For a filtered and careful expression of patriotism
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
There are different ways for countries or nations to accomplish their objectives in relation to external players. Sometimes, an objective can be accomplished by force or even by the threat of the use of force. The weaker side may then back down from perceiving that the force would be actually used by the stronger one to attain its objective. At other times, diplomacy can be the main weapon. Sanctions and persistent lobbying can also score success. But whatever the strategy it must pass the litmus test of whether it realistically stands a chance of success.
First of all, let us see whether Bangladesh has any chance of succeeding in its goal in relation to Tipaimukh by demonstrating its willingness to use physical force in the matter. The idea ought not to even arise.
Bangladesh cannot also absolutely allow reactions centred on Tipaimukh to be so unfiltered that the same can be pointed to in India as widespread and reckless expressions of anti Indianism. The more mass demonstrations in Bangladesh take place to condemn India for Tipaimukh or these agitations are allowed to occur, the more effigies are burnt and more and harder swear words are used, the same will not cower or lower the spirit of the Indian authorities in the least, but very likely provide a stimulus to quarters in India who have been long complaining that Bangladesh is an ungrateful and unfriendly neighbour, and should be dealt with in an appropriate tough manner.
As it is, major political quarters in Bangladesh are in a furious mood demanding throwing out of the Indian High Commissioner from Bangladesh for his undiplomatic remarks related to Tipaimukh. Some of them are all for all kinds of fiery rabble rousing to protest the Tipaimukh project but their enthusiasm will only very likely lead to hardening of the Indian mood about Bangladesh from what would be judged as the overdose of anti Indian expressions by the latter. Thus, the stage is being set for a serious rupture in bilateral relations with Bangladesh getting nothing from the process except inviting India's deeper displeasure .
The best course can be no other for Bangladesh than diplomacy and direct and sincere negotiations with India over the issue. There are ones in Bangladesh who would want India to stand on the dock over Tipaimukh by going for international arbitration; their view is that once the issue is internationalised, India would stand automatically defeated and forced to retreat. But there could not be a more unrealistic proposition. For no amount of international law or institutions guide relations between countries in many cases. If it were otherwise, then Israel would have vacated all lands seized from the Arabs in the 1967 war to show respect to a United Nation Security Council (UNSC) resolution urging the same.
The fact is, international law and institutions are no guarantees that even a wrong doer in the international perception can be compelled to give up the fruits of aggression or withdraw from a wrong endeavour. The main determinants in such areas remains perceived military strengths, the actual good feelings or absence of the same in relation to each other of the actual state actors involved, regional diplomacy, etc.
One example should help to make it clearer. India signed a river water sharing treaty with Pakistan over the Indus river promptly and lived up to its treaty commitments faithfully since the signing of it. India also has a similar river sharing water with Bangladesh over the Ganges . But there was no treaty over the Ganges for a long time when India acted completely unilaterally in diverting waters from the Ganges. Even after concluding a treaty over the Ganges, there continues to be recurrent complaints from Bangladesh about India not well observing the treaty from its side. But such complaints are not heard from Pakistan about the Indus water sharing treaty.
The reasons for such different behaviour by India in relation to two different neighbours should be apparent. India takes into cognizance nuclear armed and even conventionally very well armed Pakistan and from this recognition decides not to antagonize the latter. But it senses no such demand from Bangladesh backed up by enough military strength or diplomatic clout to feel pressurized into being faithful about observing treaties very correctly with it. In other words, it regards Bangladesh as an underdog it can afford to treat shabbily while this calculation does not enter into its relationship with its relatively much more powerful neighbour, Pakistan.
Therefore, policy planners in Bangladesh must appreciate these hard ground level realities while formulating policies. There has to be ample realization that encouraging of rabid anti-Indianism will neither create concern in India or scare the Indians into stopping the Tipaimukh project. Rather, the same could trigger anti-Bangladesh sentiments in India to a higher pitch and make stronger the obstinacy in that country to go ahead with the project. The powerful countries such as USA or China are not going to throw all their weight behind Bangladesh to arm twist India into withdrawing from the Tipaimukh project. These countries have their own strategic and economic benefits they wish to extract from India and would not risk the same by incurring India's displeasure from siding with Bangladesh. Even UN bodies would be powerless to establish their will over India in respect of Tipaimukh in the circumstances when international law or international arbitration can be successfully defied by an involved party or parties.
