Left leaning politicians and intellectuals of Bangladesh commonly propagate that India is an eternal friend and Pakistan is a perpetual enemy. The right leaning counterparts are not as warm towards India and are much more forgiving of Pakistan’s war time atrocities. This commentary suggests that such polarisation of external relation may serve the narrow political interests of the left and right combatants, but is hardly pragmatic and conducive for Bangladesh.
First, in terms of trade and economics, clearly India is potentially much more important than Pakistan. However, the reality is that India exports much more to than imports from Bangladesh. Since the 1990s, India’s exports to (imports from) Bangladesh grew at over 9% (3%) per annum helped in part by the depreciation of Indian currency (World Bank, 2006, India-Bangladesh Bilateral Trade and Potential Free Trade Agreement). India accounted for 6% (12%) of Bangladesh’s total exports (imports) in 1973 and this share changed to 2% (14%) in 2011, implying a decrease in trade importance of India from the Bangladesh perspective (FICCI, 2012, Status Paper on INDIA-BANGLADESH ECONOMIC RELATIONS). Meantime, China, Japan and other Asian countries have become vital import sources for Bangladesh to sustain and grow its exports lifeline to Europe and United States. Another critical catalyst for the economic development of Bangladesh is the export of labour services to the Middle East.
In terms of development partnership in the form of food, commodity and project aid (grants and loans) during 1971/72 to 2012/13, the top five partners (Table 5.0, http://www.erd.gov.bd) are IDA (25.00%), ADB (17.48%), Japan (14.26%), UN (7.85%, all in grants) and USA (6.80%). Considering UK, Canada, EU and other European partners, and the fact that the international development institutions are mainly funded by the western countries and Japan, development partnership of Bangladesh with the west and Japan is overwhelming and absolutely critical. Among others, Saudi Arabia ranks 13 (1.7%), IDB ranks 17 (1.1%), India ranks 18 (0.87%) and Russia is dead last (0.75%).
Thus, India as a development partner is rather unimportant while Indian businesses continue to gain strong footings in Bangladesh as illustrated by the latest contract with Oil India and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation for oil and gas exploration in the Bay of Bengal (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-17/news/47412268_1_petrobangla-exploration-gas-field), and Rajuk’s award of the mega project of Nuton Dhaka to Sahara (http://www.sunday-guardian.com/business/sc-order-leads-sahara-to-defer-dhaka-plans). Further, Bangladesh is the fifth largest source (about $4 billion annually, 5%) of wage remittance by Indian expats worldwide (http://www.asiantribune.com/node/71992, http://www.siliconindia.com/news/business/15-Nations-Sending-Highest-Remittances-to-India-nid-147515-cid-3.html). Clearly, Indian businesses and expats should be welcome on a competitive basis, but an equivalent degree of reciprocity is also called for. The same argument also applies to nuclear power plant and arms deals with Russia.
Overall, Indian and Russian friendship is nowhere as important economically as friendship with China, Japan and other Asian countries, the Middle East, and Europe and USA are. It is thus imperative that Bangladesh stands much more sensitive in fostering friendship with these vital partners. If Bangladesh had to tolerate some foreign interference in a globalised world, it better be from key economic partners.
Second, Bangladesh’s strategic location is an invaluable source of land and maritime, internal (North-East of India) and external (China, South-East Asia and rest of the world), connectivity for India. Militarily also, Bangladesh is not too far from China and is bordered by China’s close ally Myanmar. Despite this strategic upper hand for Bangladesh, it is instead India that continues to extract valuable concessions for connectivity and strategic access from Bangladesh while offering little concrete in return. Meantime, the Indian border guards are using lethal force to fend off poor Bangladeshi trespassers but are unable to control the ever booming smuggling of Indian goods into Bangladesh. Thus, unconditional friendship with India has so far strategically benefited India in a lop-sided manner.
Third, Bangladesh continues to be an unofficial battle front for the Indo-Pak war, allegedly fought via espionage, recruitment, financing and arming of sympathisers, and influencing policies, politics and even national elections. Since 9/11, Pakistan has been in the eye of the West’s war on terrorism and religious (Muslim) fundamentalism. Interestingly, despite the world’s largest openly communal base of (Hindu) religious fundamentalists who also came to power once, India has been exceedingly successful in internationally downplaying this while courting partnership with the west’s war. Not to be outmuscled, Pakistan found it tactically beneficial to provide support to the (Muslim) religious fundamentalists in Bangladesh and through their means to the separatists of North-East India and (Muslim) fundamentalists of India.
Unfortunately for Bangladesh, its leading political parties have permitted undue influence of the Indo-Pak clash to vitiate internal politics and thereby jeopardise its security and communal harmony. There is no reason for Bangladesh to fight India’s war against Pakistan or Pakistan’s against India, and it should guard itself from being used by either.
Fourth, while it is honourable to recollect the 1971 support of friends like India and Russia, it is a fallacy to remain captives of gratitude for interests served or prisoners of disapproval for interests opposed in the past. The USA, China and Saudi Arabia, among others, were aligned with the invaders in 1971. Now in 2014, does it make sense for Bangladesh to treat them as anti-liberation foes, especially given the enormous role these countries have played since 1971 and/or are expected to play going forward in the economic advancement of Bangladesh? As economic and geo-political shifts take place around the globe, Bangladesh, like any other state acting in the best current and future interests of its citizens, must continually re-evaluate existing friendships and ignite new ones.
Lastly and very critically, one must differentiate friendship with states from friendship between their people. In this regard, the most politically abused is the external relations of Bangladesh with India and Pakistan. The people of all three countries are one and the same, identified by the rest of the world as East Indians by ethnicity. This undeniable and divinely determined commonality should transcend all other differences and constitute a perpetual fountain of friendship that withstands inevitable differences in and conflicts of interests of the political states they belong to.
For Bangladeshis, for obvious reasons, it is not easy to accept Pakistanis as friends. The 1971 atrocities must not be forgotten and the perpetrators of that time may not be forgiven, but it is irrational to treat today’s Pakistanis as enemies merely by association of nationality or ethnicity. Should the people of British India treat citizens of the UK as enemies because of two hundred years of oppressive occupation? Should the Hindus treat the Muslims as enemies because of the tyrannical rule by the Mughals? Should the world treat the Germans and the Japanese as foes because of their fascist aggression during the two world wars? Should the Americans loathe all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks?
But uncritical/fanatical friendship is not warranted either. In regards to water sharing, dams and land border, Mamata Banerjee is defiantly challenging the Indian Government purportedly to defend the interests of West Bengal, at known perils for the fellow Bangalis of Bangladesh. If an Indian state can challenge its national government, so should Bangladesh in cases of colliding interests and the concept of an old friend can do no wrong must be forsaken.
In conclusion, external relations of Bangladesh need to be rationalised by its own current and future interests. At times, friends may just be too close for comfort and hence should be pushed back. Similarly, past antagonism should not hold Bangladesh back from reaping current and future friendship dividends. Lord Palmerston, 1784-1865, the reputed British Foreign Secretary and two-time Prime Minister, once said that Britain had permanent interests only, but no eternal friend or enemy (p. 83, David Brown, 2002, PALMERSTON and the politics of foreign policy 1846-55). His dictum was that British interests should be the shibboleth of British foreign policy. The same applies to Bangladesh as it navigates the complex geo-political and economic landscape of the sub-continent and the world at large.
———————————-
Mo Chaudhury, Ph.D., is a Professor of Practice at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Source: bdnews24
