Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The point made by representatives of the diplomatic community in Dhaka regarding the inquiry into Islamic extremism should be taken seriously by the government. The heads of missions who met the Foreign Minister on Tuesday have quite rightly emphasised the need for Abdur Rahman, Bangla Bhai and all other Islamic extremists so far nabbed by the security forces to be tried in a transparent manner. While Morshed Khan certainly is right in his assessment that the happiness expressed by the people of Bangladesh over the arrests of the two leading JMB figures proves that there is no room for extremism in this country, it is equally true that much more will need to be done to convince the country as well as the outside world that the roots of terrorism will indeed be brought to an end. There is certainly cause for jubilation at the arrest of the JMB people, but such jubilation should be tempered with the bigger realisation that there are still a very large number of JMB operatives who remain to be netted. And unless they are caught or neutralised, there will always be the recurrent danger of extremism continuing to vitiate the political atmosphere in the country.
   Where the methods employed in the investigation of the JMB leadership are concerned, one can hardly deny the fact that the trial of Abdur Rahman and Bangla Bhai must be conducted in an open and free manner. The interrogation that has been going on of the two men and all others who have been arrested with them should be thorough and at the same time transparent. As matters stand, the nation is not aware of what information is being ferreted out of them at this stage. That surely should not have been the way to handle things, especially since it raises a number of questions, indeed suspicions, in the public mind about the nature of the questioning. More seriously, there is the matter of how much of sanitisation might go into a dissemination of the information being extracted from the arrested militants. It is concerns of this sort that impel one into asking for a trial of the men in question in open court so that the nation can have a complete overview of what actually has been happening in the last few years. There are without doubt the many advantages that will come with an open trial. In the first place, the country will be able to gauge the extent of the militant network which has so far spread its tentacles throughout the country. In the second, there is the very strong likelihood that those who have so far been taken into custody will reveal the identities of the men and organisations, local as well as international, that have so long patronised them in their activities. It is this last bit that is important, for the specific reason that unless the lid is taken off the elements who have been supportive, in various ways, of the growing militancy, the country will gain little through the arrest of Abdur Rahman and Bangla Bhai.
   Let us make note of the fact, while we are on the subject, that a trial conducted before the outside world will be of immense boon for Bangladesh. Moreover, since religious terrorism happens to be a worldwide concern, it is only natural that we persuade the world into believing that we share that concern and that we will do our bit in snuffing out the danger which threatens to consume all of us.

In Manila and Bangkok ...

There are signs of trouble in the Philippines and Thailand. In Manila, President Gloria Arroyo has been muddling through, despite her clear attempts to show that she is in command of the situation. Her recent decision to impose a state of emergency on the ground that her administration had unearthed a military plot to overthrow it has left a lot of people worried about the direction the country may be taking. Indeed, the troubles which the president has faced in the last few years, especially since the last presidential election and the discovery of a tape in which she appears to be speaking of ways to influence the results, have never quite gone away. What is now happening is a clear sense that Ms. Arroyo is getting into deeper trouble, particularly through the withdrawal of support from her by such influential figures as former president Fidel Ramos. Not even Corazon Aquino, another former president, has missed the opportunity of asking the president to quit office.
   In Thailand, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is in increasingly deeper trouble owing to his business dealings. His predicament is a classic situation of how outrageously rich men ought never to indulge in politics, for there is then the very real possibility of conflicts of interest arising out of the situation. In the past few years in which he has headed the government in Bangkok, Mr. Thaksin has found himself the butt of criticism owing to the way in which he has brought his business interests into play. He has also been accused of establishing a political system that is dominated and run by his fellow businessmen and their cronies. His latest moves to sell off his property only seem to have worsened the situation.
   The problem here, and by that we mean conditions in Thailand and the Philippines, is that fragile democracies need sustenance. Where that does not happen, politics takes a bad beating. It is this beating that the individuals now running the show in Manila and Bangkok must now avoid, through making sure that the moves they make do not push their societies into new disorder.

India’s High Commissioner to Bangladesh Veena Sikri has been has been at her post for quite sometime. Her 26-para message on the occasion of her country’s 57th Republic Day, hence, could justifiably be taken to mirror her country’s position on various aspects of our bilateral relations. And more prominently the message reflects India’s perception on Bangladesh’s internal scene and on some of the domestic issues. And this makes a fascinating reading not so much for what she has put in print, but what she has chosen not to reveal. The entire exercise is crafted with so much acumen and portray India as the giant, powerful neighbour treading so very softly at the small neighbour’s door. India, as the country’s envoy is sworn to testify, has done everything right and everything in Bangladesh’s interest, for Bangladesh’s welfare and for upholding the shared set of values.
