Desicritics Category: Politics: Bangladesh

Afghanistan: What Next?

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:15:51 EDT

The Americans bombed Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in retaliation for having sheltered those responsible for the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Centre. Since Afghanistan was already in the stone-age, having endured the Soviet occupation and a long stretch of in-fighting among various groups of Mujahideen after the Soviet departure, there wasn’t much to bomb, but that didn’t stop the Americans from dropping ordinance. Having paid the Al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban, back with the same coin, the Americans landed their aeroplanes on Afghan soil and set up bases with avowed intention of planting democracy in that part of the world. And that was the beginning of the current set of troubles.

When Obama campaigned for Presidency he sort of implied that Afghanistan was a just fight, though Iraq wasn’t. The upshot of that assertion has been an increase in the number of US boots on the ground in Afghanistan and a concerted effort to extricate from Iraq. Obama has also tried to get US coalition partners to commit more troops, but with the exception of the UK, no other country has been willing to do so.

In principle I agree that Obama is right in saying Afghanistan is a just cause – planting democracy in Afghanistan that is, and that Iraq is a good case for letting the locals resolve matters as best as they can. However, the ground reality is that Afghans have shown no great appetite for democracy. In a terrain bereft of democratic shoots or even roots, where most Pashtuns are either sympathetic to the Taliban or are the Taliban, the best foot the Americans have been able to put forward has been in the form of Hamid Karzai, a man who isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue.

As US and other coalition casualties mount in Afghanistan, Obama will be under increasing pressure to pack up and leave. My opinion of Obama has always been that he is a man of principles who also likes to avoid causing offence. A man who likes to please as many people as possible. If things don’t change in Afghanistan (and the Taliban show no indication of wanting to change), Obama might want to consider various options. And what could those options be?

1. It’s well known that Iran supplies funding and technology for Iraqi insurgents, especially Shiite insurgents. What is less well-known is that Iran also supplies weaponry to the Taliban, though they are predominantly Sunni and there is no love lost for Shiite Iran. The US could strike a deal with Iran whereby Iran is allowed to fulfil some of its nuclear dreams (without actually producing or acquiring nuclear weapons) and in return, Iran totally stops the flow of money and technology to Afghanistan. Iran might be allowed to conduct a nuclear test or two and Ahmadinejad will be allowed to strut and strike a pose in front of his people. Such a deal with make Israel very unhappy and there will always be the fear that if Iran is given a nuclear inch, it’ll take a nuclear mile. If this strategy is to work, Israel must not be allowed to attack any of Iran’s nuclear sites. Without Iranian support, the Taliban will suffer to some extent. However, as long as the border with Pakistan is not sealed, and it cannot be sealed, the Taliban will be able to breathe.

2. Supplement US troops with soldiers from Islamic states like Bangladesh and Indonesia which are officially American allies, but are not hated by Afghans. I’m not sure how keen the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will be to shed blood in Afghanistan. More importantly, by joining the Americans, they are likely to be tainted in the eyes of the Afghans. Of course, additional manpower will not do any harm to the coalition struggling to hold Afghan territory, but it will be very difficult and even expensive to persuade Indonesians and Bangladeshis to send troops to Afghanistan. If this can be achieved, the US might be able to get the necessary breathing space to carry out necessary reconstruction and build up the Afghan national army.

3. US troops can be replaced with soldiers from Islamic states like Bangladesh and Indonesia. If they replace the Americans rather than supplement them, the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will not look too bad in Afghan eyes. Also, people in Indonesia and Bangladesh might not resist the idea of sending troops to Afghanistan as much as they would if their soldiers are seen to be helping American troops. However, I am not sure how good a job the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will be able to do on their own. Without drones and hi-tech bomber planes answering calls for help within minutes, it’s unlikely that the Taliban can be kept at bay. In fact, if the Americans are replaced by Indonesians and Bangladeshis, there’s a very good change that the Taliban will be in control of Afghanistan very soon after the US departure. Of course, the US could give those weapons to the Indonesians and Bangladeshis and train them to use those weapons, but I doubt if the US would want to do that.

4. Persuade India to send troops to Afghanistan to help American troops. Indian soldiers will be hated as much as the Americans and may suffer as many casualties. In order to persuade India to put its soldiers in harms’ way, the US might ‘persuade’ Pakistan to accept the Line of Control in Kashmir as the international border and give up all claims on Indian administered Kashmir. US drones flying over Af-Pak might direct some of their fire over training camps for Kashmiri militants. Indian politicians might be able to sell such this solution to India’s population. However, this solution would be very unpopular in Pakistan. Any such settlement over Kashmir would be temporary and will last only as long as the Americans stay in the neighbourhood. China will not be happy with this, since a secure northern frontier will tilt the balance of power in favour of India.

However, in my opinion, if implemented, this plan has as much chance of success as supplementing US troops with Indonesians and Bangladeshis. By sheer numbers, Indian troops supported by US technology and troops will be able to keep the Taliban at bay. Let’s assume, this is maintained for a period of five years, until the next Afghan elections, by which time, a reasonably strong Afghan national army can emerge and reconstruction and redevelopment can be carried out. If the Afghans manage to elect a strong government in Kabul that is relatively progressive, stable and strong, Afghanistan might revert to the sort of peace it had when it was ruled by King Zahir Shah from 1933 to 1973. Though this option has a good chance of success, I just don’t see Obama even considering the possibility of seeking Indian troops for Afghanistan and siding with India on Kashmir.

5. The Americans and their allies could just pack up and leave, after declaring that their objective of brining democracy to Afghanistan has been achieved. After the last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan on February 15, 1989, the Soviet protégé Najibullah managed to hold on to power for a surprising four years. The only reason why he was finally finished off was because of the enormous amount of Pakistani support for the Mujahideen. If the Americans were to just leave, just like the Soviets did, it is anybody’s guess as to how long Hamid Karzai will be able to hang on to power. The Taliban are bound to expand the territory they control – but will they be able to obtain sway over the whole of Afghanistan? In my opinion, they will, over a period of time. This process will be quicker if they can convince the Pakistanis to help them. To get Pakistani help, the Taliban must be willing to renounce any plan to capture power in Pakistan.

The ISI is mostly probably cursing itself for having allowed the Taliban to shelter the Al Qaeda. If Mullah Omar hadn’t permitted Bin Laden and his fellow nutcases to use Afghanistan as a base, no one would have given two hoots about Afghanistan. Pakistan would still have its ‘strategic depth’ in the west and Kashmir would be boiling. If the Americans were to pack up and leave, the ISI would want to just turn the clock back. Afghanistan would be run by the fundamentalist Taliban, while Pakistan would be modern and free from fundamentalists. This would be a dream ending for Pakistan, especially the ISI. However, would the Pakistani Taliban who currently control large swathes of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province be willing to give up their plans and either lead a quiet life or migrate to Afghanistan? Having tasted power, I doubt if Pakistani Taliban can ever be persuaded to give up their plans to capture power in Pakistan itself. They might pretend to do so for a temporary period till they capture the whole of Afghanistan, but sooner or later, civil war will return to Pakistan.

