Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

As the prospect of several ministeral visits to Bangladesh for India is looming large, I wish I could bring to the attention of our authorities an extremely pertinent observation made by the redoubtable Indian author and social activist Arundhati Roy (in an interview in the leading Indian magazine Outlook): ‘In any treaty or agreement with a large, powerful state, the weaker state never benefits in the same proportion’. In this instant, she was referring to recent moves in Indo-US relations. But then it is as much relevant in case of our relations with India and we have already swallowed the utterly bitter fruits of our bilateral relations in trade, water resources, border control and in many other forms.
   I do not know how any Indian Union Minister now coming to Dhaka could explain away all their assurances and promises about the status of their river-linking project, now that the Indian President’s pre-independence day address exhorts implementation of ‘this (inter-linking of rivers ) project with a great sense of urgency.’ He added ‘all hurdles in the way should be overcome as the project holds the promise of freeing the country (India) from the endless cycle of flood and drought.’ The Indian President obviously did not take into account Bangladesh’s prospect of a permanent nightmare of the same endless cycle of disasters and that Bangladesh is much less capable to bear such a burden so cruelly thrust upon her by the big neighbour. Mr. Priya Ranjan Das Munshi’s projected visit to Dhaka is perhaps more in fulfilment of his President’s directive to remiove ‘all hurdles in the way’ of this mega project. When Mr. Natwar Singh was meeting the Prime Minister in Dhaka, arrangements were completed for the signing of an MOU between the two states Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh as the first link in the Inter-river water transfer megaproject. Our authorities may have been informed (at least by our High Commissioner in New Delhi) that on 25 August, 2005 this MOU brokered by our well wisher Priya Dass Munshi, was signed in the presence of th Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh and the Chief Ministers of the two states.
   The feeble noises we made, ‘the hat-in-hand’ submissions our ministers have reportedly made to the Indian authorities, have been, as is obvious, all in vain. Knowing what we want is one thing, knowing how we are going to get it is another, and therein lies the real challenge. And hence, we have got to get a plan - without it we are going to get stuffed. That precisely is what has happened. Our authorities always claimed that they have discussed this issue as it would have grave consequences for Bangladesh and for once, no one has even mentioned what the Indians said, nor what they promised they would do. Furthermore, our naivete has been exploited in full by the Indian High Commissidoner and by her Water Resources Minister, even by their Minister of External Affairs, whose expansive expressions of deep, abiding friendship dipped with honey kept the news of the imminent implementation of the project well covered.
   I feel a sense of utter hopelessness as my article on the Indian President’s first official announcement of the river-linking project, was published on 26 August, 2003 and contained predictions that all but have come to pass. And two years later to the day, we find ourselves in exactly the same predicament.
   And, of course, the Tata Company is now the apple of our investment eye. And then our concerned authorities would be receiving their thirty pieces of silver (now, perhaps, of gold) and a la Tagore we can claim ‘we surrendered the whole world in exchange of the two bighas of land , that was our only possession.!’ I have sought to elaborate some of the relevant issues in this context in my article : ‘Natwar Singh’s Visit: on unilateral interests only? (17 August, 2005)
   Over all these years, we have not been able to piece together a coherent plan in the water resources sector, especially in relation to the emerging disaster scenario. The Inter-Ministerial Task Force apparently has not at all been effective in ensuring such a vital, preparatory task.
   I believe it baffles many that the government does not even now consider it essential to despatch a special envoy at the ministerial level to India on this issue alone. It seems at every meeting (of course very few have actually taken place) many items clutter up the agenda. There is no focus, there is obviously no preparation of any merit, no advocacy based on knowledge, expertise and eloquence and it is no surprise that there is no progress. We are sold on some general assurances, platitudes and promise for another round of meetings at various levels. And that process is deliberately prolonged with the effect that everything goes back to the back burner.
   It is also most intriguing that no serious attempt has been made to sensitize our friendly governments, international organisations, donors and so on, on the whole issue and convey our sense of deepest concerns. We have enough data, materials and reasons to at least impress the international community about the serious predicament we face as a small state vulnerable to natural disasters, now being made so much more devastating by man-made ones. The sad thing is that such a course of action could be designed for the benefit of all the co-riparian countries in the region.
