Now that several weeks have passed since the national elections there are several clear trends in the AL agenda that could ignite serious opposition and which should be considered in the wider context of national interest and security (see my article ‘A Nationalist Agenda for Bangladesh’. The following list is the most serious and obvious provocations of the AL thus far –

1. Creation of a regional taskforce with tactical operations capabilities and extra-territorial functions could threaten the internal stability of the country and make it a target for insurgents and terrorists who had until now posed no threat to Bangladesh’s interests. The notion of foreign forces (particularly Indian) on Bangladesh soil will be viewed with intense aversion by the public and could give rise to strong and violent opposition. This proposal will also be viewed with intense suspicion around the region and increase tensions in South Asia.

2. Massive vote rigging, violence and intimidation during Upazilla elections demonstrating an undemocratic state of mind and a deliberate attempt to weaken local government.

3. Transit facilities without any prospect for wider regional involvement and cooperation (i.e. China, Nepal and Bhutan) or proper safeguards of our sovereignty and independence.

4. Reversion to the 1972 constitution with removal of Islam and a return to ‘Bengali’ as our national identity. This last had originally sparked the CHT insurgency which was only countered after President Ziaur Rahman amended the constitution and made us Bangladeshis which is a concept based on territoriality rather than ethnicity clearly separating us culturally and politically from West Bengal and India.

5. Attempts to repeal the 5^th Amendment of the constitution which had removed the highly unpopular BKSAL governance system established by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The 5^th amendment had also legitimized the proclamations and proclamations orders issued during the martial law regime of President Ziaur Rahman and which also ratified all actions of the Martial Law authorities during that period.

6. Failure to fulfill election pledges of Tk. 10 per kilogram rice, free fertilizer and employment for a member of every family in Bangladesh. This will become harder to achieve as another global food crisis is predicted for end of 2009 and which will extend well into 2010.

7. Reopening of events during the 2 year interim government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed especially possible investigation of the role of DGFI and the armed forces. There is also likelihood of interference in the military rendering it politicized, weak and dysfunctional. This process appears to have already begun under Gen. Moin U. Ahmed and will probably increase if he is granted a further extension for ‘services rendered’.

8. Increase in criminality and particularly extortion of business enterprises. There has also been intimidation and brow-beating of business organizations and bodies to follow the government line on policy matters which indicates a move away from free-markets and capitalism. While restraining the natural inclination of business to pursue increased profits in time of national emergency or economic crisis can be justified this could under the AL government ultimately take the form of scapegoating the entire business community for the failures of government. This will probably become inevitable if the global financial crisis takes a heavy toll in Bangladesh without proper and effective measures and safety-nets being put in place due to an incompetent and insensitive administration.

9 Campus violence that will gradually hamper our educational and future potential to compete on a global scale.

10. Sidelining of opposition in parliament through controversial seating arrangements and censoring of debates as broadcast on BTV. Harassment of opposition party workers has already begun on a massive scale.

11. Return to dynastic politics as members of the Sheikh’s family are exerting immense influence but without the responsibility or accountability associated with their power which is exercised in a largely unofficial capacity.

12. War Crimes Trials which is probably a ruse to distract from the above failures and policies as any case will have to overcome the amnesty given by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the tripartite agreement between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh on the exchange of prisoners. This is also an attempt in conjunction with points 4 and 5 to undermine religion based politics in Bangladesh. This will probably have the effect of promoting extremism and radicalism by pushing Islamic parties underground and could pose a threat to democracy and also the stability of the country.

While many of the above proposals and acts are not official policy of the AL government the party being largely a monolithic entity and also ideologically quite rigid it is entirely unlikely any initiative could proceed without the tacit approval of the leadership hierarchy. While individually the above proposals and acts may appear innocuous when taken together they signal a reassertion of the undemocratic and autocratic nature of the Awami League and an overweening dependence on India. Some of the proposals and policy initiatives listed above have the potential to spark a hostile and violent reaction without combination with other issues and these should be identified and firmly opposed at the outset.

The question remains as to whether the BNP alliance can capitalize on AL difficulties and its glaring failures. While the BNP has taken steps to reorganize itself from the grassroots level the same stale leaders and advisors remain in their positions. Those who brought the BNP to its present debacle in the national elections still hold positions of influence within the party and unless they are removed with utmost ruthlessness and haste the party is likely to become another Muslim League with ever decreasing returns in elections. It is important that if the nationalist agenda is to survive in Bangladesh the BNP has to remodel and refashion itself and become more democratized and responsive to the needs of the people and country. The only other alternative is for a completely new party to emerge but this seems very unlikely under present conditions and circumstances. This is not to say that this could not happen especially if the BNP continues to advocate meaningless policies such as impeachment of the president or some such similar nonsense. The main problem for the BNP is that it is a party without an ideology and in its place opportunism and greed has become qualifications for party membership. It is no longer enough that it is the party that stands against the AL it must be the party that stands for something. Unfortunately the party lacks the intellectual depth or analytical skills to carry out the necessary internal restructuring. To rectify this deficiency the party has to push forward an aggressive agenda to weed out the useless and incompetent from amongst its ranks and to establish a new dynamic leadership structure that can meet the challenges of the 21^st century.