China will be very unhappy and uncomfortable if the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan. As long as the ISI had control over the Taliban, very little external support was available to Uighurs in China’s restive xinjiang province even though many Uighurs have fought for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Recently the Al Qaeda openly called for a holy war against China. The Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two different entities. The Taliban are much more realistic. Will Pakistan be able to convince the Taliban to not support the Uighurs in China after the Americans vacate Afghanistan? They might be able to. It all depends on how quickly memories of the current rift fade and how quickly the clock is put back.

We currently live in a very interesting period in time. Let’s see how events in Afghanistan unfold.

Talibanization of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers

MA Khan — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:24:03 EDT

As inescapable Talibanization of entire Pakistan occurs at a rapid pace, umpteen times have the so-called progressive Muslim intellectuals expressed their nostalgia in recent times as to how the Taliban are destroying the dreams of Pakistan’s founding fathers, Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah et al., who had ‘allegedly’ dreamt of an all-inclusive secular state.

For example, to show Jinnah’s dream for truly secular Pakistan, these intellectuals, adept at cherry-picking, would invariably quote him:

“You will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”

With due respect to their sincere concern that Pakistan is poised to regress into middle-age barbarism with rapid Talibanization (a trend expanding globally), I must point out that these so-called progressive, liberal Muslim intellectuals—who are either half-educated or blatantly dishonest—are of little help in the battle against obscurantist Islamists. When the helm of progressive intellectualism of a nation lies in their hands, it can only regress into where Pakistan is headed.

When Muslim societies face mortal dangers from the violent and regressive Islamists globally, what we need is a thoroughly knowledgeable and ruthlessly honest progressive intelligentsia, if we at all hope for deliverance from this menace. Dishonesty and lies never serve any noble cause, neither is ignorance of any help. We may probably learn from the book of the Taliban, who have an Islamic agenda solidly grounded on the Quran and Sunnah (prophetic traditions) and they are resolutely honest and unequivocal about it. And their success amongst the intended audience is glaringly visible.

The above quote, showing Jinnah’s purportedly secular ideals, was made in a speech on 11 August 1947 after the creation of Pakistan was formalized and Jinnah was elected President of independent Pakistan. It was obviously intended for consumption of the internationals community, whose recognition, support and aid was now a necessity for him. Jinnah’s secularism must, instead, be read in his statements in the course of his campaign for creating Pakistan. Concerning the intended polity of the Pakistani state, listening to his mentor Muhammad Iqbal’s ‘Presidential Speech’ at the All India Muslim League Meet at Allahabad in 1930, the linchpin of the Pakistan movement, would be helpful. The crux of the speech was the incompatibility of Islamic ideals with secular democracy: Iqbal fear that Islam in united secular India would become a personal creed divorced from political power—an abomination existing in the secular West. He said,

“The proposition that religion is a private individual experience is not surprising at the lips of a European…The nature of the Prophet’s religious experience, as disclosed in the Quran, is, however, totally different.”

He, thereafter, went on to expound the problems Muslim society of India was facing:

“Religious ideal of Islam is, therefore, organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Therefore, the construction of a polity on national lines (i.e. united secular India), if it means a displacement of the Islamic solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim. It is a matter which at the present moment concerns the Muslims of India.”

Iqbal followed up by floating the ‘Two Nation Theory’:

“I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state.”

Iqbal strengthened this campaign of a separate Muslim homeland until his death (1938), and passed it onto Jinnah, who galvanized its realization creating Pakistan in 1947 at the immense cost in human life and sufferings.

Moreover, “Pakistan” means “land of the pure”. In Islam, non-Muslims are filthy, impure (Quran 9:28). So the name “Pakistan” was carefully chosen to make it exclusively an abode of a pure people, Muslims—completely disconnected from the filthy non-Muslims. And Jinnah’s tool to create this pure, organically Islamic, state was “Jihad” or holy war: he tried to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s model of Jihad that he had applied to create the first Islamic State in Arabia by slaughter, expulsion, enslavement and forced conversion of the infidels en masse.

The Direct Action rally in Calcutta on 16 August 1946, which inaugurated Jinnah’s campaign for creating Pakistan, was a “Jihad”. The date chosen was the 18th day of Ramadan, coinciding with the day of the Prophet’s stunning victory at the epoch-making war of Badr. Secret pamphlets, circulated amongst Muslims (also read out in mosque sermons) by the Muslim League Party of Jinnah, read:

"Muslims must remember that it was in Ramzam that the Quran was revealed. It was in Ramzan that the permission for Jehad was granted. It was in Ramzam that the battle of Badr, the first open conflict between Islam and Heathenism [i.e., idolatry, which equates Hinduism] was fought and won by 313 Muslims; and again it was in Ramzan that 10,000 under the Holy Prophet conquered Mecca and established the kingdom of Heaven and the commonwealth of Islam in Arabia. Muslim League is fortunate that it is starting its action in this holy month.

By the grace of God, we are ten cores [100 millions] in India but through our bad luck we have become slaves of the Hindus and the British. We are starting a Jehad in Your Name in this very month of Ramzan. Pray make us strong in body and mind—give Your helping hand in all out actions—make us victorious over the Kafers [i.e. enemy of Allah, e.g. Hindus]—enable us to establish the Kingdom of Islam in India and make proper sacrifices for this Jehad—by the grace of God may we build up in India the greatest Islamic kingdom in the world."

Muslims in their Direct Action Jihad at Calcutta unleashed—with the connivance of the police directed by the Muslim League government in power—brutal massacre, pillage, plunder, rape and arson of the Hindus and Sikhs. After suffering one-and-a-half days of brutal savagery, the Hindus and Sikhs hit back, outnumbering Muslim the rioters and paying back in like manners. Five days of continued violence racked up some 5,000 dead-bodies with some 43% Muslim casualties in Calcutta, where Muslims constituted one-third of the population.

The Direct Action also ignited, over following months, violence, often of much greater horror and atrocity, in Muslim-dominated parts of India (except the Bihar riot after the Calcutta and Noakhali riots), which later became Pakistan. The purpose was to cleanse those areas of Hindus, Sikhs and other non-Muslims, either by mass-slaughter, expulsion, forced conversion, and even enslavement through abductions. In Noakhali riots (Oct. 1946), 95% of the estimated 400,000 Hindus were converted to Islam on the pain of death.

While Muslims continued incessant butchery of the infidels in one part or another, Hindus and Sikhs, when realized that the creation of Pakistan was inevitable, initiated a counterattack in early August 1947 on the backdrop of continued and recently intensified violence against their coreligionists in today’s Pakistan.

The Jihad that Jinnah ignited succeeded in achieving its intended goal, the creation of Pakistan, albeit at the cost of up to two million lives (roughly equal on both sides). Hindus and Sikhs—likely a few million—were forcibly converted to Islam, and tens of thousand of predominantly Hindu and Sikh women were raped and a similar number were enslaved through abduction and married to Muslim thugs. Some twenty million people were forced to cross borders leaving their homes and belongings behind.

While Jinnah’s Jihad campaign to create a pure land for Muslims, devoid of the filthy infidels, achieved tremendous success, the job remained unfinished because of the dogged refusal of Hindus and Sikhs to leave their ancestral homes or convert to Islam. The purification of Pakistan, to be achieved sooner and later, continued and is nearly done. Hindu population in today’s Pakistan has fallen to less a percent from some 10% in 1947. Some 11 million Hindus have been driven out from Bangladesh alone after 1947, reducing the Hindu population from 25-30% to some 10% today.

