India-Bangladesh Relationship - thoughts on strategic cooperation and not servitude

Mr. Shah M. Saifuddin has raised some issues around Bangladesh's emergence as a new nation-state and her problematic relationship with the big neighbor India and what strategic options, if any, our nation may still flex. Because of the importance of the issues raised, I think this article deserves closer scrutiny from our readers.

I have been away from Bangladesh too long to be able to contribute satisfactorily in this debate. Nonetheless, let me make some honest observations:

1. In the post-liberation era, I don’t recall hearing about the so-called 7-point agreement that the exiled Tajuddin Government signed with the Indian government. If I am not mistaken, that treaty did not have any relevance after Bangladesh got its independence, and especially so, after Sk. Mujib took the mantle of leadership upon his return. So, while one may argue what might have been the intention of Indian government back in 1971, they don’t and should not be treated as a serious matter.
2. Can we truly blame India for the failure of Pakistan to stay united? If India, or for that matter her intelligence unit, RAW, tried to see dismemberment of Pakistan along ethnic lines, it is to the rulers of Pakistan that the blame should squarely fall upon. It is they who made it impossible for East Pakistan to remain united under the Punjabi-dominated Pakistan. Can anyone really guarantee that if the power was transferred to Sk. Mujib in 1971, as per people’s wish in the national election of 1970, Bangladesh would have emerged as a new nation? I doubt it seriously. I know that much has been made of this issue, with some suggesting that Mujib would have led the country step by step in that direction towards a full independence, probably much in agreement with 1940 Pakistan Resolution. They cite Mujib’s remarks, including those pertaining to authenticity of the Agartala Conspiracy, in the post-liberation era to support their views. I have difficulty believing in such claims, even of Sk. Mujib. He may truly have bluffed under the new circumstance. Allah knows the best! One must recall though that the conspiracy case was found to be a hoax during the Ayyub era and accordingly was withdrawn by the military government in Pakistan. Some suggest that Awami League was on the payroll of RAW to dismember Pakistan, which I also find difficult to believe. This statement of mine should not however be construed as suggesting that RAW did not want to see a divided Pakistan, or that it was a mere observer. What I am trying to say is that it was Pakistani Government that created an environment in which Bengali speaking people living in the eastern wing started feeling increasingly detached from and betrayed by its western (mostly Urdu-speaking) brothers. It was that sense of betrayal, backed up by data of economic depravation and disparity, plus a charismatic leadership in Sk. Mujib, that rallied the Bengali nation behind AL. Then there was the 1970 natural disaster in which our people saw how badly Pakistan treated its eastern wing. All these factors contributed to AL’s sweeping victory in the 1970 election. With Yahya Khan’s ill-advised policy to kill innocent civilians in East Pakistan, one of the final nails in the coffin of Pakistan was struck. Had those guys been smart enough they should have transferred power to Sk. Mujib and see how he runs the country. And if he had failed, they could have intervened militarily to protect the security of the nation (much like what Turkish Army does routinely), which could have saved Pakistan from breaking up into two.
3. I believe that without India’s material help, Bangladesh’s liberation would not have materialized, not that soon anyway. And this I believe, in spite of overwhelming support within our populace for the cause. If India refused to arm our liberation forces, or denied supply or distribution thereof, it would have been almost impossible to achieve independence unless, of course, by sheer goodwill or some miracle Pakistan’s rulers decided to let us secede. Being surrounded in all but the southern side by India, any armed resistance against the Pakistani forces would have required India’s assistance. If India had opposed our liberation, it would have been virtually impossible for us to achieve our independence.
4. We are told that the BLF (later called Mujib Bahini) was formed by the RAW. I remember seeing their fighters fight in Chittagong. One of them actually lived in our home for few months before embracing martyrdom in Chittagong in front of the City College on Nov. 1, 1971 during a gun battle. Then another two BLF guys took shelter in our home. I understand that the group was created to act as a secondary force to safeguard Bangladesh’s independence from its adversaries. Interestingly, this group’s founding members are still alive, except Sk. Moni. I wish they would one day fill the gap in our understanding as to what was truly intended of them and how Serajul Alam Khan later moved to the CIA camp. [I remember meeting the latter in 1973 in his Ganokantha office and conducted a nearly 20-minute interview. In retrospect, I wish I had asked him about BLF.] One thing is worth mentioning here that when the 1975 coup took place, neither could BLF or whatever was left of its old guards, nor the RAW could do anything. This again shows the value of local events, and not outside factors, in determining our destiny as a nation.
5. Rather than finger pointing others, it is high time that we take responsibility, at least the bulk of it, for our own problems. At the end, it is our guys who matter most. Others can be enablers but not the movers of our destiny. If our people did not aspire for independence in 1971, no RAW planning and Indian desire would have made it possible. India simply acted as an enabling force to our cause. In that process, her forces also fought alongside our liberation forces and died for our freedom.
6. I see that Mr. Saifuddin has tried to read between the lines of Mujib-Indira 25-year Pact of Cooperation. Without implying any connotation, let me share the fact that during Mujib rule, Bhashani and some other politicians, esp. pro-Pakistani elements and anti-AL forces tried to suggest how the treaty was a threat to our sovereignty. I did not find anything stating that Bangladesh’s independence or sovereignty had been compromised by the said treaty. Even after reading the piece below, esp. those few supposedly harmful articles 4-10, I fail to agree with the interpretation drawn by Mr. Saifuddin. If I am a making a treaty with my neighbor, I probably would have repeated the same principles, which does not create any tension with my neighbor. And when it is a powerful one, as shown in the tables below, the sooner the better. It is not only foolish but suicidal in acting like a Nidhiram Sardar! If and when Bangladesh becomes self-reliant and is powerful enough to be taken seriously by its neighbor only then can it expect to dictate terms to its weaker neighbors. That is International Relations 101. In the meantime, what is needed is: knowing its weakness how can Bangladesh extract most from her bilateral agreement with her neighbor. Should we be concerned any more about that pact? I am not sure if that treaty is valid any longer after some 38 years.
7. As far as the suggestions on strategic imperatives are concerned, let me again caution that it would be very foolish of concluding any treaty with any party right now in which India may see undermining her own sovereignty. As we found out that even the USA could not save Pakistan when it mattered most to the latter in 1971. As Leslie Gelb has shown in this latest book – Power Rules – our world is viewed by geo-strategists more like a pyramid now where the USA sits on the apex, and India with China, Japan, Russia, UK, France, Germany and (barely) Brazil are at the second tier layer as regional hegemonic powers. Guess where Bangladesh is? It is at the sixth layer with other bottom dwellers or problem states. The only layer below is that made of the NGOs, and other non-state actors. I don’t mind having friendship with countries like China, but to rely on it to save us would be foolish. We don’t even share a border with this country. More importantly, China now does more business with not only India but also with Burma – our other rogue neighbor to the east. She is communist in name only but underneath a very capital centric society. Should there be a crisis, her leaders know the value of money and would value her business with India more important than with us. These are the hard facts that we have to come to terms with before getting too excited on angering India. Any strategy that overlooks the reality of our time would be dangerous for Bangladesh.

Ref: http://www.bdsdf.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=33265&pid=85001&st=0&#entry85001