as a go-between in the company of the then superpowers. Indians thought that as a nation they had already arrived on the world stage. Nehru was pleased as it held back divisive stresses. Under his stewardship India strutted with colourful feathers in the world stage.
But when China clashed with India, the country was unprepared and with no self-recognition it faltered. So India decided to then stride the world stage as if nothing had happened. 

Thus the border dispute between India and China remains unresolved till today. More worrying is the fact that India was not yet able to apply a top quality adhesive that could glue the varied peoples and cultures. Hence we see the various insurgencies and temporary volatilities.

Of late, rapid economic growth as well as strides in technology has made Indians proud. The success of the Indian diaspora has also given much boost to the psychology of the ordinary Indians. But India remains an entity where centrifugal tendencies often work at tangent with the policy of the union government in Delhi.
So this time, after almost forty years, when the government of India was trying to elevate her ties with Bangladesh, Prime Minister Manmohan suddenly came face to face with this primeval force.

There is a requirement in India that no international agreement can be signed by the central government without the explicit consent of the relevant state. It was therefore correct for the Indian prime minister to approach the government of Paschimbanga on the matter of sharing the water of the trans-border Teesta river with Bangladesh.

The Indian prime minister, in no uncertain terms, has said that he had consulted Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of Paschimbanga about sharing the waters of the Teesta. Not only was she consulted, but Prime Minister Manmohan had also sent his personal emissary, National Security Advisor Shiv Shanker Menon, to talk to her. The fair and equitable sharing of the waters of the Teesta was a substantive component that would have taken the bilateral relations between the two countries to a higher plane. 

In spite of this, as events unfolded, it became clear that Mamata was in no mood to bow to the urgings of the central government in Delhi. 

In an un-Bengali way, she refused to accompany her prime minister to Dhaka. She also added that her government in no way would be a party to the Teesta agreement. But this position of Mamata was conveyed to him so late that he opted not to sign the agreement. The prime minister felt more consultation was necessary.

In a curious way, Mamata allied herself briefly with forces that Prime Minister Nehru had tried to bury once and for all and had strived to deliver telling blows to such forces of obscurantism.

Mamata is a lady with history. She also has big political ambitions. She has been elected as chief minister of our neighbouring state of Pachimbanga at a sensitive time when India and Bangladesh relations are being changed for the better.

A self-confident Bangladesh with a democratic set up is trying to unleash new and dramatic forces together with India, which can bring prosperity to this corner of this world.
The four chief ministers from the remaining states neighbouring Bangladesh in north east India, who accompanied the Indian prime minister, must have been almost asphyxiated with the political antics of Mamata. Losing so much in terms of trade and transit to getting so little benefit from the waters of the Teesta seemed to be self-defeating.

Let India, which is fast becoming a regional power, assert her national will and bring her satraps to terms with her national objectives. 

There is a wise saying: "Half of the failures in life come from pulling one's horse when he is leaping."
Prime Minister Manmohan, an academic turned accidental politician, will appreciate this and advise Mamata accordingly. Both India and Bangladesh seem to have spurred their horses who are now leaping over the hurdles in mid-air. 

Teesta and the other bilateral agreements are between two states and are not between or among politicians.
So in essence there can be no mistakes, save one: The failure to learn from a mistake.

BY -

SOUTH ASIA: Victory For Sanity


In the Himalayan hill station of Simla, where the plans were laid for the new nation of Pakistan to be carved out of British India 25 years ago, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto pledged last week to "put an end to the conflict and confrontation" that have embroiled the two nations in four wars.*In a document worked out by aides during five days of negotiations, the two leaders agreed to consider the restoration of diplomatic relations and communications, suspended since last December's 13-day war, and to resume air links and overflights of each other's territory. Though in the divided state officially known as Jammu and Kashmir, both countries will continue to observe the cease-fire line declared Dec. 17, elsewhere they will withdraw their forces to their prewar common border.

Prior to the Simla summit, Bhutto had described Mrs. Gandhi (in an interview with Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci) as "a mediocre woman of mediocre intelligence." Returning home from the meeting to Islamabad, he praised Mrs. Gandhi as "an extremely reasonable leader who looks to the future" and described the agreement as "not my victory and not a victory for India. [It is a] victory for sanity, principles and justice. Nobody has won and none has lost," he added.

Good-Will. Bhutto called the National Assembly into special session this week to ratify the agreement, and the Indian Parliament is expected to do the same. The accord, which Mrs. Gandhi called "just the beginning" of a better relationship, also won warm praise in India, despite charges by the right-wing Jana Sangh Party that it was a "sellout."

