Sadeq Khan
Publication by the influential Indian newspaper Indian Express of an “exclusive interview” given by “Khaleda Zia, former Bangladesh Prime Minister and Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson” speaking of “her expectations of the Narendra Modi government (in Delhi), her thoughts on the previous UPA government (in Delhi), and politics in Bangladesh” has drawn ire from senior ministers of Sheikh Hasina’s current cabinet.
Two of them, namely Industries Minister Amir Hossain Amu, and Agriculture Minister Motia Chowdhury moved on point of order in the National Assembly on May 2 to castigate Khaleda Zia terming her press interview on India-Bangladesh relations as violation of diplomatic norms, the latter in bitingly derogatory terms. Their casus belli appears to be Khaleda Zia’s comment implying that Awami League failed to properly bargain with India in securing the interests of Bangladesh while conceding one-sided Indian demands in bilateral relations.
With majority, ‘BJP can do it’
In the interview, referring to her meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj during the latter’s 40-hour Dhaka visit, Khaleda said: “We discussed bilateral issues. For example, regarding border killings, she said efforts will be made to bring it down to zero. On Teesta and Land Boundary Agreement, she has assured these will be done. She talked about people-to-people relations. Such issues come in the way. In the dry season, water flow is blocked, then people are angry India is not giving us water…. We have such a long border, there could be problems, but to kill people, that makes people angry and agitated… During the visit of Manmohan Singh, it was announced that an agreement on sharing of Teesta waters would be signed, although the people of Bangladesh did not know the details. At the last minute, the agreement was not signed on the ground that Mamata was opposed to it. The people of Bangladesh don’t know what really happened… I have not met Mamata, and I don’t know who blocked it. Our government says so. Hasina says so.
“The Land Agreement was signed in 1974. Bangladesh ratified it the same year but India has not yet done so… The people in the enclaves are undergoing immense suffering. They have been living in a state of uncertainty for so long. This has a negative effect on our relationship. Now that the BJP is in office with such a huge majority, it is expected that this will be resolved soon.”
On her disappointment with the UPA government in India, she said: “Their foreign secretary [Sujatha Singh] came here (last year prior to January 5 elections), and said publicly that H M Ershad should participate, otherwise elections will not take place and the fundamentalists will come to power. She tried to convince us also, but could not. We told her why we could not participate in the elections. We are a political party, not an underground outfit, but if elections are not fair, there is no point taking part…”
Mutuality of gains sought
“Later, Ershad said openly that he will not contest. But later, through some way… I don’t know whether the Congress-led government played a role; many believe that [it did], since the foreign secretary said such things… In fact, Ershad said later that the foreign secretary put pressure on him. And they [India] are the only ones to give recognition to the polls. Even the Commonwealth and the UN said that they don’t support a one-party election… And people of this country have not accepted that.
“Awami League understands that they don’t have legitimacy in the country or outside. Awami League is telling us that you first recognise us as a legitimate government, then we will enter into a dialogue. … I told Sushma that no country has witnessed an election in which 154 candidates have been elected unopposed, out of 300 in parliament.”
In answer to a question whether she considered Congress-led UPA government broke its promises to Bangladesh, she said: “That is the perception of the people of Bangladesh. Actually it is the failure, or lack of will, of our government to protect the interests of the people of Bangladesh on unresolved issues that turned out to be the bigger problem.”
About her own position on India-Bangladesh relations, she said: “Unlike the Awami League government, I would have sought mutuality of gains in our bilateral relations in all areas, along with using provisions under SAARC to foster closer ties. I would have emphasised that it is vital to earn the trust of the people on both sides to give this relationship greater strength…… A future BNP government will encourage greater people-to-people contact and use all bilateral and regional instruments like SAARC to diversify our relations and cooperation in all fields.”
Motia’s blunt retort
Agriculture Minister Motia Chowdhury bluntly retorted on the floor of the parliament: “You (Khaleda) were busy with corruption and are even now busy with this (back biting?). You should not say that the pending issues with India are not solved because of AL’s failure”. She accused Khaleda of “diplomatic indecency” for not meeting the visiting Indian President (formerly Congress minister) Pranab Mukherjee last year, ignoring or violating Jamaat’s hartal call on the appointed day. She ridiculed her eagerness to meet Sushma Swaraj in contrast: “BNP chairperson was dying to meet Indian minister, she (Khaleda) went to the hotel to meet her (Sushma). Later, BNP accused Awami League of creating so called obstruction.”
Without going into the merits of the contentions of either Khaleda Zia or of Motia Chowdhury, one cannot but wonder why this subject came up at all to waste the time of the parliament. Both of them are politicians, not diplomats. Their words and their decisions are party political decisions, and are designed to send messages as each think appropriate. Why Khaleda was reluctant to see Indian President Praban Mukherjee violating hartal code, and why she was eager to see Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj at her hotel under constraints of marginal accommodation of that audience were matters of political calculation on the part of Khaleda Zia and her party-led opposition alliance. Diplomatic propriety has nothing to do with such matters.
It would have been more appropriate for the parliament, however impugned, to discuss the misery of people under heavy rent-seeking by the police ahead of Eid, and the insecurity of the people under murderous infighting within the ruling party over turfs of mafia extortion. On the last working day of the week gone by, newspapers reported how a Dhaka City Youth League leader nominally expelled after inner party quarrels was sought at midnight in his home and shot at, resulting in two persons hospitalised with bullet wounds.
Govt. unmoved by lawlessness
The day before, newsmen exposed the story of an officer-in-charge in the Bhatara Police Station being retained by drug dealers for thirty lakh takas a month to carry on open drug dealing along a hundred feet length of roadside haunts of Bhatara crossing in the capital city. Dhaka Medical College hospital reported to newsmen last week of average eight victims of surreptitious drugging by robber gangs in public transports and on roads brought to the hospital per day for treatment. The week before, a newspaper reported how a policeman admitted to the reporter that he had shot a businessman in the leg as he was ordered to do so by his superior who demanded ten lakh takas as protection money from the businessman. The victim could not meet the demand. When a superior police officer was asked about the shooting victim, he simply said the man was a dacoit, as if to shoot an unarmed dacoit without cause and maim him is legal!
The same week, another victim of police extortion under pains of “crossfire” filed a case in the CMM court, Dhaka. He told the court how he was taken in custody by the police, set upon for beating by another unknown accused under lock-up goaded by the officer-in-charge and another police sub inspector, who between themselves were loudly talking about “finishing” him by cross-fire, and how for fear of life he had arranged to pay taka two lakh as bribe for being spared criminal prosecution. It is lucky for him that the CMM court took cognizance of his complaint.
Should not the legislators, whether legitimate or not, discuss these widely reported signs of administrative degeneration into banana republic mode, rather than indulge in political one-upmanship in the House?
Source: Weekly Holiday