Obviously, what the Taliban, fast engulfing Pakistan, is going to bring to this nation is the completion of Iqbal’s and Jinnah’s dream, to make it a “pure land” for Muslims, where Islamic law would be the heart of its polity.

Much has been said of Jinnah’s lack of Islamic credentials: like, he was secular and hardly a Muslim, who loved pork and alcohol etc. It may be true. He may have even wanted a truly secular state, but that dream lied only in his heart. The common Muslims, who soldiered his mission with utmost barbarity, directed by his Muslim League Party, heard only what Iqbal and Jinnah spelled out clear and loud. It is immaterial what lied in the heart of a couple of hypocritical Muslims; it matters what the common Muslim, who propelled the cause, were told and aspired.

Pakistanis have been fooled for too long by Jinnah to begin with, depriving them of a truly Islamic state. Thanks to the Taliban, they are about to realize their ‘dream state’, for which they relentlessly fought and sacrificed immensely. On this, the words of Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the ever-honest leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, is most instructive:

“Complete Islamisation of Pakistan has been the genuine and long-standing demand of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Not only that, it is also the appropriate answer to the lurking fears of Talibanisation, growing rapidly with every passing day, as a natural response to the suppression of this public demand at the state level.”

Like Bob Marley sang, “...you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

---
Note: M. A. Khan’s recent book, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery, details the events surrounding the creation of Pakistan.

Book Review: The India Doctrine

A K Zaman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:28:42 EDT

It is almost two years since the first edition of The India Doctrine appeared on Bangladesh bookshelves to wide acclaim and appreciation. The newly revised edition now titled The India Doctrine (1947-2007) is an astonishing work of exceptional depth and analysis and is probably the first book of its kind not only in Bangladesh but also in South Asia as a whole. It is indeed a stupendous effort by Barrister MBI Munshi. While I had a few words of criticism for the original version of the book which appeared to me to be fragmentary and a little disjointed this revised edition is an exceptional work and its various parts have been finely consolidated and is also far better written and organized. As the author reminds us, he had almost two years to write this revised edition and it was certainly time well spent as the language and style is now much easier to follow and effortless to comprehend.

The Bangladesh Defence Journal published the book at a price of Tk. 1200 or roughly $17 and is 636 pages in length. Of those pages one third consists of end notes and references which number in their thousands leaving in no doubt the strong evidentiary grounds on which Barristers Munshi's thesis is based. The book also contains a useful foreword by the editor of BDJ, Mr. Abu Rushd, who earlier wrote the ground breaking RAW in Bangladesh. Mr. Rushd in his foreword contrasts the original version of The India Doctrine and the present edition stating that,

"The first edition was a turning point in political and historical writing in Bangladesh. The second edition continues this trend with further elaboration of issues … covered in the earlier book but on very recent events such as the causes behind the cancellation of elections in 2007 and new material on the 1971 liberation war and India's motivations in assisting [an] emergent Bangladesh."

Mr. Rushd further elaborates on the importance of the book in the context of South Asia's geo-strategic realities,

"The book is certainly a must read for those interested in South Asian affairs, geo-strategy, intelligence, and the political, diplomatic and economic influences of an increasingly important region of the world which contains almost a sixth of the world[s] population, two nuclear powers and several more in the near vicinity. The book will hopefully inspire others to explore the subject of Indian hegemony and expansionism and also allow policy-makers in the West to better comprehend the risks of permitting an unrestrained India to dominate the region."

The last remark seems particularly relevant in light of the Mumbai terror attacks in December 2008 and the increasingly hostile attitude taken by India towards its neighbour Pakistan who it accuses of having direct involvement in the incident although only a few weeks earlier a Col. Srikant Pirohit had been apprehended for supplying explosives to Hindu fanatics to carry out similar outrages.

Mr. Rushd concludes that the book should hopefully,

"educate the policy-makers and military planners in Bangladesh about possible threats emanating from our neighbour and the consequences of New Delhi's influence in our internal affairs as well as the principal cause of instability."

This is probably even more pertinent after the overwhelming victory of the Awami League (AL) party in the recently concluded 2008 national elections. The AL has often aligned itself with the interests of New Delhi in both foreign and internal matters and this has aggravated tensions within the country. It would be wise for the AL leaders to take some lessons from this book and adopt a more cautious attitude to New Delhi since our own history shows that a two-thirds majority in parliament is no guarantee of longevity or permanence in power especially when deeply held views about our national interest are constantly and arrogantly offended.

The obvious reason for publishing this new edition is that the original book had many gaps and overlooked many significant issues principally due to the time limitations placed on the author. Barrister Munshi states in his opening remarks in the preface that,

"By all accounts the first edition of The India Doctrine was a book incomplete. While it covered the essentials of the periods 1947 and 1971 fairly well it managed to convey only a fraction of the notable events and incidents that were to take place during 2006 and which were to reach a climax in 2007. The years 2006-2007 had much less of the cruelty, violence and bloodshed associated with 1947 and 1971 but nevertheless represents a significant period of transition that witnessed a revival of great power politics in South Asia that was to significantly affect the terms of the India Doctrine."

This short period indeed witnessed immense and often tragic and horrendous events that will undoubtedly have lasting effects on the South Asian perspective and psyche.

The author next deals quite comprehensively with the internal struggles within India and its new alliance with the United States built upon the tenuous foundations of the nuclear agreement passed amidst intense opposition, particularly in India. The author explores how this new strategic relationship affects the regional balance and includes reference to China and Russia and the wider geo-strategic imperatives of the United States and India. The author then surveys the influence of the India doctrine and Forward Policy on the South Asian neighbourhood and the internal conflicts this incited in many countries of the region (i.e. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, Pakistan and Bangladesh). The next few chapters on the liberation war and Indian propaganda have been completely redone and large segments rearranged to fit more logically the shape, context and logic of the book. New material and information is incorporated into chapters 4-8 and recent developments on the CHT insurgency and peace agreement is rendered in the last of these chapters.

From a Bangladesh perspective the most controversial sections of the book will probably be Chapters 9 and 10 that deal with India's project to have Bangladesh declared a failed state. The chosen method to achieve this objective has been through propaganda with the labeling of Bangladesh as a 'hotbed' of Islamist terrorism. The media campaign orchestrated by India has been so successful that many voters in the 2008 elections actually believed this nonsense not realizing that such malicious canards were being propagated by Indian intelligence (i.e. RAW) via our local media. Another method favoured by India to have Bangladesh rendered a failed state is through economic sabotage and as Barrister Munshi explains,

"For India to secure its political and military supremacy and control over the South Asian region it has become necessary for it to continuously maintain and protect her lead over other economies even by unfair means such as sabotage, fomenting and encouraging political instability in neighbouring countries and most obviously through propaganda."

However, it is interference in the political sphere that India has been most successful in undermining Bangladesh's democratic institutions and Barrister Munshi traces the chaotic events surrounding the transfer of power to a caretaker government in 2006 to the release of Sheikh Hasina from custody in June 2008 with each event being heavily influenced by external actors and in particular India.