   Why can’t we invite a group of humanists sans frontieres like Arundhati Roy, as well as neutral water resources, ecology, natural disasters experts from abroad to visit Bangladesh and observe for themselves the on-the-ground situation and assess the justification or otherwise, of our stand ? And why does not our Water Resources Minister or Secretary exchange visits with their respective counterparts from Nepal? It will demonstrate our resolve to find a solution to the continuing crisis and we may obtain vital information on Indian as well as Indo-Nepal plans in the water resources sector affecting the flow and volume of waters in the upper reaches of the common and trans-national rivers.
   As a small, resource-starved neighbour with acute population pressure and severe socio-economic unrest, we wish for, and we deserve, a greater degree of consideration and understanding, accommodation and empathy if not a measure of generosity , from India, whose march towards progress and prosperity we admire as phenomenal. And we do firmly believe that India can reach far greater heights if she promotes an effective regime of peace and goodwill in this region of ours.
   However, the history of our relations has remained an enigma and despite a good deal of analysis this continues to remain a huge jig-saw puzzle for us. With the tremendous strides India continues to make in almost all the sectors, her dominance in the region is unassailable at least for the foreseeable future. And, as observed earlier, a peaceful neighbourhood would be a positive and enabling factor for her to pursue her global dreams. Furthermore, prosperous neighbours will be supplemental, cost-effective markets for India’s vastly expanding production/ export capabilities. Friendly countries will be willing sources for supplying essential resources that India will continue to require over time. It is obvious a reasonable level of expectations fulfillment in countries across India’s vast borders would assure containment of the pernicious socio-religious forces, allowing India to focus on her prominence in the larger picture. She will have claims for an in-built automatic acceptability of her credentials as compared to those of China, and on a somewhat different plane to Pakistan and Iran perhaps at a later time-frame.
   This , however, reflects our perception and how India looks at things will admittedly shape the future of our relations. As perceptions of Indian positions and motives are more crucial in people’s minds, efforts must be made, and be seen to be made, to change it to a more positive level.
   The writer, a former ambassador, can be reached at syedmhussain@yahoo.com

The Royal Caribbean’s Monarch of the Sea sailed from the port of San Juan in the island of Puerto Rico one summer afternoon in 1998. We were a group of three Bangladeshi couples who had gone there by air from Washington to board the ship. It was for a romantic and relaxing cruise in the Caribbean Sea, east of Central America. Some of us had already had the experience of crossing the Atlantic from Cherbourg in France to New York in the Queen Elizabeth 2, considered once as the most luxurious and the biggest cruise ship. The one we boarded in San Juan, a 73500 tons Norwegian ocean liner, was as big as the Queen Elizabeth 2 and perhaps as luxurious. It was carrying about three thousand passengers and nine hundred members of the crew and other staff. Unlike our previous experience, it was not to be a straight ocean crossing but going from island to island in the blue Caribbean, in a floating city with all the facilities and services.
   The captain of the ship, with a well-trimmed sailor’s beard and a splendid white uniform, welcomed us and gave us a pre-departure briefing. We then moved to the deck to watch the captain take the large ship out of the port by slowly wiggling it. It appeared simple but in reality, it was a most difficult operation. After a little while, the ship entered the open sea and started gaining speed. It was not always a smooth sail. The ocean was rough from time to time and roaring, particularly in the night when we were in bed. We had, by a ship’s standard, spacious and comfortable accommodation in the Admiral class’s pink colored cabins, which were above the sea level and had French windows and a balcony.
   In seven days, we visited six of the islands in the Caribbean Sea- St. Croix, St. Maarten, Antigua, Martinique, Barbados and St. Thomas. The ship would normally sail all night, reaching one of the islands in the morning where it would stop, refuel and get provisions. After a heavy breakfast, we had the option of joining a variety of organized tours or other more demanding programs like scuba diving or helicopter rides at extra cost. Alternatively, one could arrange to do things for themselves. Since we were a group of six persons and not very athletic or adventurous, we used to draw up our own program, hire a microbus with a guide/driver at each stop for almost the whole day and go on sightseeing and shopping.
   Sparsely populated, these were balmy little islands, covered by coconut and other trees, some of which had exotic flowers. The open sea all around was literally blue. So was the sky. Friendliness and music were in the air. Tourism was the principal source of income of these islands. There were large houses, hotels and rich people, but most of the people were quite poor. We would drive around the islands, go to the beaches for a swim, some of which were quite unconventional in dress code or the lack of it, and then go to a local restaurant for lunch. Our spouses would indulge themselves in shopping for curios, precious and semi-precious stones and local handicrafts. These islands were British, French or Dutch colonies for centuries and became independent in the fifties and sixties. Each island had a distinct stamp of its colonial past in terms of language, culture, style of architecture and food. Similar was the case with their administrative structure and laws and the institutions. These links with and dependence on foreigners were still evident.