So, what must Bangladesh do in this situation ? First of all, it should try its best so that no quarter can fan up hatred and emotions in Bangladesh trying to paint India as the monster out to destroy Bangladesh environmentally and ecologically. Government in Bangladesh (GOB) must clinically separate Tipaimukh from all other aspects of Indo-Bangladesh relations. Cordiality and mutual promotion of interests should be the goals always in these other areas of relations. As for Tipaimukh, GOB should first of all seek out all relevant technical data about the project and study them expertly before reaching a conclusion about the danger of this project or otherwise for Bangladesh. For without this basic exercise of knowing in depth about the project and ascertaining what it really means for Bangladesh, engaging in any hysteria that it would amount to a great disaster for Bangladesh, cannot be logically tenable. First, it is absolutely necessary that the real implications of the project are technically and irrefutably established in Bangladesh. As it is, the Flood Action Plan (FAP) that was prepared under a previous Bangladesh government observed that the Tipaimukh project could play a significant role in reducing floods or their intensities in Bangladesh. So, the project may not be completely without merit for Bangladesh. The Indian authorities have been reiterating that the Tipaimukh would not be another Farraka as it would be used to mainly produce electricity and not to divert water. The basis of these statements from the Indian side also need to be studied carefully. Furthermore, the visit to Tipaimukh by a parliamentary delegation including experts, need to be also completed and their observations submitted to the government. Any sweeping conclusion arrived at on the basis of meager information or no information, cannot do any service to the cause of Bangladesh.
If after all examination processes are exhausted and the project is still found to be seriously detrimental to Bangladesh's interests, then it should be strictly compartmentalised to be an issue between GOB and the Indian government. GOB will then formally approach the Indian government to stop the project citing the technical aspects of it that would be threatening Bangladesh. But in this exercise, GOB should remain completely unemotional and present it only as a project that would be injurious to Bangladesh and, therefore, should be stopped. But at no stage in the negotiations GOB should imply that it is a sinister project deliberately drawn up by interest groups in India to make Bangladesh suffer. GOB must appeal to all quarters in Bangladesh to look at the project similarly and be guarded in their statements and reactions as long as the governments of the two countries remain actively engaged in discussions or negotiations over it.
The main strategy for Bangladesh needs to be one of appealing to Indian sensibilities that India is a responsible and responsive member of the international community from whom Bangladesh expects just and equitable behaviour in relation to a project of great economic and environmental significance for it. If Bangladesh can remain sober and not let anti Indian feelings and actions to flare up prematurely over the Tipaimukh on a large scale, then it would be in a better position perhaps to be heard patiently and empathetically by India leading probably to a win-win solution for both sides in relation to Tipaimukh.
There are different ways for countries or nations to accomplish their objectives in relation to external players. Sometimes, an objective can be accomplished by force or even by the threat of the use of force. The weaker side may then back down from perceiving that the force would be actually used by the stronger one to attain its objective. At other times, diplomacy can be the main weapon. Sanctions and persistent lobbying can also score success. But whatever the strategy it must pass the litmus test of whether it realistically stands a chance of success.
First of all, let us see whether Bangladesh has any chance of succeeding in its goal in relation to Tipaimukh by demonstrating its willingness to use physical force in the matter. The idea ought not to even arise.
Bangladesh cannot also absolutely allow reactions centred on Tipaimukh to be so unfiltered that the same can be pointed to in India as widespread and reckless expressions of anti Indianism. The more mass demonstrations in Bangladesh take place to condemn India for Tipaimukh or these agitations are allowed to occur, the more effigies are burnt and more and harder swear words are used, the same will not cower or lower the spirit of the Indian authorities in the least, but very likely provide a stimulus to quarters in India who have been long complaining that Bangladesh is an ungrateful and unfriendly neighbour, and should be dealt with in an appropriate tough manner.
As it is, major political quarters in Bangladesh are in a furious mood demanding throwing out of the Indian High Commissioner from Bangladesh for his undiplomatic remarks related to Tipaimukh. Some of them are all for all kinds of fiery rabble rousing to protest the Tipaimukh project but their enthusiasm will only very likely lead to hardening of the Indian mood about Bangladesh from what would be judged as the overdose of anti Indian expressions by the latter. Thus, the stage is being set for a serious rupture in bilateral relations with Bangladesh getting nothing from the process except inviting India's deeper displeasure .
The best course can be no other for Bangladesh than diplomacy and direct and sincere negotiations with India over the issue. There are ones in Bangladesh who would want India to stand on the dock over Tipaimukh by going for international arbitration; their view is that once the issue is internationalised, India would stand automatically defeated and forced to retreat. But there could not be a more unrealistic proposition. For no amount of international law or institutions guide relations between countries in many cases. If it were otherwise, then Israel would have vacated all lands seized from the Arabs in the 1967 war to show respect to a United Nation Security Council (UNSC) resolution urging the same.