Barrister Munshi provides a convincing argument and analysis on all the above issues and his contribution to the book stands as an extraordinary achievement that will set the standard for such works in Bangladesh and probably elsewhere in South Asia. The 557 pages written by Barrister Munshi will hopefully gain widespread readership in Bangladesh since the issues raised in the book are incredibly important to the continued independence and integrity of the nation against the hegemonic and domineering tendencies of India. The chapters written by the author will likely stand out as the most important to be written on South Asian affairs for the last 60 years at least. It presents a completely new perspective on South Asia rarely seen in writing from this region and hardly discussed in Western literature on the subject.

The final two chapters of the book are authored by two Pakistanis and this is a major development on the first edition which had no chapters on Pakistan and this is probably the only collaboration between writers of both countries on this type of subject matter. Chapter 11 of the book is titled 'The Peace Charade' and is written by Mr. Ahmed Quraishi. Mr. Quraishi is a prominent media personality in Pakistan and his background as an investigative journalist, columnist, roving reporter and head of a private, independent think tank are all very impressive and raise his credentials as a highly respected and informed writer. According to Mr. Quraishi, India had by early 2008 been conducting a massive intelligence operation with Pakistan as its target. Afghanistan was being used by New Delhi as a springboard and the Islamists were the tools of this operation. Israel is said to have provided help and the US position as Pakistan's ally is described as somewhat ambiguous. This brief summary sets the tone for a very interesting and well researched chapter with its premise based on the discovery of a document that reveals a conspiracy 'to break the stranglehold of the intelligence agencies, the bureaucracy and the military in Pakistan' as these are believed by India to be responsible for keeping the Kashmir issue alive.

Chapter 12 of the book is written by Dr. Prevaiz Iqbal Cheema who has an outstanding academic career. He obtained and M. Litt in Strategic Studies from Aberdeen University and a Ph.D. from Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan. He has been a teacher for almost 28 years with posts held in Pakistan, Australia, Singapore and the United States. His excellent and lucidly argued chapter discusses the Kashmir dispute and Pakistan-India relations. His chapter initially discusses the origin and nature of the Kashmir dispute highlighting the policies of both India and Pakistan followed by a discussion on the internationalization of the dispute. Finally the paper focuses on the new developments that have impacted upon the dispute and the current status of Indo-Pak relations. Dr. Cheema concludes his survey of the issues by commenting that,

"Without the resolution of [the] Kashmir dispute, not only India and Pakistan would never enjoy proper fruits of peace and cooperation but South Asia would also be deprived of much desired peaceful environment." It is, therefore, unfortunate that India has not shown the requisite sincerity in negotiations for this sensible and desired outcome for regional peace and security.

Overall, this book, The India Doctrine (1947-2007), is an extraordinary and astounding effort requiring not only immense dedication but also a significant amount of courage, boldness and resolution. Writing in the hostile and threatening atmosphere created by India in Bangladesh and Pakistan the writers have shown admirable willpower and fortitude. The book not only deserves success but also our respect.

Why Aren't Indo-Bangla Ties Warmer?

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:50:16 EDT

Before I did the research that forms the basis of this article, I used to wonder why India and Bangladesh aren’t the closest of friends. Consider this: India was responsible for the creation of Bangladesh. If Indian troops hadn’t invaded East Pakistan in defence of the Mukti Bahini, it is very unlikely that Pakistan would have allowed its eastern wing to break free. India lost around 2500 soldiers in the course of the 1971 war. Around 2 million Bengalis were killed and a couple of hundred thousand Bengali women raped by Pakistani soldiers in the events leading to Bangladeshi independence. Despite all this, Bangladesh seems to be at least as much friendly with Pakistan as it is with India!

One of the reasons for this frosty state of affairs on India’s eastern borders used to be the dispute over sharing of the waters of the Ganges. This dispute has now been resolved with the signing of a treaty in 1996. At present Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League is in power in Bangladesh and traditionally, the Awami League has been much closer to India than the other major political party, Begum Khalida Zia’s Bangladesh National Party. However, despite a friendly government being in power in Dhaka, there has been no change in popular perception in each country of the other. The average Bangladeshi on the street doesn’t seem to like India all that much and the average Indian on the street doesn’t give two hoots about Bangladesh. Why is this so?

In my opinion, there are various reasons for this state of affairs.

To start with, Indians tend to (wrongly) assume that because East Pakistan revolted against West Pakistani domination, it has given up its aspiration to be an Islamic country. Bangladesh is doubtless proud of its Bengali culture, but it never gave up its Islamic character either. Consider these facts: Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman, the father of the Bangladeshi nation, was a member of the All India Muslim Students Federation since 1940. Mujib-ur Rahman was very close to Huseyn Suhrawardy, a leading member of the Bengal Muslim League, who worked actively for the cause of Pakistan. Mujib-ur Rahman was based in Kolkata in 1946, working under Suhrawardy’s guidance, when the Muslim League organised Direct Action Day, leading to large scale communal violence and deaths.

The East Pakistani fight against West Pakistani and especially Punjabi domination commenced soon after Pakistan’s independence when Jinnah announced that Urdu would be the national language for the whole of Pakistan. Mujib-ur Rahman led the Muslim Students League as it launched an East Pakistan wide agitation. Ever since then, Mujib-ur Rahman and other East Pakistani politicians were at loggerheads with politicians from West Pakistan. Their quarrel over the language issue was accentuated manifold when West Pakistani politicians tried every ruse in the book to prevent Bengali leaders from holding positions of power at the national level, not an easy task since East Pakistan had a larger population than West Pakistan.

In order to offset East Pakistan’s electoral strength, all four provinces in West Pakistan, namely Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, were sought to be treated as a single political unit. When East Pakistani politicians such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, Muhammad Ali Bogra and Huseyn Suhrawardy become Prime Ministers of Pakistan, they did not stay in power for long before they were deposed by the President, backed by Pakistan’s powerful Punjabi-Pakhtun dominated military.

In the 1970 elections, when Mujib-ur Rahman and his Awami League (originally founded by Huseyn Suhrawardy) won a majority of the parliamentary seats, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto proposed that Pakistan should have two Prime Ministers, one for each wing! When Mujib-ur Rahman refused, he was imprisoned and marital law was declared. The Pakistani army launched Operation Searchlight with the intention of teaching Bengalis a harsh lesson they wouldn’t forget easily. Politicians don’t like to lose power, especially just after they have legitimately won an election. Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman’s declaration of independence was smuggled out to Chittagong and read over the radio by Major Zia-ur Rahman. The rest is history. The day Mujib-ur Rahman made the declaration of independence (26 March 1971) is treated as Bangladesh’s independence day, though it was not until 16 December 1971 that Bangladesh was actually liberated from Pakistani troops.

Would East Pakistan have revolted against West Pakistan if Bengalis were allowed to hold office after wining elections? I don’t think so. Mere imposition of Urdu as the national language would not have made East Pakistanis break off from their co-religionists in the West. Even in 1965 when India and Pakistan went to war, East Pakistan stood fast with West Pakistan though they complained that the Pakistani army was not present in strength in East Pakistan to defend it in case of an attack by India.