   The ship provided all sorts of entertainment, recreational and shopping facilities. It had running tracks, exercise facilities, two swimming pools, card and reading rooms. Of course there was gambling- slot machines, card games, roulette and black gammon. Late at night, returning to our cabins we would find the details of the next day’s program delivered through the bottom of the door. This helped us to select from a variety of programs, including talks, music, singing and dancing, shows, and movies throughout the day and the evenings. There were separate programs to keep the children entertained. The ship’s daily newssheet, compiling news from the New York Times and the Paris Herald Tribune, would keep us fully posted about the world at large. A small medical unit with doctors, nurses and medicines took care of our health problems.
   The round the clock dining facilities were most impressive, with an international cuisine and chefs. Each day, food served represented different parts of the world. In the evenings, dinner was a disciplined ritual at reserved tables for each group in large ornate dining halls, with big chandeliers. Since people were on holiday, dress requirements were relaxed for lunch. For dinner, we had to wear a jacket and tie, except for the glittering gala reception and dinner given by the captain toward the end of the trip, when business suits were required for men. On that occasion, our wives wore gorgeous Bangladeshi sarees, which the other guests greatly admired. The same waitress and steward, recruited from Eastern Europe, the Philippines, and India etc., would serve us at the dinner tables on all days. By making an effort, we were able to see a few Bangladeshi cooks and kitchen hands who worked behind the scene. On the first day, passengers had to choose particular hours for dinner for the entire cruise, as there were two batches due to the very large number of passengers. Breakfast was less formal and the buffet lunches were usually in the decks. For all the meals, the quality and quantity of food and its infinite variety were staggering. I believe that we all gained quite a few pounds during the trip.
   For me the best part was to sit on the deck on an easy chair with a sunshade, sipping tea or other drinks and doing nothing but watch the rolling of the sea. Occasionally, green coast lines or dots of small islands lined with trees would show up in the distant horizon. The fresh air and oxygen inhaled were as enjoyable as the fine food and drinks consumed aboard the ship. It was certainly different from our lives back home. The entire experience was so enjoyable that we immediately started planning another cruise for the following summer, this time to the north, to Alaska with its glaciers. I would leave the story of that trip for some other day.
   Azizul Jalil writes from Washington

Cindy (Sheehan) lost her son Casey. Casey Sheehan was killed in action, in Iraq. Like any mother anywhere in the world, Cindy cannot be consoled by mere words of sympathy offered by her president; he had added inspiring words to comfort the bereaved mother: Casey ‘sacrificed’ his life for a ‘noble’ cause — to protect America. Noble indeed! But how true and how convincing? Cindy does not believe her president; she camps outside Crawford (‘Emperor’s’ retreat?), insists to have a word with president.
   Clearly, Cindy fails to see her son’s death in the ‘presidential’ light; to her Casey was sent to a far away land, to fight and kill an unknown ‘enemy’, and put in harm’s way: all by telling lies and deception. Cindy fails to see how America, the most powerful country in the world, could ever be threatened by a third world Iraq, not only not the remotest match but also a country that had been thoroughly disarmed by the years of thorough arms inspections and whose people were driven to the brink of starvation by over 12 years of economic sanctions, thanks to the ‘good offices’ of the United Nations, available with its ‘biggest’ contributor.
   How is the president’s project ‘liberation of Iraq’ going? How is the cabinet project ‘American Century’ going? A quick answer is: not well on either.
   ‘War on Iraq’ is now ‘War in Iraq’. Iraq is in turmoil; it has become (in the words of US military in Iraq) a ‘magnet’ for assorted ‘terrorists’ (which never before was the case in Iraq). They (the terrorists), in the judgment of American military brass, are becoming ever more sophisticated, their weaponry ever more lethal. With close to 2000 dead and five times as many injured, the war is beginning to look like unwinnable.
   Pacification of Iraq is proving extremely frustrating, costly to American lives and taxpayers as well. Some veteran politicians are even talking of another Vietnam in Iraq. Nothing, not even the repeated refrains by the president and his cabinet to the contrary: ‘we are making progress’, ‘terrorists are on the run’ is proving or convincing or comforting to many Americans. There are secret military plans for early withdrawal.