   And such lofty thoughts and ideals do of course justify and lead to Indian posture as Ms. Sikri puts it, ‘we are building a fence along the India-Bangladesh border in the spirit of friendship and better understanding.’ Secondly, without entering into an etymological semantics, one is intrigued by the Indian insistence on a transference of all its values including the concept of secularism onto Bangladesh framework. Thirdly, 1971 War of Liberation has been wholly showcased in late Aurora’s role and the three long paragraphs have no reference to Bangladesh’s own pivotal role in winning its freedom. Ms. Sikri curiously uses a somewhat unexpected and most certainly inappropriate adjective as she describes ‘In 1971 the people of Bangladesh willingly (?) shed their blood .....’. Fourthly, espousing a supposedly uninvolved cause in the name of connectivity, the message waxes eloquent about SAARC and BIMSTEC spirit – no one, however, can miss out on the real intention of India to ensure permanent arrangements for India’s massive need for transit facilities through Bangladesh territory. The similar request for transit corridor that Nepal has been asking for to reach Chittagong port for her overseas trade and for limited volume of bilateral trade, has gone a-begging for years. India apparently considers a somewhat farfetched notion of security risks and assistance to its seven sisters’ ongoing political unrest, as the prime reason for the denial of a well-established right of land-locked Nepal. Fifthly, she talks about the benefits for movement of goods through land and river routes, but totally forgets to mention that trade-related benefits have gone almost hundred percent in India’s favour. Ms. Sikri is fully aware that Indo-Bangladesh trade deficit rose to US$ 1.86 billion in 2004-2005. India’s export has doubled from US$ 1.1 billion to US$ 2.09 billion. Of course, Bangladesh has also doubled its export from US $ 72.35 million to US $ 144.19 million. One can hardly be hopeful given India’s record of not-allowing any meaningful redress, despite Bangladesh’s pleas over the past 15 years-late Narasimha Rao agreed to the duty-free entry of Jamdani saree (and perhaps Hilsa fish) more in fact to satisfy the great affection of the people of West Bengal state for these two items only available across the border. Indian generosity unfortunately has been most remarkable for its absence since the latest assurance of Mr. Kamal Nath, Indian Commence Minister of duty-and quota-free access of our products before the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, has not materialised in any way. Furthermore, Ms. Sikri knows very well that India displayed a negative attitude to Bangladesh’s utter astonishment, in relations to Bangladesh position at the Hong Kong meet.
   At this stage, it should be observed to allay Indian High Commissioner’s lurking fear that all Indo-Bangladesh issues get ‘politicised and exaggerated’. Trade deficit issue is a matter of economic reality and for India to bask in the glory of being Bangladesh’s only source will not last long. At a recent Bangladesh-India dialogue, an opposition lawmaker did make a timely comment that Bangladesh needed goods of ‘better quality at lower price’, but not cheaper one with low quality, drawing specific attention to the low-quality transport vehicles produced by Indian manufacturers for use in Dhaka. His concern was voiced further, ‘Bangladesh should not be the dumping ground for Indian goods, Ms. Sikri might feel like advising her authorities about the phenomenal increase in Chinese and other non-India sourced consumer and capital goods in the Bangladesh market. Without a serious and sincere efforts to help Bangladesh export to Indian grow at reasonably faster rate, India’s built-in advantage would corrode fast.
   Be as it may, this article proposes to examine two major issues in somewhat greater details.
   The Indian High Commissioner is very right in observing, ‘Water is an emotive and complex issue.........’, but then comes her immediate comment ‘.....constructive dialogue......often gets vitiated by the manner which the issue is politicised and exaggerated in Bangladesh’. Let us remind her that the water issue inside India has always assumed a virulent inter-state dispute and the Indian solution in the form of a massive Inter-River Linking Project has had to be given a High Court verdict for implementation. Ms Sikri also knows that Assam, Manipur and other states have been agitating against this politically motivated scheme to enrich the states in the Central, Northern and Southern India at the expense of the former and she also knows very well that Bangladesh would suffer the most. The Indian envoy is on record while claiming only a few months ago that the IRLP was only at a ‘conceptual stage’. The visiting Indian Ministers in recent months have all been assuring us Bangladesh would be consulted before IRLP is implemented. And the former Indian Water Resources Minister made his famous remark ‘the Himalayan component of IRLP would not be implemented in 2000 years!’, unfortunately he himself did not last 2 months with his prophetic abilities in this post. And that also relieves India from such a brilliant assurance. Let me put two points to Ms Sikri one, over the past few years Bangladesh Government, experts, civil society activists have been patiently projecting the immensity of the problems that India has set in motion by her unilateral action in the water resources sector, but to no avail.