It must not be forgotten that even when the Pakistani army was systematically murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians, many thousands of Bengalis collaborated with the Pakistani army. Doubtless such people were fired by their Islamic zeal, which made them want Pakistan to remain unified as a single Islamic nation.

Bangladesh’s Islamic nature started to reassert itself soon after independence. After a brief ban for suspected collaboration with Pakistani forces, the Islamic Academy was revived. Bangladesh sought membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Islamic Development Bank. In 1974, less than 3 years after independence, Mujib-ur Rahman made a trip to Lahore to attend an OIC conference and patch up ties with Pakistan. After Zia-ur Rahman came to power, Bangladesh moved much further into the Islamic camp.

Even now, Bangladesh has an Islamic fundamentalist base which fights for stronger ties with Pakistan and other Islamic states, rather than with India. In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that this core group of Islamic fundamentalists is something new. Bangladesh always had this hardcore chunk, for without them, East Bengal would not have voted to break off from West Bengal and the rest of India.

A fact which is easily forgotten when discussing the deaths of around 2 million Bengalis as a result of the Pakistani army pogrom is that a disproportionate number of the victims were Hindus. Most surviving family members of the victims fled to India as refugees. Currently Hindus account for around 10% of Bangladesh’s population, as opposed to around 28% in 1941 and approximately 15% before the Pakistani army pogrom. I am not for a moment suggesting that Bengali Muslims did not suffer under the Pakistani army. They did and most of the rebels who formed the Mukti Bahini were Muslims. However the present day population of Bangladesh doesn’t have among them as many victims and families of victims as such a large-scale genocide would otherwise have warranted. This is one reason why Bangladesh has been able to largely forgive Pakistan and not press for reparations or compensation.

Indians assume that Bangladeshis will be eternally grateful to India for its intervention in Bangladesh, which led to Bangladeshi independence. I feel that it ought to be the other way around. India ought to be grateful to Bangladesh for giving India a chance to split its arch rival Pakistan into two pieces! As a result of Indians assuming that Bangladesh has chosen to be just a Bengali nation that will intrinsically be friendly towards India, rather than an Islamic-Bengali state (which is what Bangladesh is), Indians expect a lot from Bangladesh without putting in the necessary effort. For example, Indians are disappointed when Bangladesh doesn’t crackdown on insurgents from India’s north-east sheltering there, even though India hasn’t exactly been ladling out favours to Bangladesh after its creation.

I feel it is very important that Indians realise they should not take Bangladesh for granted. Instead for every favour India seeks from Bangladesh, India must be willing to pay back in double measure. India needs to fill Bangladeshi media with sound bytes about how deeply India cares for friendship with Bangladesh. India could provide scholarships for Bangladeshi students to study in India. It could be made easy for Bangladeshi commodities (like jute) and goods (like garments) to be sold in India. Leaders from Bangladesh, irrespective of the party they belong to, should be invited to India and treated with honour and respect.

Instead of treating all Bangladeshi leaders impartially and well, India has been taking sides in what’s called the ‘Battle of the Begums’. For those unfamiliar with the rivalry between Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khalida Zia, let me briefly summarise the reasons for the animosity between these two great leaders.

Sheikh Hasina is the daughter of Sheikh Mujib-ur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh. Post independence, after a brief honeymoon period, Mujib-ur Rahman became more and more autocratic. In January 1975 he declared himself to be the absolute ruler of Bangladesh and President for Life. In August 1975, a few army officers staged a coup and took over power. They killed Mujib-ur Rahman and all his family members who were present in Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina was in Germany at that time and escaped death. She stayed in exile for 6 years and returned to Bangladesh in 1981 as head of the Awami League, when Bangladesh was under General Ershad. Democracy was reinstated in Bangladesh only in 1991 and in 1996, Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League came to power.

Begun Khalida Zia (who heads the Bangladesh National Party) is the widow of Zia-ur Rahman, the army officer who had read Mujib-ur Rahman’s call for independence over the radio. Though a Bengali, Zia-ur Rahman grew up in West Pakistan and joined the Pakistani army, winning various awards and decorations for gallantry during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. The Pakistani army had very few Bengalis, especially in the non-administrative officer class, and Zia-ur Rahman was in a small minority. When Mujib-ur Rahman gave the call for Bengalis to rise up against oppression by West Pakistan, Zia-ur Rahman was one of the Bengali army officers who answered his call. Zia-ur Rahman distinguished himself during the Bangladeshi war of independence.

After Mujib-ur Rahman was deposed in a coup, there were a series of counter coups and Zia-ur Rahman became the Chief Martial Law administrator of Bangladesh and later its 6th President. Zia-ur Rahman founded the Bangladesh National Party. One of the things Zia-ur Rahman did after coming to power was to pardon many of those involved in the coup that overthrew and killed Mujib-ur Rahman. It has never been proved if Zia-ur Rahman himself was involved in that coup. Zia-ur Rahman reversed many of Mujib-ur Rahman’s policies. Whilst Mujib-ur Rahman was a socialist, Zia-ur Rahman promoted the private sector. Zia-ur Rahman moved Bangladesh away from the Soviet Union and started to develop close ties with the USA and later China. Bangladeshi demands for reparations and compensation from Pakistan were dropped. Many individuals accused of collaborating with Pakistan during the war of independence were rehabilitated. Close ties were forged with Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states. The constitution was amended to give it an Islamic slant. Zia-ur Rahman talked of a Bangladeshi identity rather than a Bengali one, seeking to integrate various minorities such as the Chakmas and Urdu speaking Biharis. He ruthlessly crushed all political opposition and in 1981, he was murdered by a group of army officers.

Unlike Mujib-ur Rahman who was dogged by allegations of nepotism and corruption, Zia-ur Rahman was known as Mr. Clean, even among his enemies. All his actions seem to have been motivated by a love for Bangladesh and ideology, rather than any personal vested interest.

As it would be obvious to anyone, the Indian establishment considers Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League to be much more India friendly than Khaleda Zia and the Bangladesh National Party. Most Bangladeshis believe that India does its best to keep the Awami League in power. The net result is that even when the Awami League is in power, there is not much warmth towards India from the average Bangladeshi.

In my opinion, India should not take sides in the Battle of the Begums. Even though it is unlikely that Begum Khaleda Zia and the BNP will ever be as friendly towards India as Sheikh Hasina and the BNP, India ought to treat both the ladies and their respective parties the same. Even more importantly, the average Bangladeshi on the street should not get the impression that India is partial towards one party. Not only should India be impartial, India must also be seen to be impartial. Currently, an Awami League victory in the elections is treated as a victory for India and a victory for the BNP is treated as a victory for Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalists inimical to India have an incentive in undermining the Awami League. It is even possible that the recent mutiny by soldiers of the Bangladesh Rifles was instigated by Islamic fundamentalists who feel that by making Bangladesh unstable when the Awami League is in power, they are sending a message to India.

Another reason for the average Bangladeshi on the street to hate India is India’s treatment of Bangladeshi immigrants. As we all know, immigrant inflows and outflows are dictated largely by supply and demand. Poverty stricken Bangladesh has a large number of people willing to work very hard just to make enough to eat two square meals a day. India, despite its poverty and other problems, has many areas where an individual willing to work hard can make an honest living. And so a large number of Bangladeshis cross the border illegally to live and work in India.

