The Bangladesh-India friendship dilemma

Anu Muhammad

 

India is Bangladesh’s biggest neighbour. We are connected through our shared border, history, cultural traits, and language, among other things. Various threads bind us, including Bangladesh’s Liberation War in 1971. Considering all this, having a friendly, healthy relationship with India is as important for us as it is for them.

However, India’s current leaders along with big business oligarchy have been pursuing a one-sided foreign policy. Their dominant mindset to extend their influence in the neighbourhood has created an unbalanced relationship in South Asia. This has raised questions and created reservations among the people in other countries. Therefore, it is not surprising that, except for Bangladesh, India is not on the best terms with the South Asian governments.

As our current government has said on a number of occasions, the relationship between Bangladesh and India has reached new heights since it came to power. That is true for the government, but not for the people. And there is a common perception that this relationship benefits India much more than it does Bangladesh. Our prime minister recently went on a formal visit to India, and all the memorandums of understandings and agreements made there seem to re-establish that notion. Bangladesh’s interests seem to have been downplayed considerably, and objective critical questions of our citizens have once again been ignored.

Consider the fact that Bangladesh shares the border with India on three sides, and India is putting up a barbed wire fence on this entire border. This is not an example of friendship. Surrounding an entire country is akin to holding it captive. While the Bangladesh government has not spoken against this issue, our citizens are concerned. India’s reasoning behind putting up the barbed wire fence is to prevent criminals from Bangladesh from entering India. If India’s understanding is that criminals are going to enter its territory from Bangladesh, how can it ask for a transit through Bangladesh? If they believe ours is a country filled with criminals who must be contained with a barbed wire fence around our entire border, how can they ensure the security of their goods while using our roads and rivers for transit? Last month, the countries agreed on railway transit through Bangladesh as well.

We have been hearing about transit benefits even before our current government came to power, with promises of billions of dollars in earnings for Bangladesh. But in reality, now that the transit is being formalised during this government’s time, we are not seeing the financial benefits for us—not even one percent of what was promised. On the contrary, Dr Mashiur Rahman, the economic affairs adviser to the prime minister, once regarded demanding any such financial benefits or gains as “uncivilised.” This means India will get transit benefits through Bangladesh, which gives them economic gains, while Bangladesh gains nothing. Moreover, the additional pressure on our roads, bridges, and rivers and the resulting damage to our environment, economy, and businesses will be significant.

While India will be able to transit through Bangladesh, the latter still cannot have the same access for a mere 30-40 kilometres to establish business ties with Nepal or Bhutan. Our government says that ties with Nepal and Bhutan will be established, but nothing has been formalised yet. There are many direct and indirect barriers to this, caused by India.

Also, in terms of business, thousands of Indian products find a place in Bangladesh’s markets. But when it comes to exporting goods from Bangladesh to India, there are many barriers, tariffs, and non-tariffs, so we don’t get the same business benefits in India as it does in Bangladesh. India is also gaining access to our seas. I can’t help but ask: how can we ensure our country’s national security in this state of affairs?

Then there is the water-sharing issue. Many of Bangladesh’s rivers originate in India. Being upstream, India has constructed dams and other structures to control the water flow in the rivers, preventing us from getting the water we need. Instead of giving us the water, India now wants management responsibilities of the Teesta River.

The border killings have still not stopped. Even after our prime minister returned from her India tour last month, there have been reports of border killings.

Is India truly interested in the multilateral development of South Asia? To unlock the power in this region, we need to have multilateral cooperation among all the countries. Bilateral relationships can only take us so far. To justify the new bilateral agreements that happened during her recent visit to India, our prime minister mentioned the European Union as an example. But in reality, our bilateral relationship with India and the transit deal do not compare with the agreements in the EU in any way. The EU is a comprehensive economic and political system, where every country has rights over every other country, and they give the same rights to each other. Economic and communication benefits are ensured for all the countries in the EU. There is the European Central Bank, the euro currency, and an institutional structure.

A union of South Asia is truly important for our future, and that is something in which I firmly believe. But it is probably not going to be possible with India’s current mindset of extending influence and the one-sided relationship-building approach. If we have a South Asian Union, we can utilise the massive amount of wealth and opportunities that lies here. Doing so can put a stop to communalism, corruption and the massive waste of wealth. It can create a multi-language, multinational, multi-ethnic community. This is only possible if the rights, wants, and needs of all the nations are ensured, and one country is not given priority over another. It should be a political demand of all the South Asian countries: a South Asian solidarity. It is for the sake of the citizens of South Asia that this should be prioritised.

The current leaders in India, and the business stakeholders, are not doing this to the rest of South Asian nations only. In truth, they are doing it to the majority of the Indian citizens as well, prioritising their own interests. So it is also for the sake of Indian citizens that a multilateral, multicultural union needs to be planned, finalised, and brought to reality. It should be clear to everyone that subordination and friendship are not the same. We want friendship, and that can only be achieved when we are treated as equals.

Anu Muhammad is a former professor of economics of Jahangirnagar University.

Daily Star

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here