Asymmetric relations

THE long awaited talks with India over unresolved bilateral issues came at long last when last week the summit between the prime ministers, Sheikh Hasina and Dr. Manamohan Singh, took place in New Delhi amid wild speculation as to its scope and prospects. Bangladesh being a country at the receiving end of this exercise, its people pinned much hope on Sheikh Hasina's ability in exacting our dues from India on the basis of universally acceptable good neighbourliness.
Even though an outline of the talks has been offered for public consumption it lacks essential details, which makes it difficult to draw any conclusion as to its positive or negative impact on Bangladesh.
However, to the prime minister and her true-blues the visit has been a "total success," but the BNP secretary general termed the visit as a "total failure." Neutral observers tend to see it as a "mixed bag." To them, the assessment of both sides is grossly exaggerated, moreover it is too early to gauge the full implication of what has been committed by the leadership of both the countries. We have to wait a bit longer to see it unfold.
Our past experience in dealing with India can also be a useful guide. Only after that exercise will we know that the AL's claim is certainly not abracadabra mouthed by the sceptics. Neither is the BNP's assertion the whole truth. To build, nourish and maintain an asymmetric relationship has always been difficult anywhere. Look at the whole spectrum of the asymmetry to understand how complex can it be.
A relationship has to be developed, it cannot be achieved overnight, that too with a country of India's standing and potential. Smaller than China, India is the second largest country of the world by population, ranking tenth in engineering and technological skill. It has the world's fourth largest army, sixth largest navy and tenth largest air force. It is has nuclear and ballistic missile power. An Indian satellite is already in orbit. This asymmetry is characteristic of South Asia, and India is pre-eminent in the region's power structure.
After the Bangladesh War of Independence in 1971, India's position was further strengthened -- duly endorsed by the great powers. Following independence, Bangladesh's relations with India were most cordial and warm. During the war, India proved to be the closest and strongest ally of Bangladesh. At the same time, Bangladesh's victory at an enormous cost vastly enhanced India's security. Pakistan, cut down to former West Pakistan, no longer flanked India on two sides, and drained in economic and military strength she ceased to be the threat she was to India's security. On the other hand, the emergence of a friendly neighbour on the eastern flank, with practically no military ambition, radically metamorphosed the region's power structure, putting India at its centre.
In these changed circumstances, both India and Bangladesh vied with each other in becoming mutually friendly and helpful. So much so that both tended to ignore the formal interstate boundary, and even the idea of trans-border movement from one country to the other without passport was aired. Initially, Indo-Bangladesh relations were euphoric to say the least. But then a relationship fed only by emotions does not last long and eventually requires a more rational approach to attain a more stable footing.
After our independence, the leaders of both the countries appeared to make the initial moves with correctness, caution, prudence and objectivity in creating a base for good neighbourly relations between the two countries. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was unequivocal in attributing the victory in the War of Independence to the patriotism and sacrifices of the people of Bangladesh. Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur, in like manner, was unstinting in expressing the gratitude of the people of Bangladesh for India's valuable and enormous contribution during the war. Both leaders took timely action for the withdrawal of Indian troops from Bangladesh. The differences over the trial of prisoners of war also appeared to have been ironed out quietly, and finally settled through the tripartite agreement.
The relationship flowered till the seeds of future discontent appeared to have been surreptitiously sown, mainly due to failure to complete the land boundary demarcation, negotiate and settle the basic frame of a long-term agreement to share the waters of the Ganges on the expiry of the 3-month trial run agreement and leaving the maritime delineation unattended.
It also appeared that the cordial relations developed during and after the war had not completely succeeded in obliterating the old fears and suspicious, which were exacerbated by new irritants. When relations are brought on an even keel and the irritants are removed some unforeseen and unexpected issues disturb the equilibrium, creating new problems in the carefully nursed equation.
We do have a number of agreements and memorandums of understanding with India, including a 30-year water agreement, but they yielded nothing for us and, in spite of the much-hyped water agreement signed during Sheikh Hasina's last regime, the grim spectacle of the Ganges in Bangladesh is a fact of our lives.
Yet, the resumption of talks between the two countries on a host of bilateral issues is indeed great news. Sheikh Hasina's achievement is that she couldn't be cold-shouldered by India and was afforded an audience in New Delhi.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.