India doesn’t have a system of giving work permits to unskilled workers from anywhere in the world, except to people from Nepal (who don’t need a work permit). However, India’s borders, especially its eastern borders are porous and India doesn’t have the sophisticated technology needed to prevent the inflow from Bangladesh. To be honest, not a single country in the world has been able to put a total stop to immigration.

Once the Bangladeshis are inside India, having the run the gauntlet of corrupt border security forces and cops, they are at risk of deportation at any time if they are caught. One assumes that these illegal immigrants develop no love for India during their stay in this country. In various parts of India’s north-east, immigration from Bangladesh has taken place over many decades, even prior to independence. It is common for many landlords in Assam and Tripura to lease out their lands to hardworking Bangladeshi immigrants and take from them a part of the crop as rent. Many such immigrants have Indian ID cards and therefore have voting rights.

Since (as mentioned earlier) Bangladesh has always had a component of fundamentalist Muslims, it is only fair to assume that some of the illegal immigrants to India are fundamentalist Muslims. Not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, or even supporters of terrorism, but some of the Bangladeshi immigrants in India are capable of causing trouble. I have no idea what percentage such people comprise. I assume it is not very large.

To be very honest, there is no clear-cut answer to the problem of illegal immigration from Bangladesh. In my opinion (and this is only an opinion), rather than having an outright ban on illegal immigrants, India should permit a fixed number of workers from Bangladesh to work in India on fixed-term, renewable, work permits. Work permits should be issued through employers or labour contractors who must shoulder some of the responsibility for the migrants once they are in India. Those given work permits will have their finger-prints and DNA on file and I assume it will be relatively easy to keep a tab on their whereabouts.

Legal immigrants have an incentive to be law abiding, irrespective of their personal ideology. Also, they will not be able to obtain fake Indian ID and vote in Indian elections. Regulating Bangladeshi immigration, rather than banning it outright, will also generate some goodwill towards India. It is very possible that some of those who come to India on work permits may indulge in acts that are harmful towards India. However, such individuals will not be stopped from entering India even if there is no work permit scheme in place.

As long as religion plays a major role in the life of the average Bangladeshi and the common Indian on the street, I don’t think Indo-Bangla ties will get warmer beyond a point. One could say the same for Indo-Pakistani relations, but that’s for another post.

BBB Inc. - With Bare Hands If Necessary

temporal — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:33:38 EST

Rehan Ansari's lament is passionately articulated. It exposes the growing sub-continental fault line. He writes about the subversive elements, the interest groups, the politicians, leaders and government honchos who may not be in collusion but who certainly appear to favour lack of detente:

Partition has resulted in nationalism, borders, and visa regimes that make sure that people know even less about each other. As a result, they are more likely to be taken for a ride by the agendas of lashkars , fascists, and the realpolitik of Islamabad and New Delhi. A United India – or even an India and Pakistan that were friendly states, much like contemporary France and Germany – would never have been vulnerable to an American agenda of jihad in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the Soviets. Better relations would also have negated this ‘problem’ of Kashmir.

On those (now increasingly rare) occasions, when individuals and groups from one country visit the other, they invariably follow up with glowing praises. They discover the commonness ignored by the government and media in their respective countries. They instinctively discover the common ground and find the warmth and friendliness in the other not revealed and expressed openly in their home country.

And this causes dismay and consternation in the groups and lobbies in both India and Pakistan who want the enmity, suspicion and hostility maintained. That such efforts are nudged and aided from other powers in the region and the world can be argued another time.

While the extremist fringes in India and Pakistan can be identified, there are many others that are harder to identify. But their maneuverings are easily discernible. It is good for business - their business. Hatred, intolerance and suspicion must be kept brewing. Peace and amity must be kept at bay.

BBB

These three have a common interest to ferment and instigate the chasm between India and Pakistan:

Big Business: They see profit big ticket defense expenditure. Peace is bad business. If only they realise that peace has its own dividends, and can add more to their bottom line than selling instruments of death and destruction.

Big Beards: The religious fringe do not want amity and friendship between people. Bad for their business - these Babas in green and saffron revel in hatred and enmity.

Bureaucratic Babus: The bureaucrats have lost their sheen and magic and are now in cahoots with big business and MNCs.

The irony is each one of these three think of the other two as their puppets.

Each time the two countries try to come close by, a force generated by the BBB Inc. pulls them away. The past sixty years are rife with such examples. Three generations have grown apart. The unstated goal of nourishing and maintaining a wall of suspicion, enmity and intolerance towards each other is growing taller, wider and deeper.

In India, amidst a plethora of cable TV channels available, there is no Pakistani channel available for subscribers. Likewise, in Pakistan there is a ban on Indian channels, naach-gaana channels are surreptitiously allowed though.

What is good for BBB Inc. is bad business for the majority of middle classes on both sides of the divide. And it is not only middle class that suffers as Rehan argues, but the common person is victimised too.

Barring past six decades, for centuries they drank the water from the same well, participated in each others religious and cultural celebrations, fought against the colonizers and invaders.

This wall is an artificial construct that needs to be brought down - with bare hands if necessary - one brick at a time.

Is Terrorism a Vice born out of Patriotic Virtues?

Suresh Naig — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:36:20 EST

Patriotism, as per the dictionary, conveys a person’s loyalty, devotion and readiness to defend and guard a country, to which one belongs. From time immemorial patriotism is extolled, as a supreme virtue. Since patriotism is more emotional than rational, the benignity of patriotism could easily be converted into malignant terrorism, by stoking emotions.

A nation or a country has different dimensions, other than its geographical boundaries. It has its economic, social, and cultural dimensions too. A country is united by its cohesive cultural identity, which supersedes every other factor – geographical, economical or political. When this cultural identity is uprooted, mere geographical intact-ness of a country loses its relevance. Or to put it the other way, a country cobbled up on apparent lines of similarity, other than cultural cohesiveness, cannot stay intact in the longer run.

Break-up of USSR into different fragments, could be attributed to different reasons and the major being cultural disconnect. The same cultural bondage saw unification of Germany, on the 3rd of October, 1990. Break-up of USSR into fragments and re-unification of East Germany and West Germany, were almost simultaneous. Communism as a philosophy lacked the cultural cohesiveness in neither uniting nor dividing countries.

In spite of different kingdoms existed in our mother land, due to geographical convenience, economic viability, territorial advantage and individual avarice, Bharat was united culturally. Adi Shankara in 5th Century BC (those of you who want to dispute the period of Adi Shankara to 6th Century AD, pl wait) could not have established his mutts in different directions, North, East, West and South, but for the cultural connectivity existed in our land.

This cultural connectivity of our great nation was beyond religions, for our cultural uniqueness, accepted every religion into its fold, without antagonising any religion or sect. In addition to Hinduism; Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and Christianity continues to co-exist in our great land, since our culture is basically polytheist in nature. But for the cultural cohesiveness of our land, British would have failed to create a single political entity as India. Without understanding our basic strength, many attribute our sovereignty to English, whereas British were more known for their dividing capabilities than unifying credentials.