Even though Mrs. Gandhi held most of the bargaining cards and Bhutto had engaged in some pre-summit bluster at home, both leaders arrived at Simla in a conciliatory mood, apparently anxious to take steps that would avoid more bloodshed on the subcontinent. They agreed that the ongoing negotiations (Mrs. Gandhi has been invited to Pakistan in September) would be bilateral. Neither side has been entirely happy in the past when one or the other of the big powers mediated their disputes. Moreover, the December war, which resulted in the birth of an independent Bangladesh, unalterably changed the balance of power on the subcontinent.

India, which captured the most territory in December, made a major concession in agreeing to return some 5,100 sq. mi. of Pakistani territory—all except a few strategic salients in Kashmir. Despite this good-will offering, India failed to win any firm concessions from Bhutto on the Kashmir question, which has so long poisoned relations between the countries. Pakistan maintains that the future of the predominantly Moslem state (pop. 4,600,000) should be determined in a plebiscite. India, which holds that Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India in 1947 is legal and final, wants to have the cease-fire line recognized as the international boundary.

Also left unresolved was the issue of the 91,634 Pakistani military and civilian prisoners of war still in Indian hands. Most of the prisoners surrendered to a joint India-Bangladesh command and cannot be returned without negotiations involving Bangladesh. So far, Bhutto has refused to recognize the new Bengali state (until its secession, the province of East Pakistan), although he has announced plans to meet with Prime Minister Sheik Mujibur Rahman later this month.

The P.O.W. issue is potentially explosive. Mujib has said that some prisoners, including the former East Pakistan commander, General Amir Abdullah Niazi, will be tried on war-crimes charges. The trials are adamantly opposed by Pakistan "and would take us to the point of no return," said Bhutto last week. Pakistanis warn that such trials could set off reprisals against the 400,000 Bengalis who are still living and working in Pakistan.

One solution to the problem would be for Pakistan itself to try the men, and Bhutto has suggested that he might be willing to do so. Another would be for Bangladesh to dispense with the trials in exchange for repatriation of the Bengalis who live in Pakistan, many of them civil servants who are sorely needed to run governmental and industrial machinery at home.

"Kashmir, 1947-49; the Rann of Kutch, spring 1965; Kashmir, fall 1965; East Pakistan, December 1971, a war that also spread to Kashmir and India's western border.

It Ain't Bangladesh-India Relation, It's Between Awami League And India

India's political influence in Bangladeshi politics and administration, may not be like the Israel lobby issues in United States, but is not a very expedient topic however. Characteristically the two kinds of 'issues' in two countries might have some...

India's political influence in Bangladeshi politics and administration, may not be like the Israel lobby issues in United States, but is not a very expedient topic however. Characteristically the two kinds of 'issues' in two countries might have some similarities, not to be surprised if one finds it in the influence on the media.

Any discussion in Bangladesh associating India politically begins being polarized, naturally associating Awami League, India's traditional 'ally'. I was going through the pile of media reports, analysis and opinions on Manmohan's visit. Many times, both in Bangla and English, I had to come by terms like 'traditional relation', 'historical tie' etc., off course between India and Awami League. Yes, it is established.

But what tie? Who the tie is between?



Unfortunately it is between India as a state and Awami League as a party. What happened and what did not happen amid Indian premier's recent trip, could be different if it were strictly between Bangladesh and India. What unearthed after a could-be-landmark Manmohan trip, it appears that this foreign state-party relation is what is in action.

The ultimate outcome of the recent progresses of Bangladesh-India relation is that Bangladesh does not have an assurance on the water sharing deal, but its Prime Minister has signed a framework deal on TRANSIT, where she said Bangladesh agrees that the deal would be signed someday.

If a future Bangladeshi head of state or government states that he or she does not agree to allow a transit for India, it very substantially will become a subject to the international judicial procedure, if the other side accuses the state of Bangladesh of breaking the words once her Prime Minister gave.

Not a lot of us watched the last instalment of James Bond movie series, or a lot did. The movie depicts British intelligence service MI6 to trail an organization which was going to manipulate a fragile South American regime to get a large part of a desert for their pseudo search of oil. It was assured that the desert had been combed repeatedly but no oil was found. The organization said it would find 'something'.

At the end of the movie, it appeared that the organization took over the land because it had a huge reserve of water underneath it. Yes, water! Water is the blue gold of 21st century. The country Quantum of Solace showed was Bolivia, which is one of the endangered countries in short of water.

Bolivia does not have adequate water so it is in crisis. On other hand Bangladesh DOES HAVE WATER, still we are in crisis because WR ARE FAILING TO GET OUR PROPER SHARE!

The political sentience as well as the thought process of a responsible citizen is the blend of his political belief and the practical sense of his country's interest with respect to the geopolitical realities. Such a citizen in Bangladesh should not be able to deny that Bangladesh indeed needs a workably long-lasting relation with India.