   The media has carried a series of very competent reports, analysis, commentaries based on facts and figures that must have come to the attention of the Indian authorities. And what exactly have been done in terms of ‘constructive dialogue’ and of allaying the well founded apprehensions. India has been economical with the truth. And she has been less than generous, in fact, far less than that befits a giant neighbour with a global role to play. Secondly, does Ms Sikri really imply that Bangladesh Senior Minister Mr. Abdul Mannan Bhuiya was ‘exaggerating’ when he said ‘we urge Indian citizens to ask your Government to be rational towards neighbouring countries and give their due share of common resources, including water’, while inaugurating a conference of the Forum of Environment Journalists of Bangladesh on 27 January, 2006. This article does not propose to touch upon all relevant aspects of Indo-Bangladesh relations in the water resources sector. That has been done on more than one occasion in the recent past. Ms Sikri’s advice to Bangladesh in para 23 of her message is too simplistic to deserve any serious comments. Suffice it to say that when 70 per cent of the waters flow into Bangladesh through the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin with 54 common rivers, the lowest riparian Bangladesh is very much vulnerable to anything and everything India does in the upper reaches. India has since long been withdrawing huge quantum of waters and this vast network of IRLP would literally suck the major Himalayan rivers dry. And only in monsoon months these would be active in moving huge sediments deposits through Bangladesh into the Bay of Bengal. Ms Sikri has in a sleight of hand quoted the ADB-generated data on AWR availability, without, of course, mentioning that with 8000 cm per capita in the 8 wet months in Bangladesh and 900 cm per capita during these months, the net availability for both stands at around 1000 cm per capita. Her figures are as meaningless as her claim that ‘since its signing in 1996, India has adhered fully to its obligations under this Treaty (The Ganges Water Treaty).’ This is to be seen in the light of the Bangladesh JRC’s very recent appraisal of the significant shortfalls in releasing the agreed upon quantum of water in the Ganges to Bangladesh. 
   We may also note that Ms. Sikri has extolled the virtues of SAARC and the spirit of regional cooperation, extensively quoting her redoubtable Prime Minister on the subject. It would have been logical and highly beneficial for the peoples of the sub-continent, if India could extend the co-operation coverage to the Himalayan rivers as well. We know about the multi-country arrangements for Danube, Mekong and several other international rivers. Let me also cite the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) which was launched in 1999 as a regional partnership of ten Nile riparian countries. In a sub-region rife with intense political disturbances, NBI has set a remarkable cooperative venture for long-term development and management of Nile waters. In addition to an information network among the governmental and non-governmental organisations, professionals, experts, research bodies, local farmers and other stake-holders, NBI assists in efficient water-harvesting, soil conservation, community-centered, environ-friendly utilisation schemes among the riparian partners. NBI is also enlarging its activities to support regional projects relating to forestry, agricultural, animal and fisheries resources along the meandering stretches of the Nile river. We do believe that India could so very conveniently lead such an initiative to rightly claim the moral high ground of a prime mover in our sub-region. India has the capability, she has the resources, but does she have the political sagacity and the generosity of an overwhelmingly large neighbour to take up this challenge on behalf of us all!
   In my article ‘Protesting Delhi’s water diversion plan’, published on 26 August 2003, I had, inter alia, observed ‘President Abdul Kalam’s narration of the objectives of this mega project sums up precisely the needs of Bangladesh and her 120 million hapless citizens as well facing a stark future. All the Indian droughts and floods will gradually be shifted to our lands. They will increasingly enjoy ‘water and power security’ across the border while Bangladesh goes on carrying the river silts with ever increasing intensity into the Bay of Bengal, with most of the common river’s drying up much sooner than later’. In an article published on 7 April 1997 almost 9 years ago under a more hopeful title ‘Water Resources Development - a Regional Rationale’, I had commented ‘India has now got a huge door open for developing hydel power resources on the major rivers flowing out of Nepal as indicated earlier. Bangladesh as a lower riparian to India faces a different set of arguments as to why India’s wide variety of needs outweigh the essential, life and death dependence of Bangladesh on waters from the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and other rivers.’ And that ‘Now even Brahmaputra’s historic flow into the lowest riparian Bangladesh is facing a threat of being disturbed and reduced with the Tipaimukh barrage on the Indian side on the one hand and of sizeable diversion/withdrawals at the upper reaches in China to augment the flow of waters in the Arun river.’ And I deeply regret the fact that a diabolic blue print for total control and almost total usage of the common heritage of the sub continental rivers system has finally emerged, proving my analysis and apprehensions a decade ago so very right. Ms Sikri tends to gloss over the dangers of a protracted dialogue on issues of this nature while damages are done under false assurances and projects implemented unilaterally become fait accompli just because small, vulnerable states are unable (or perhaps politically incapable or fall prey to their leaders’ greed,) to uphold their sovereign, national interests.
(To be continued)
   The writer is a former ambassador and secretary to the government of Bangladesh