The Department of International Relations of the University of Dhaka must be thanked for arranging a meeting of retired India and Bangladesh envoys scheduled for Friday. They have served in the two countries either in the capacity of high commissioner or deputy high commissioner. This is the first of its kind. Therefore, one is just left guessing about the effectiveness of such a meeting. There are certain realities that exist between the two countries. The way they maintain their foreign relations and diplomacy could seriously limit the efficacy of such a meeting.
India has its own way of handling foreign affairs and diplomacy. It does not relate much to the way Bangladesh handles its own. In the Indian system, the Ministry of External Affairs or MEA (In Bangladesh it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is the ministry that not only handles foreign relations and diplomacy but also makes policies. In the Indian system the MEA and the Prime Minister's Office are not just located adjacent to each other, they also work on matters of foreign affairs and diplomacy closely. The MEA maintains foreign relations with a team of career diplomats of the highest standard and very well organised. And they are not to be taken lightly. This is reflected in the power and position that an Indian high commissioner enjoys in the conduct of Bangladesh-India bilateral relations while posted in Dhaka.
It is far different, when it comes to the way Bangladesh handles its foreign relations and diplomacy. The gap between the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Foreign Ministry in Bangladesh is a matter of fact. More importantly, in matters of foreign policy formulation and its execution as well, India and Bangladesh are also in different leagues. Career diplomats, who have worked as heads of Bangladesh missions abroad know too well their predicaments.
These realities are very important in the context of the meeting that the International Relations Department is arranging in Dhaka. These are the realities that the organisers may be blissfully unaware of. Nevertheless, those who would be attending the meeting are diplomats achieving the highest professional competence. Therefore, their deliberations and recommendations would also in every likelihood be of the highest importance. Despite the fundamental difference between the two countries in handling their foreign affairs and diplomacy, the recommendations may be too good for the government of Bangladesh not to accept. That may be one very valid reason why the organisers should be felicitated for holding the meeting.
In view of what has been stated above the retired envoys of the two sides, the Indians in particular, would do it better, if they focus on what happened between the two countries since the Awami League assumed power in January 2009. They would need to consider seriously the concessions that the AL-led government made on the Indian security concerns and land transit and the failure of the Indian side to reciprocate. Bangladesh's envoys must focus on the failure to strike deals and register concerns over the continued killing of Bangladeshis on the India-Bangladesh border. During the period from 2009 to the January 05 elections in 2014 New Delhi had made the promise and the negotiating team of Bangladesh had drummed up it saying that Bangladesh would become the connectivity hub in the region. But the fee that Bangladesh could charge India for the land transit would be just 'peanuts.' The meeting must provide answers to where Bangladesh stands today in becoming the promised connectivity hub. The public perception is that Bangladesh stands nowhere.
There has been a stride forward in economic cooperation between the two sides. Bangladesh has gained a great deal from the concessions India had made on trade but the people had no clear idea about the trade benefits to Bangladesh. The meeting must provide answers to the issue. There are these days a lot of concerns in Bangladesh over economic issues. One such concern has arisen from the statistics released last year by the Bangladesh Bank revealing that Indians remitted close to US $ 5.0 billion a year from Bangladesh to India. The remittance figure is big and it might have been so because of the presence of a large number of Indians in Bangladesh. It has not been revealed by any official statistics of any of the two governments. This has led to growing suspicions in the minds of the people.
The envoys, while deliberating, would help the meeting achieve positive results, if they keep in mind the reasons why the people of Bangladesh fought its War of Liberation in 1971 and made such humungous sacrifices for their independence. They wanted to be citizens of a sovereign country under a democratic government. Unfortunately, the Congress government of India failed to keep this in view and undermined that spirit of 1971, which is fundamental to all Bangladeshis across the political divide, by openly interfering in Bangladesh's international affairs leading to the January 05 elections. The visit of the Indian Foreign Secretary to Dhaka in December 2013 and her meeting with HM Ershad will remain a black chapter in the otherwise glorious history of Indian diplomacy. She openly interfered in the democratic process in Bangladesh by taking sides in the politics of the country in favour of the Awami League.
Bangladesh values its history, in which the role of India for its assistance in the War of Liberation will forever be written in the highest terms. Bangladesh is also grateful to India for its concerns about Islamic fundamentalism and threat to secularism. Some quarters in India view it as the reason for its interference in Bangladesh's politics under the Congress-led government. At the meeting the envoys must remember first that it should be left to Bangladesh to deal with whatever problem it faces, including fundamentalism and threats to secularism. Secondly, they must keep in mind that as a result of Indian interference fundamentalism has gained ground in Bangladesh. More importantly, as a result of its interference in Bangladesh under the past Congress-led government, India's acceptance in the country today is perhaps at its nadir.
Bangladesh and India are intertwined by destiny to remain together. There are lots to be gained through cooperation and there is a great deal to be lost in the event of conflicts and confrontation. The way the Congress-led government handled bilateral relations with Bangladesh during its rule prior to last general elections in India, had, as many analysts consider, a major fault. It, according to such analysts, went against the logical and rational way it was supposed to handle it as is done by all other countries. Instead of maintaining their bilateral relations on the country-to-country basis where the interests of their respective peoples are the primary concerns, New Delhi under the past Congress government and Dhaka had, as the perception prevails in some quarters at home and abroad, established their relations on the party-to-party basis. With a new government taking over in New Delhi with a clear electoral mandate, the Bangladesh-India bilateral relations, as all concerned consider, need to be maintained in the 'logical way' again. It should be based on the country-to-country contact, as is the case with all others at international level. The envoys should ensure that this is one of their major recommendations in their meeting.
A final point to note about the meeting is that the retired Indian envoys whose names have been announced as participants have their political neutrality beyond reproach. But the same, according to some quarters, cannot be said of most of those who would be participating from the Bangladesh side. One, therefore, must hope that the participants would rise above politics and make their meeting truly meaningful.
The writer is a retired career ambassador.
ambserajulislam@gmail.com