Many a time, religion and culture are misunderstood, to be overlapping to each other; experiments in that direction also failed; sterling example is the split of Pakistan into two. Pakistan was born out of apparent similarity of religion, but bereft of cultural cohesiveness and hence it was not able to stay as one political unit. Without proper understanding of this phenomenon, disgruntled elements in Pakistan are seeing a demon in India, which had engineered the split.

Patriotism is apparently misunderstood in Pakistan, by encompassing religion into its patriotic firmament, since the country originated on religious grounds. Because of this confused logic, select few inside Pakistan want to avenge India on religious lines, attributing assumed reasons of religious suppression in Kashmir and for causing the split of Bangladesh. However much diabolic or manic the design might be, because of its sanctification from the religious patriots, the feeble voices of reasonable persons in Pakistan have been dinned by the noises of radicals.

The radicals, however miniscule in number, wield enormous political and religious clout; they have absolute power of destruction. Political power centre in Pakistan had lost its control over these rogue elements since long and hence they continue to deny the presence of terror elements in their land.

Overt operations such as war or economic sanctions would hurt only the section in Pakistan which does not have anything to do with these terror elements and it is better for India to think of covert actions, aimed at hitting these modules beyond recovery.

Terrorism - The Communist Perception

Suresh Naig — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:08:20 EST

Sitaram Yechury declared in the Rajya Sabha, that the Indo-US nuclear deal had exposed our country to new threats of terrorism. As per the News paper reports he said

"What brought the terrorist outfits to our shores, with the Indo-US nuclear deal you are seen as an ally of the US, a strategic partner. There seems to be a total lack of appreciation of this thought from the government's side"

In the same breath he said "we need to avoid the compartmentalised approach in combating terrorism in the country. Witch-hunting of a particular community would further breed terror".

After compartmentalising the terror attack of Mumbai to Indo-US nuclear deal, Sitaram Yechury, advises the government to shed compartmentalised approach in combating terrorism.

The two points he had raised in the Rajya Sabha are unfathomable for me.

1. Instead of coming out with a comprehensive suggestion to combat the menace of terrorism, he has concocted a new reason for the terrorists and terrorism to exist. We have not sent them to the Parliament to act as the spin doctors, spinning reasons for the existence of terrorism. If not the nuclear deal, exported terrorism from Pakistan would be for Godhra carnage, or Babri Masjid, or Kashmir or Bangladesh, or just for the fun of it. When we know the real source which is Pakistan, why waste our time in looking for additional and apparent reasons for terrorism. He should have come with his solution to weed out terrorism from its source.

2. His next advice to the government is to refrain from witch-hunting of a particular community. He knows pretty well that in India, witch-hunting is done only for electoral gains, and not for fighting terror. We cannot expect Sitaram Yechury to be so pragmatic, in his advice to the government to stop "witch-hunting of a particular community for electoral gains."

Leftists never seem to come out of their self spun cocoons; they may as well call their party as CPM "Cocoons Party of India (Marxists)"

The South Asian Water That Is Indian

Diganta — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:15:14 EDT

It's been long since I have written about Farakka - the barrage on the Ganges just before it enters Bangladesh. There has been no permanent treaties between India and Bangladesh on the water sharing at Farakka. However, there is a 30 year agreement between India and Bangladesh that ends after 2020. As per the agreement, India ensures 35000 cusec water for Bangladesh at even the driest possible season. The dam was supposedly for supplying more water to the dying Kolkata port, which has already died its' natural death and handed over its responsibilities to Haldia port - a new and better one.

If you Google the term Farakka, you will encounter a lot of documents and articles about Indian unilateral water withdrawal. Some of them are written on a factual basis but some of them are not. So far, I have found an excellent paper written by Mikiyasu Nakayama from Utsunomia University, Japan. This is an excellent analysis of the entire proposal and its history.

I was delighted to find that both the proposals I raised in my previous article were indeed discussed between India and Bangladesh. It was my pleasure to know that the proposal that I stressed on, was indeed put forward by the Robert McNamara, the President of World Bank in 1976. He proposed that dams and water reservoirs should be built in Nepal to solve the long term water crisis in the Ganges. The dams could be on the tributaries of the Ganges (map), preferably on Kosi and Gandak. It was supposed to release water during dry season and to store during monsoon. Canada and World Bank both agreed to fund the project. It was not only for the storage, it would have created huge amount of hydro-electricity for both Nepal and India. Bangladesh also agreed to the proposal. But India did not.

India rejected the idea since it was going to 'internationalize' the issue and will involve a third party (Nepal). Indian policymakers stuck to the point that they'd help Bangladesh to construct a canal from Brahamaputra to the Ganges. Bangladesh opposed with the claim that it would involve displacement of a huge population in a densely populated country and also the Brahamaputra river might not have enough water during dry season. And I don't see Bangladesh was wrong in that. Brahamaputra water is also diminishing (though better than the Ganges).

The other point India cited was the possible earthquake in Nepal could destroy thousands of life if the water breaks out of the dam. The same hold true for counter-Indian proposal to build a water-reservoir in upstream Arunachal to augment the lower supply in Brahamaputra. Either of these two is a probably bitter truth - a dam in either place can carry destructive effects downstream should there be an Earthquake. However, how else can we get extra water?

Nakayama noted that since India was not hungry for World Bank loans in 1970s, they actually did not even bother to care about the proposal. In 1950s, the situation was different when India and Pakistan signed the Indus Water treaty. The other notable observation was India basically stuck to the same pattern that it was successful with Pakistan - get total ownership of a few rivers and ask others to interlink (with compensation of cost of canals ) - something that Pakistan did after the Indus Water treaty. But, it is clear to me that Indian policymakers lacked 'out-of-the-box' thinking and were more committed to stick to their position and never thought in terms of development of the whole region.

What would have possibly happened if Nepal was made a party to Ganges agreement? Indian policymakers could have thought from both political and technical point of view. They viewed it as an agreement where Nepal would come to the driver's seat having the storage capacity. Also, they might think that it would be difficult to tackle both the countries instead of one at a time. The other point could be serious. A possible earthquake in Nepal would devastate high populated Indian areas including Uttar Pradesh. Well, that's always a possibility with a water reservoir and we already have a lot of them all though out the country.

Instead of adding extra water to the supply, India and Bangladesh are still vying for water, from Teesta (another Indian river that enters Bangladesh) and the Ganges. It is noted that India gets 39% of water from Teesta and more than 50% of the Ganges. However, the upper-riparian withdrawal is generally restricted to 20-25% in all resolved water disputes till date including Indus water treaty and the Nile river water sharing treaty between Sudan and Egypt.

The paper also noted the unwillingness of lower-riparian states to gain popularity. I was personally very critical of that in case of Bangladesh where political parties do make politics out of this issue but showed little commitment towards solving it. He ended his opinion with a few possible reasons of failure including the mediation of an effective and neutral third party. ICJ interfered in only a single case on record - with Hungary and Slovenia on river Danube. That seems to me the last place for arbitration.

It is said that "better late than never". Even if after 30+ years of bad policies towards Indians and Bangladeshis, some of Indian policymakers get rid of casual attitude towards development - it will be a bonus for the majority of Indians. It should be noted that the extra water could not only solve the dry season water crisis, but also could fix the diminishing ground water levels and the lower growth in agriculture for last couple of decades. In an era when the food prices are doubling every year, it's worth taking a fresh look at the age-old problem. After all, what's wrong if we have a few dams in Nepal?