As the largest democratic nation of the world, whose voters outnumber those in total of at least a hundred other nations, cannot get anything just relying on a puppet regime running its strategically important neighbour. Recent events might have no example to teach this, but the history of the world politics does not back their theory of dominance.

Bangladesh and India have to have a bilateral relation where both the countries' governments need to have respect to the other's concerns. China has Pakistan so India needs Bangladesh- it has to be forgotten because India never has Bangladesh until the Bangladeshis willingly sustain it.

BY -M. Tawsif Salam. 

Who Gained By Not Agreeing On Teesta?

Paschimbanga’s Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee became the focal point of discussion by not accompanying the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh during his recent visit to Bangladesh. The proposed Teesta treaty also got a wider coverage in the media by not being signed during Dr. Singh’s visit. The much publicized transit protocols to be signed between Bangladesh and India were washed away by the failure of the Teesta treaty. These events took everyone by surprise, including the Indian prime minister, overshadowing whatever successes the visit achieved in other areas.

Mamata Banerjee’s decision was sudden and unexpected as the stage was set in Dhaka for inking both the Teesta treaty and the transit protocols. India finally had to back out from its earlier commitment to sign the treaty because of Mamata Banerjee’s objection.

It was a failure of Indian diplomacy. Bangladesh reacted calmly but appropriately by refusing to sign the transit protocols. Transit is our last trump card and we must play it wisely and only at the most appropriate moment.
What went wrong is not clear to many political analysts. How could Mamata Banerjee, being an important partner in the central coalition government, put her own prime minister into such an embarrassing situation? Certainly she messed up internal politics with international diplomacy. The two are not the same.

The people of Bangladesh were deeply disappointed. Mamata Banerjee’s objection is a sad contrast to the positive role played by Jyoti Basu, the former chief minister of Paschimbanga, in paving the way for the agreement on the sharing of the waters of the Ganges River in 1996.

Mamata Banerjee did not only object to the Teesta treaty, but also refused to come to Bangladesh while four other chief ministers of the neighbouring Indian states accompanied Dr. Singh.
Jyoti Basu would have been hurt badly, had he been alive today. Mamata Banerjee must have hurt many fellow Bengalis not only in her own state but all over the world. People reacted with anguish on both sides of the Indo-Bangladesh border.

True, she took the decision in the interest of the people of Paschimbanga. By doing so she ignored the greater interests of India and her closest neighbour Bangladesh. We are deprived of the due shares of the waters of the Teesta and the Feni rivers. Similarly, India is deprived of the transit facility through Bangladesh. Who gained ultimately? Perhaps none did.

Mamata Banerjee knows that the people of Bangladesh and Paschimbanga do not share only the waters of a few common rivers, they share a common language, a common culture and a common history. They share Rabibdranath Tagore and Nazrul Islam. They share the Bay of Bengal, the Sundarbans and the Royal Bengal Tigers. They relish the tastes of hilsa of Padma and the sweet yogurt.

I was in Kolkata during the last state election in Paschimbanga. I was amazed to see Mamata Banerjee’s popularity among the common people who fondly address her as Didi. Her informal dress, her simple life style, her manners and above all her feelings for the poor and the down-trodden men and women are indeed remarkable.

Does Mamata Banerjee know that she has numerous admirers in Bangladesh and one of them is Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina? If she is Didi to her people in Paschimbanga, she is also Didi to us. The people of Bangladesh were eagerly waiting to accord a very warm welcome to Didi. She should have come to Bangladesh, even if she had reservations on the Teesta treaty, and accepted the hospitality of her brothers and sisters in Bangladesh.

Politics does not always dictate human relationships across international borders. The people of the adjoining states of India, including Paschimbanga, welcomed ten million refugees from Bangladesh during the war of liberation in 1971. They provided them with shelter and food during very difficult days.
I have seen Bengalis from Bangladesh and Paschimbanga mingling together socially and culturally in Europe, America and other countries forgetting about the political divide. Can we not then amicably share the waters of a few rivers? 

India and Bangladesh missed one opportunity to sign the agreements on Teesta, Feni and transit during the recent visit of Dr. Singh. There is still time to rectify the mistakes and go ahead with the deals for the benefit of both the countries.

It is good to know that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina sent gifts, including jamdani sarees and hilsa fish, for Mamata Banerjee, even though she did not come to Dhaka. It was a good gesture on the part of Sheikh Hasina. It reflects the love and affection of the people of Bangladesh for Mamata Banerjee.

It is hoped that Didi will reciprocate appropriately and pave the way for inking the unsigned treaties in order to mend whatever damage was done to the Indo-Bangladesh relationship due to her objection to the Teesta treaty.