¶ 1/31/2009 10:13:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

Every government of Bangladesh - elected or not - feels its incumbent upon itself to bring up the issue of transit to India but in the end nothing really gets done except talks which inflame the passions of the people of this country, moving them to resist any moves by any government to offer infrastructural facilities to India such as transit and the use of ports. This has been going on for the last 2 decades but in the last couple of years it has assumed urgent proportions for India because of their need to get to their states bordering Bangladesh to the north and east, it being much more time consuming and costly to travel all the way round than through Bangladesh. Consider, for example, the fact that right after the Emergency was declared on 11 January 2007, the Indian Government invited the Chief of Army Staff to India and gave him a "royal treatment" in order to elicit some form of commitment regarding the transit issue - it is of note that the Indians did not invite the President or the Chief Advisor but the man holding the gun and the power who got all the attention. Similarly, even before the 29 December election, the Indian Ambassador in Bangladesh was busy shuttling between the BNP and AL, hedging his bets. When the AL won the election, the Ambassador came on strongly setting up a visit by the Indian Foreign Minister whose main agenda undoubtedly would be the transit, the port and the off-shore exploration of gas in the Bay of Bengal.

Much has been talked about the issue of transit and there is nothing new to add as far as the perceptions and view points of the people of Bangladesh are concerned. On 14 July 2008, The Bangladesh Today carried a commentary on the issue; it would be worthwhile to reproduce the major aspects of it here.

The Indian High Commissioner in Bangladesh, HE Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, spoke to the press on 10 July 2008, after his meeting with our Foreign Advisor. Mr. Chakravarty had this to say: "We are raising the issue at every forum but it is yet to come into effect. Bangladesh considers the issue as political but it is not that; we don't see it as political. Both the countries should consider the issue of transit facility for the development of the overall economy and trade". Well, from this statement its pretty clear what India wants and why but perhaps India and its High Commissioner (HC) are yet to understand what Bangladesh wants and why. So let's get down to the crux of the business.

Starting with the economic aspects on which the Indian HC seems to be so insistent, we would like to mention that both Bangladesh and India have access to each other through various land, river and sea routes and therefore trade and commerce between the two countries can go on and increase to any extent that the two countries want. As a matter of fact India has a huge trade surplus over Bangladesh, which means that India is exporting far more than importing from Bangladesh. Therefore it is difficult to see how a "transit" through Bangladesh is going to further improve the economic aspects, when trade is already heavily weighted in favor of India.

India has to bear tremendous costs to get to its south-eastern states all the way round; a transit through Bangladesh would make that access easier both economically as also militarily because these south-eastern states are all plagued by insurgencies of one type or another. No, Mr. Chakravarty it is not Bangladesh which is going to benefit from the transit - except for the paltry sums to be realized for the passage through - it is India which is going to benefit, leaving Bangladesh with a permanent security hazard much like the 25 years Indo-Bangla treaty signed just after the independence of Bangladesh.

While we are on economic issues, what about equitable distribution of river waters which India is denying us, turning huge tracts of our agricultural lands into deserts during the dry seasons; what about damming of rivers upstream and releasing those waters during monsoons turning the whole of Bangladesh into an ocean; what about trying to grab some of our Exclusive Economic Zones in the Bay of Bengal; what about denying our people access to many of our "enclaves" in India and finally what about flooding our Country with Indian phensidyl, drugs and intoxicants of all sorts.

Coming to the far more important political and security aspects which the Indian HC is so keen to downplay, we would like to mention that a "treaty of transit" is certainly going to include clauses for guaranteed continued access to the transit routes by India. Should those guarantees fail at anytime, India would not hesitate to march in with its military forces to ensure that transit, citing reasons of "national interest" much like they did in Sikkim, Maldives and Sri Lanka. So, Mr. Chakravarty, every Bangladesh Government understands these things and that's why India never got the transit and it never will.

If India wants transit through Bangladesh, we want transit through India to Nepal and China - this makes more economic sense to us. So by all means let's have transits, both through Bangladesh and India with equal guarantees and conditions of access through these routes. Better still, let's have the historical "Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Assam" in one powerful Nation-State of Bangladesh so that India doesn't have to bother about transit to those areas.

¶ 1/25/2009 08:26:00 AM 1 Comments Links to this post