Access To Credit Should Be Recognised As Human Right

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:46:49 EDT

This post made me think. Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus of microcredit fame has said that access to credit should be recognised as a human right. Now, there are two aspects to this argument

1. That the state has a right or a duty to provide credit to its citizens which is something that I do not agree with. This habit of looking to the Government for everything and handouts is wrong. This is at par with the argument that there is a fundamental human right to employment. No, there is no human right to employment. Nobody owes you anything for employment, that is your own responsibility. That is not to say that people who are clearly unable to work should not be helped (such as physically disabled...) but generally, there is no right to work. Similarly, there is no right to credit or even access to credit. But the flip side is true and more on that at the bottom

2. That credit is the only thing which is stopping people from leading economically productive lives which is again debatable. Just having the credit available does not mean that people will take the credit and suddenly become entrepreneurs. That is not necessary, to be economically active, you can rely on somebody else having credit, or loaning out credit or relying on your own energy and being self sufficient.

But overall, it does make sense not because of the call for the right but because what I know that poor people are poor because of governments and not despite them. Governments actively connive in removing access to credit to their citizens. That is actually true. Let us look at the ways it is done. First by giving subsidies and deficit financing, they soak up funds in the market which can be given as credit to needy people.

Second by having inefficient means (such as corruption, bureaucracy, etc. ) even well meaning ways of passing on credit are bad (such as rural work schemes or forcing state owned banks to make loans cheaply such as in Iran). Third is by not having good land and other asset registries (like patent systems) or good land based infrastructure (such as rural markets, good deep secondary patent and land markets, good legal systems where land and asset rights can be protected, exchange and markets where these can be traded..... (see for example, work done by Hernando de Soto)

But, food for thought indeed! Giving people credit is a laudable aim and Governments can do worse than do that. Specially for countries like Iran, Bangladesh and India, the dead hand of the state has to be removed or at least made efficient in asset discovery and credit generation.

But then, remember that you CAN go too far. For example, see this. Well, you have a very simple way of getting credit, just send a text message and in 15 minutes, about $500 will land in your account. And when credit is that easy, it creates problems on the other side. I quote, "Swedish authorities, who are so concerned about the out-of-control debt build-up among some young and low-income Swedes that they in January banned interest payments superior to the cost of the initial loan.The main danger of the new lending system is that it gives people "the possibility to get money very, very quickly, which is stimulating impulsive actions without thinking," Also lets not forget the sub prime crisis where funds were lent to people who were clearly unable to repay the loans

So yes, credit should be available but not too easily.

Technorati Tags: India,Iran,Bangladesh,Financial Markets,Financial Products

Using Refugees for Strategic Purposes

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 9 Mar 2008 11:55:00 EDT

I have already written about refugees before but this time I want to look at what do the Bangladeshi, Kashmiri, Tamil, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh Refugees in India, Kosovo Albanian Refugees, Palestinian Refugees in various Arab countries, Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran, Hutu refugees in Zaire, Cambodian refugees in Thailand, Cuban refugees in USA and all the other refugees all over the world have in common? Well, they have all been used by “other people” for their own needs and agendas. And these “other people” use these refugees as part of an explicit strategy, not for purely humanitarian objectives. I was quite surprised when I worked through the argument.

Using refugees for strategic purposes seems to have a very long history, especially in the post World War II period. And generally, if managed properly, it works. See the examples which we have? While the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war is considered by many as perhaps the best example of the “Just War” theory, the fact remains that India did use the Bangladeshi refugees as a reason to poke Pakistan in the eye. As a matter of fact, that entire episode of Partition with millions and millions of refugees is still being played out by strategic use of the refugees in Kashmir, Pakistan and India.

The Mohajirs in Pakistan are used as a strategic bloc by their own leaders, as well as so many other political and religious leaders in Pakistan. The ethnically cleansed Kashmiri Pundits are used in the greater strategic Hindutva discourse and are ignored strategically by the Indian government for the overall secular discourse. The Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were used strategically by the Indian central and State governments, as well as political parties to push their varied agendas just like the Singhalese and Sri Lankan Muslim refugees were themselves used by Singhalese politicians to push for a nationalist objective.

Pakistan, USA and Saudi Arabia used the Afghan refugees to push for their various nationalistic, ideological, autocratic and religious strategic objectives. It is quite well known how the refugees were armed and pushed into Afghanistan to fight against the Communist Godless Russians. So Pakistan wanted to do it to get its strategic depth and play to USA; and USA wanted to contain USSR, while Saudi Arabia didn’t want the godless communists anywhere near them. Thailand used the Cambodian refugees as a buffer to the poxy gits in Cambodia, while the Hutu refugees (who were in turn responsible for the Tutsi genocide) were armed by Zairian President Mobutu Sese Seko to fight an insurgency in Eastern Zaire! And all these cases generally worked for the strategy.

The entire Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo mess was and is heaving with refugees. The refugees have been pulled and pushed from and to all sides, and have been used disgracefully and hypocritically by almost all parties starting from the head honcho himself, Slobodan Milosevic. That was one spectacular example of ethnic cleansing and strategic use of refugees that went bad. The other two most hypocritical uses of refugees are the use of the Cuban refugees and second is the use of the Palestinian refugees. The Cuban refugees have been fleeing the totalitarian and authoritarian communist regime for the past few decades to the USA. And for purely ideological reasons, the USA has been using them to hit back at Fidel Castro and his regime.

Not that it worked. Fidel is fine and has retired with his Havana cigars. He is a happy man, and all those American presidents and other grand poo bah’s who used the refugees have also gone. So I am not very sure now about what was the result of using those refugees and sending them to their deaths. Similarly, the Palestinian refugees. I have spoken about them and the actual whine to pain ratio is perhaps the highest with them compared to all refugees. But that is not the point. The point is that almost every other government has used them for their strategic needs. Your own citizens being restive about jobs or cost of bread? Use the refugees as a reason to rattle your sabre's at the Jews / Israel? Do not give them citizenship, treat them as bargaining counters, keep them in camps, use their people as propaganda, use their situation in the United Nations, etc. etc. And it is just not the government, but also the common people ranging from Journalist Associations in the UK to the USSR wanting to tweak the noses of the Americans to Saudi Arabian Islamic Charities to Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Economic refugees and migrants also get it in the neck, whether you are talking about the BNP talking about the Asian refugees or the Conservative Party talking about the Eastern European migrants. How about that Raj Thakarey fellow, who was recently fulminating about internal economic migration inside India?, Or the huge debates around the East German migrants into Western Germany and using them for political purposes?

But this essay is more about the political refugees who cross borders. Unfortunately, our international security and political institutions do not have anything functional to fight these nasty hypocritical folks who use the refugees for their own ends. At some point in time, it is but natural that the legal and political framework will extend to cover the use or rather the abuse of these poor displaced refugees. And it is at that time that decisions taken today will come back to haunt them. If you do not believe me, just see Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, who tried to use population transfers as a weapon of war and politics… So whenever you hear anybody fulminating about refugees, do not take them at face value, there is almost always an ulterior motive.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!