By Inder Jit
(Released on 7 April 1981)
Bangladesh and its capital Dacca are a far cry from Delhi and most other parts, of India, barring West Bengal and Assam. Few in the Union Capital seldom care to spare a thought for the neighbour. Even those who go East, invariably skip Dacca and think only in terms of Bangkok, Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo. Ten years ago, Dacca was very much on our minds as the people of Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, courageously raised the banner of liberation. Interest and anguish heightened with each passing month as lakhs of refugees poured into India from across the border. Eventually, Delhi found itself constrained to intervene and free Bangladesh was born. Today, Dacca and Bangladesh figure in our newspapers only occasionally when the Ganga waters issue hits the headline or Calcutta cries out aloud for more water in the Hooghly for survival. Yet, Bangladesh is as important to India as is India to Bangladesh. The earlier we take a little more interest in it the better for us and for Bangladesh and for the progress and prosperity of both countries.
These thoughts are prompted by a ten-day visit to Bangladesh, stemming from a brief and interesting meeting with President Ziaur Rahman during his visit to New Delhi in September at the time of CHOGRM-II when I interviewed him for Delhi Doordarshan. The trip, which closely followed my visit to Pakistan last month, was stimulated by a desire to promote greater understanding between the countries of our sub-continent and help clear the decks for meaningful regional cooperation. Almost all the countries in the world have come together to form various regional groupings except those of our sub-continent. These groupings have proved highly beneficial to its members. West Germany, its top diplomats tell me, has progressed and prospered faster as a member of the European Economic Community than anyone had ever imagined. There is need clearly for our countries also to cooperate purposefully in enlightened self-interest. But this will not be possible till we are willing to shed pride and prejudice, allay mutual fears and suspicions and appreciate each others viewpoint and psyche.
Bangladesh is no longer what it was in 1971 or, more specifically, on December 16, 1971, the day Pakistan’s Commander in East Pakistan Lt Gen A.A.K. Niazi, surrendered to Lt Gen J.S. Aurora, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Indian and Bangladesh Forces in the Eastern theatre — a day which New Delhi has curiously played down all along and not cared to commemorate in any way. Indians were then joyously hailed as liberators in Dacca and elsewhere — and as good friends. Today, however, the situation has undergone a sea-change. India is now projected by some Bangladesh Ministers, political leaders and a section of the Press as the “main enemy” and the country warned time and again against Indian “expansionism”. India looms large and is blamed for everything said or done. Most rallies, I was told, relate to India. Things have, indeed, come to such a sad pass that, incredibly enough, there is no reference at all to India or Indian forces in the liberation section of the National Museum at Dacca. Even the name of Gen Aurora is not mentioned in the historic picture showing Gen Niazi signing the surrender.
Hurt by what appeared to me to be a blatant effort to rewrite history, I asked Preside Ziaur Rahman in the course of recorded 100-minute interview: Is this fair and in the best interest of promoting better understanding between our two countries? President Zia smiled and good humourdly replied: “I think you are too sentimental.” He then added: “Independence came to us because our people wanted it and we fought for it… Our people made a lot of sacrifices… Therefore, our independence is very dear to us… We highly appreciate all those who helped us during our war and this will be recorded…” In reply to a further query he added: “There is a tendency for many to make claims when it is a success…” Another supplementary brought forth the reply: ‘We don’t understand why Gen Osmany was kept out of the photograph? Why he was not there at the surrender ceremony? That was essential because he was then our Commander-in-Chief… That would have given the photograph a political and military meaning.” Was he kept out deliberately? Or, was it inadvertent? Replied President Zia: “You should find out.”
A talk with Gen Aurora on return to Delhi has more than answered the question posed by President Zia. Gen Aurora recalls: “Gen Osmany, then a Colonel, was his own master. He was free to visit Bangladesh Forces anywhere as its C-in-C as he was operationally not in command. He left Calcutta on tour of the Sylhet sector, where fighting was still going on, a day or two earlier. No one expected Gen Niazi to surrender so soon. Everything happened suddenly between 2.30 pm on December 15 and 4.31 pm on December 16 when Niazi signed the surrender. We could not, therefore, get in touch with Osmany. But I made it a point to take Group Capt Khondkar, who was next in seniority to Osmany in the Bangladesh Forces with me to Dacca. Khondkar was very much at the surrender ceremony”. Photographs of the historic occasion in Gen Arora’s album show him standing next to Admiral Krishnan and Air Marshal Dewan, representing India’s Navy and its Air Force, just behind Gen Aurora and Gen Niazi seated at the table and in front of Mr A.K. Ray representing India’s External Affairs Ministry. “We missed Osmany”, adds Gen Aurora, “but Khondkar was there.”
Bangladesh favours close ties with India and only a small section is openly anti-India. Delhi, for its part, is eager to have strong friendly relations with Dacca. But mere sentiments will not do. Both sides need to introspect deeply over the present state of relations, stop mutual pinpricks and take effective steps to open a new chapter in abiding friendship — and meaningful cooperation.