The fact is, international law and institutions are no guarantees that even a wrong doer in the international perception can be compelled to give up the fruits of aggression or withdraw from a wrong endeavour. The main determinants in such areas remains perceived military strengths, the actual good feelings or absence of the same in relation to each other of the actual state actors involved, regional diplomacy, etc.
One example should help to make it clearer. India signed a river water sharing treaty with Pakistan over the Indus river promptly and lived up to its treaty commitments faithfully since the signing of it. India also has a similar river sharing water with Bangladesh over the Ganges . But there was no treaty over the Ganges for a long time when India acted completely unilaterally in diverting waters from the Ganges. Even after concluding a treaty over the Ganges, there continues to be recurrent complaints from Bangladesh about India not well observing the treaty from its side. But such complaints are not heard from Pakistan about the Indus water sharing treaty.
The reasons for such different behaviour by India in relation to two different neighbours should be apparent. India takes into cognizance nuclear armed and even conventionally very well armed Pakistan and from this recognition decides not to antagonize the latter. But it senses no such demand from Bangladesh backed up by enough military strength or diplomatic clout to feel pressurized into being faithful about observing treaties very correctly with it. In other words, it regards Bangladesh as an underdog it can afford to treat shabbily while this calculation does not enter into its relationship with its relatively much more powerful neighbour, Pakistan.
Therefore, policy planners in Bangladesh must appreciate these hard ground level realities while formulating policies. There has to be ample realization that encouraging of rabid anti-Indianism will neither create concern in India or scare the Indians into stopping the Tipaimukh project. Rather, the same could trigger anti-Bangladesh sentiments in India to a higher pitch and make stronger the obstinacy in that country to go ahead with the project. The powerful countries such as USA or China are not going to throw all their weight behind Bangladesh to arm twist India into withdrawing from the Tipaimukh project. These countries have their own strategic and economic benefits they wish to extract from India and would not risk the same by incurring India's displeasure from siding with Bangladesh. Even UN bodies would be powerless to establish their will over India in respect of Tipaimukh in the circumstances when international law or international arbitration can be successfully defied by an involved party or parties.
So, what must Bangladesh do in this situation ? First of all, it should try its best so that no quarter can fan up hatred and emotions in Bangladesh trying to paint India as the monster out to destroy Bangladesh environmentally and ecologically. Government in Bangladesh (GOB) must clinically separate Tipaimukh from all other aspects of Indo-Bangladesh relations. Cordiality and mutual promotion of interests should be the goals always in these other areas of relations. As for Tipaimukh, GOB should first of all seek out all relevant technical data about the project and study them expertly before reaching a conclusion about the danger of this project or otherwise for Bangladesh. For without this basic exercise of knowing in depth about the project and ascertaining what it really means for Bangladesh, engaging in any hysteria that it would amount to a great disaster for Bangladesh, cannot be logically tenable. First, it is absolutely necessary that the real implications of the project are technically and irrefutably established in Bangladesh. As it is, the Flood Action Plan (FAP) that was prepared under a previous Bangladesh government observed that the Tipaimukh project could play a significant role in reducing floods or their intensities in Bangladesh. So, the project may not be completely without merit for Bangladesh. The Indian authorities have been reiterating that the Tipaimukh would not be another Farraka as it would be used to mainly produce electricity and not to divert water. The basis of these statements from the Indian side also need to be studied carefully. Furthermore, the visit to Tipaimukh by a parliamentary delegation including experts, need to be also completed and their observations submitted to the government. Any sweeping conclusion arrived at on the basis of meager information or no information, cannot do any service to the cause of Bangladesh.
If after all examination processes are exhausted and the project is still found to be seriously detrimental to Bangladesh's interests, then it should be strictly compartmentalised to be an issue between GOB and the Indian government. GOB will then formally approach the Indian government to stop the project citing the technical aspects of it that would be threatening Bangladesh. But in this exercise, GOB should remain completely unemotional and present it only as a project that would be injurious to Bangladesh and, therefore, should be stopped. But at no stage in the negotiations GOB should imply that it is a sinister project deliberately drawn up by interest groups in India to make Bangladesh suffer. GOB must appeal to all quarters in Bangladesh to look at the project similarly and be guarded in their statements and reactions as long as the governments of the two countries remain actively engaged in discussions or negotiations over it.
The main strategy for Bangladesh needs to be one of appealing to Indian sensibilities that India is a responsible and responsive member of the international community from whom Bangladesh expects just and equitable behaviour in relation to a project of great economic and environmental significance for it. If Bangladesh can remain sober and not let anti Indian feelings and actions to flare up prematurely over the Tipaimukh on a large scale, then it would be in a better position perhaps to be heard patiently and empathetically by India leading probably to a win-win solution for both sides in relation to Tipaimukh.