   Two and a half years after ‘mission accomplished’, ‘liberation’ of Iraq is nowhere in sight. And ‘democracy’? That looks even farther off. Fear and frustration have gripped both the ‘liberator’ and those ‘liberated’. Fallujah was bombed into rubble, yet the entire city remains outside control of the ‘coalition’ and Iraqi police. A ‘Catch 22’ situation has come about where occupation troops cannot leave before the Iraqi army and police take charge. Meanwhile, troops are not enthusiastic about going to Iraq. Those already in Iraq want to come home. The Iraqis want the occupation to end soon. Which of these will come sooner?
   The American war on terror is unlike any other before. So had the president declared. American taxpayers are paying dearly; a ‘poverty draft’ is on as the poor and minority sections find their sons and daughters at the frontline of war, bearing disproportionately the burden of casualties. Of course, those who profit from the sacrifices by the poor and minority are the corporations, contractors, weapons manufacturers, and monopoly cartels squeezing the consumer public. War is a profit industry for that minority. Cindys and Caseys are mere expendable commodities; theirs is to serve the ‘noble’ cause and not ask why.
   If indeed America is winning, which it clearly is not; if project ‘American Century’ has run aground (though the diehard triumphalists do not agree), where do things go from here? No one knows how many American soldiers will have to die in Iraq (‘we do not do body count’ and Iraqi dead do not matter) before the US president finally decides to quit? That figure is anybody’s guess, but with 1800 plus dead, it is not that close perhaps.
   By the words of the president in Crawford or Idaho, it seems that the number has not been reached nor that time has arrived, not yet. Of course, the president (like his predecessor during the Vietnam years) has to find something to declare ‘victory’ before an ‘honorable: exit’.
   The number of dead soldiers aside, the only other thing that weighs heavy on the president is the public’s perception in America; their marches and protests, their activism, their refusal to join the draft. Yes, the American establishment (comprising politics, industry, military, and allied constituencies) is very entrenched and very powerful. Yet even more powerful is the combination of American civil society and institutions (not just the liberals many of whom are crowing in fear of being called unpatriotic). Which will prevail and happen first? Your guess is as good as mine.
   As to the Iraqi people, it is a constituency obscured in the hype of ‘march of freedom’, ‘democratic’ Iraq, ‘Iraqisation’ of security force, a ‘new Iraq’ and more. While the makeshift ‘elections’ under curfew brought a ‘landmark’ provisional assembly, the jockeying for power by contesting sects is stalling the making of draft constitution. Meanwhile the Iraqi people who have suffered so hard for so long precious little has changed in their daily lives. They need desperately to see some ‘light at the end of the tunnel’.
   The best case scenario is a referendum that approves the draft Constitution; a general election that elects a fully representative Assembly; and a government that secures Iraq and takes sovereign control of its resources, to reconstruct a country that lies in ruins. Let the people of Iraq sigh in relief by getting water, sanitation, electricity, housing, education, and of course adequate food and nutrition. Let women and children of Iraq not die by thousands each day due to denial of basic needs for survival; they have died in huge numbers during the sanctions, wars, and occupation. Let Iraq be at peace with itself and with its neighbors.
   That best case might let America exit Iraq with face. Anything contrary, will make things worse, keep the troops and administration engaged with or without will, and that ‘quagmire’ dreaded by veterans and historians alike, will unfold. But the alienation of Sunnis could, unless reconciled soon by concessions and compromise, lead to rejection of draft Constitution; the escalation of armed resistance; even a civil war which is not impossible though improbable. Foreign troops will have no way of disengaging but will get even more deeply entangled.
   Which translates into a few more ‘My Lais’, ‘smarter’ munitions, and of course even more horrendous casualties. The choice is not hard, not to ordinary citizens like Cindy, Casey, and many others. Yet the cold reality is they do not choose; they raise voices, march, camp, and seek interview with president.
   Again if history is a guide, powerful rulers sometimes are driven by visions of grandeur, of ordained destiny; some even begin to become subjects of hallucinatory delusions of their place in history. History seldom teaches though it is full of lessons.
   Cindy Sheehan is not alone. Other voices are echoing her sentiments, and in greater numbers. Will that lead to a groundswell of protest? Will public opinion sweep aside the Empire builders’ dream of the American century?