The official coolness nay unfriendliness, according to informed sources, has continued, as reflected in two incidents in the past six months. India’s High Commissioner in Dacca, Mr Muchkund Dubey, was invited in October last to be one of the principal speakers (on behalf of the non-aligned group) at a public function on the occasion of Palestine Day. The other speakers were Bangladesh, as the host country, Iran on behalf of the Islamic countries and Libya on behalf of the Arab bloc. But the Bangladesh Foreign Office, I am told, opposed India’s inclusion among the principal speakers and even threatened to boycott the meeting. The PLO representative was thereupon constrained to drop India for fear of a black-out of the function by the Bangladesh TV, radio and Press. Again, the High Commissioner, Mr Dubey, was first permitted to speak on Bangladesh TV and radio in Bengali on the occasion of India’s Republic Day. One widely respected in Bangladeshi literary circles, Mr Dubey even submitted his script in Bengali in advance. But the permission to speak in Bengali was withdrawn at the eleventh hour and Mr Dubey forced to speak to a limited audience in English.
Not only that. Dacca does not always respond adequately even to such proposals as are made by Delhi in the best interests of both the countries. Over seven years ago, India proposed a rail link between West Bengal and Tripura through the Bangladesh railway system. But the proposal has still to be implemented. (Some anti-Indian elements have projected the proposal as an attempt by Delhi to secure a corridor through Bangladesh!) Bangladesh today pays India over Rs. 4 crores annually for hiring Indian wagons for transit trade to Nepal. The proposed rail link could earn Bangladesh as much or more. (Top technical teams of the two countries, I gathered in Dacca, have reached complete agreement on the modalities.) Again, Bangladesh has one trillion cuft of natural gas and proposed its sale to India more than two years ago. India has suggested using this gas to put up a sponge iron plant in Bangladesh based on Indian iron-ore. But this proposal too, is hanging fire. Some anti-Indian elements have been calculatedly denouncing the proposal as a sell-out to India ignoring the fact that Bangladesh stands to gain twice to five times more from this deal than from any others.
Take Farakka. Both India and Bangladesh have made proposals for augmenting the waters of the Ganga. India has proposed that the Ganga waters be augmented by drawing 100,000 cusecs from the Brahmaputra through a link canal, half a mile wide and about 210 miles long, a third of which will be in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has opposed the proposal and instead suggested schemes in Nepal for harnessing the waters of the Ganga basin. Bangladesh maintains that it has “a good case”. Khulna, to which I had a delightful trip by steamer from Dacca, and its newsprint plant, the biggest in Asia, now face problems caused by increasing salinity in the Rupsa river allegedly on account of Farakka. In fact, it is claimed that the plant is now “forced” to get fresh water from some 50 miles away. Bangladesh leaders also question the report of the World Bank experts, which is quoted by India to argue that withdrawal of water from the Brahmaputra will not affect Bangladesh adversely. But Dacca puts itself in the wrong by refusing to have the two proposals studied jointly — technically and from the economic viewpoint — as provided in the 1977 Agreement.
All this is not to suggest that Bangladesh and its Government are anti-India. Internal political compulsions have, no doubt, forced President Zia to fight the Awami League through increasing dependence on the Muslim League, which was virtually banned by Sheikh Mujib, and other Islam-pasand groups. (Not a few among these elements are known to have been hand in glove with the Pakistan Army and the once-hated Razakars and Al-Badars prior to liberation.) Some of President Zia’s senior Ministers and a major portion of the ruling Bangladesh National Party are former Muslim Leaguers. Many among them seem to believe that the only way to consolidate the sovereignty and independence of Bangladesh is by projecting India as the main enemy — as has been done all the past three decades and more by Pakistan, which is still in search of a national identity. New Delhi is stated to have drawn Dacca’s attention to some statements by Cabinet Ministers attacking India. Significantly, the Awami League leader, Dr Kamal Hossain, formers Foreign Minister, said in Dacca the other day that an attempt was being made to “recreate Pakistan on our soil.”
Fortunately, however, President Zia is anxious to build bridges with India, notwithstanding the fact that Bangladesh has its own catalogue of complaints. India, for instance, has not carried out its contract providing Bangladesh with 150,000 tonnes of coal; only a third of the quantity has been supplied. Dacca also feels chagrined over Delhi’s “failure” to hand over certain enclaves to Bangladesh and to resolve the dispute over its maritime boundary. President Zia has refused to comment on Moradabad and communal incidents elsewhere and firmly held that these are India’s internal affair. During my meeting with him, he declined to say anything about the Awami League’s decision to elect as its President Mrs Hasina Wazed, Sheikh Mujib’s daughter now enjoying political asylum in India. Moreover, a sizeable majority of the elite in Bangladesh favours close ties with India and only a small section is openly anti-India. Delhi, for its part, is eager to have strong friendly relations with Dacca. But mere sentiments will not do. Both sides need to introspect deeply over the present state of relations, stop mutual pinpricks and take effective steps to open a new chapter in abiding friendship — and meaningful cooperation. — INFA