1971 witnessed the call for Bengali nationalism ignored in Kolkota. The Hindus did not want to join a Bengali nation of greater Bengal. Religion once again proved a potent dividing line for Bengal. The same Hindu Bengalis who agitated against the partition of Bengal in 1906 are today championing the cause for fencing the border and keeping the Muslims Bengalis out of West Bengal. Partition of Bengal: Implications for Benagaldesh & Pakistan, then and now . In 1906, the All India Muslim League created by the Bengalis of the region (Nawab Waqar Ul Mulk, Nawab Mohsin Ul Mulk, Alama Iqbal and others from all parts of South Asia) rose up against the injustices of the ruling class of Hindu landlords of Kolkota. Lord Curzon cancelled the partition of Bengal and this was a victory for the Indian National Congress and the Brahman Hindus of Bengal. They wanted to keep the Muslim Bengalis under their thumb.
After failing to take over Bangladesh on Dec 6th 1971, India is forcing a transit policy on defenseless Bangladesh that is fighting for her existence. The Transit facilites that Bharat is asking would clog existing Balgladeshi roads and pose a security threat to Bangladesh. It would also exacerbate the situation in Northeast “India” where the sevean Assamese states want freedom from Delhi. The Transit agreement poses a mortal threat to Bangladesh
In a post 71 world secular Bengali nationalism has not proved enough of a magnet to lure in Hindu Bengalis from West Bengal (Bharat) to rise up and join their Muslim brethren in a secular Bangladesh. Hindu Bengalis on the other hand are content at building fences along the border to prevent the Islamization of Bengal–which they see as the biggest threat. The supposedly non-communal communist party of West Bengal has kept the Muslims at the lowest rung of the ladder in a state that supposedly flows the Marxist ideology where religion should not matter.
Shiakh Mujib Ur Rahman signed away Bangladesh to the Rakhi Bahni led by a sitting Bharati General. The Indian agent then signed a “treaty of friendship” with India which pretty much would have made Bangladesh a province of Bharat. On 14th date the Bangladeshi patriots (they picked the Pakistani day of independence day) rose up against the Awami League and killed Mujib Ur Rahman , his coterie of commanders and his entire family. To make it a lesson, they threw his body in the streets of Dhaka and left it to rot for two weeks. They took Bengali secularism and drowned it deep into the Bay of bengal. For the briefest moment Muslim nationalism emerged. Khondakar Mushtaque announced a confederation with Pakistan. Muslim nationalism wa quickly snuffed out by the powers to be. The secularists seem to have taken control of Bengal.
Today Bangladesh once again stands at the cross roads. There is a civil war raging for its soul. It is once again divided between secularism and religion. Putting the religious leaders on trial will not expunge religion from Dhaka. Dhaka Diary: Bangladesh fights India’s hegemony designs. The country’s future stands on the strategic choices it makes.
WHEN Bangladesh became independent, the world was bipolar. Conducting foreign affairs was then relatively easy. One had to choose between the two super powers to assist small nations achieve their interests in international politics and more often than not, they obliged. At the time of liberation, Bangladesh joined the Soviet Camp to which India was aligned. They helped Bangladesh in many ways in its needs in the international relations and were thus its strategic partners. When Bangladesh switched sides, and moved away from the Soviet camp after 1975, it was helped in international affairs by the other super power, the USA and its regional ally China. Bangladesh did not thus feel that its interests could be by-passed. It may not have had the muscle but it had the strategic partners with powers to help it at times of need.
Bangladesh also had the support of many powerful countries who became its friends because they were inspired by the way it fought oppression and liberated the country. Japan to a major extent and European countries and Australia to a large extent helped Bangladesh to rebuild a war-devastated country. These countries still assist Bangladesh to achieve economic development. Unfortunately the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991 has taken away by default the comfort zone for countries like Bangladesh, leaving it to fend for itself when faced with strategic issues. The comfort of a bipolar world is no longer there.
The international goodwill Bangladesh earned from its liberation has also gone. The United States as the world’s only super power is too involved with other major issues to have time for Bangladesh. In the meantime India, which was a not a major power when Bangladesh became independent, is today aspiring to become a world power. Unfortunately, Bangladesh-India relations have, meanwhile, lost the closeness that had brought them together in 1971 because both the countries were at fault. In the deterioration of relations, India has also stepped into areas that are critical for Bangladesh’s viability as a nation. Water of the rivers that flow from India, which gives life and livelihood to Bangladesh, are now at India’s mercy and it has interfered with the flow of a major river, namely the Ganges, by the Farakka barrage that started the process of desertification in Bangladesh’s northwest and is going ahead with building a dam at Tipaimukh on another international river that could do to Bangladesh’s northeast what Farakka has done to the northwest. In search of strategic relationship M. Serajul Islam. The writer is a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies and a former Ambassador to Japan.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) permits countries to claim continental shelf regions beyond the exclusive economic zone (giving exclusive fishing and mining rights), provided they can back it up with scientific data. On 12 May, India staked claim to large swathes of seabed under the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, which a government scientist involved with the survey process pegged at approximately 0.6 million sq. km of continental shelf. The scientist asked not to be identified.
Mint on 12 June reported that India’s claim was likely to also conflict with regions claimed by Sri Lanka as its own, quoting top government officials involved in the process.
Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on 18 June said that her government was also planning to contest India’s and Myanmar’s claims to the extended continental shelf. This was reported in the Daily Star, a local English newspaper. India, neighbours fight for the continental shelf Myanmar says India has extended the maritime boundary unilaterally; Bangladesh to contest claims too Jacob P. Koshy
India’s interpretation of the laws relating to demarcation of maritime boundary risks closing Bangladesh’s access to the sea where there are rich marine and hydrocarbon resources. Myanmar has taken the cue from India and has used the same interpretation on demarcating maritime boundary that, if these countries have their way, will take away from Bangladesh a major portion of its claim in the Bay of Bengal. These are therefore difficult times for Bangladesh because its attempts to negotiate with India and Myanmar on the maritime issue have borne no result and neither country has shown the inclination of accepting Bangladesh’s position. According to the Convention on UN Law of the Seas, Bangladesh must demarcate its maritime boundary by July 2011; India by June, 2009 and Myanmar by May, 2009. India has submitted their claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commission will hold hearing on Indian submission by March of next year. The process for ultimate demarcation of Bangladesh’s maritime boundary with India and Myanmar is likely to be protracted and complicated where it is up against two countries holding similar positions. Bangladesh feels it has a good case to convince the Commission in its favour but it cannot be certain and must wait for the Commission’s ruling on the issue. The future of Bangladesh being able to exploit the rich resources of the Bay of Bengal unhindered is therefore uncertain. In fact, Bangladesh and Myanmar faced off over the issue last year but the danger lingers. In search of strategic relationship M. Serajul Islam. The writer is a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies and a former Ambassador to Japan.
Abid adds. India has been persuing its imperialist ambitions from the time of its independence; this has been known as the Nehru Doctrine (for an Akhanda Bharata) This is to both economically and politically make the South Asian countries either part of India or make dependent on it. In this effort, it already swallowed, Hydrabad, Kashmir, Goa, Sikkhim and Bhutan through military invasion, and now Nepal and Sri Lanka are in the process, and Bangladesh through Indian dam building over the Ganges, Brahmaputra and the Barak River causing desertification and ofcourse eventually to become a failed state. In its newly earned fame as a South Asian rising power, India is now aggressively laying claims on places and the sea boundaries that are even beyond its reach. Under the circumstances, most South Asian smaller countries are increasingly couming under threat from India. It appears that South Asian countries would be better off if they together take initiatives to form a union of South Asian nations comprised of Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka and like the EU also keeping the doors open in this case, for any breakaway province from India to join it. While the contemporary Indian muscle flexing is also due to its super connection with the US, in all this China should come in to extend its economic and humanitarian help to the proposed confederation. It appears that if no initiatives of this kind by smaller nations taken soon, as Nehru once said to boost his Akhanda Bharata ideology “the future of smaller nations will be doomed.”
The devastation ravaged by the East India company on the Subcontinent can be seen in land of Sonar Bengal–the richest and most affluent, most educated and most cultural part of the Subcontinent. The fatefut event in 1757 in one stroke not only enslaved the Bengalis, but transformed the entire area into a cesspool of penury and poverty from which it has not been able to unshackle itself. Partition of Bengal’s implications for Bangladesh & Pakistan then and now
The Battle of Plassey was more devastating for the Muslim than the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols. At the time that the East India Company brutally savaged Bengal, Urdu was the language of the country, and the Muslims were in power. The landed gentry was Muslim and as the overseers of culture, poetry, music, painting and industry. Muslim was made here and it was so fine an entire “than” could be pulled through a ring. 1873 all that ended. In 1873 the British government abolished Urdu as the national language. All Muslim were made illiterate overnight. The center of learning and literature moved to Hindu Bengal. They produced the attorneys, doctors, lawyers and the poets. Muslim Benglis were considered uncouth and bohemian. In 190740 the Devanagari script was imposed on the entire subcontinent with devastating affect. Religious riots in 1947: Who were the architects?
Bangladesh is therefore in desperate need of a strategic friend with the clout for providing it the support for negotiating a fair deal with India and Myanmar on the maritime issue. Bangladesh’s long friendship with China could provide it that support, at least with Myanmar. It built and nurtured this friendship overlooking China’s opposition during its war of liberation and veto to its membership of the UN when it desperately needed the membership to be accepted by the international community as an independent and sovereign nation. After Bangladesh established diplomatic ties with China in 1976, the two moved forward and built up a strategic relationship where all the conceivable areas of cooperation: economic, political, social, cultural and defense were brought into their bilateral relations. Exchange of large number of high level visits has been an important instrument in building excellent bilateral relations.
The incumbent government in Bangladesh has been in office over eight months now. Yet there has been no move for a visit of Sheikh Hasina to China. Last time around, she went to Beijing within two months of assuming office. There has also not been any visit at the Ministerial level. The result of the Joint Commission that has been held recently has not been promising either. In that meeting, Bangladesh had sought over US$ 5 billion in assistance for 28 projects. The Chinese agreed to offer a little over US$ 1 billion in five projects in suppliers’ credit and also noted serious dissatisfaction at Bangladesh’s handling of Chinese assistance.
There appears to be a cooling of Bangladesh-China strategic relations. One reason for this could be the permission given to Taiwan by the last BNP Government to open a Trade Office in Dhaka. The permission was given at a most inappropriate time for China and embarrassed it very much. Bangladesh also did not follow the cardinal principle in strategic relationships: the need to keep the partner informed before taking a decision affecting the partner. Bangladesh’s expectation that Taiwan would bring billions of dollars in trade and investment also did not occur. It has only harmed Bangladesh’s relations with China on the issue of dependability. Before the Taiwan Trade Office fiasco, Bangladesh could have requested China for support to negotiate a fair deal with Myanmar on the maritime boundary, given its undoubted influence with the military rulers of Myanmar. China will not be inclined to come forward now because in the meantime, China has extended its strategic relationship with Myanmar further. One major reason of China’s interest in Bangladesh is its access to the Bay of Bengal, an access that Myanmar is now providing China as a dependable ally.
At a time when Bangladesh needs friends with clout for achieving its interests in foreign affairs and foreign relations, it thus finds itself standing alone. Bangladesh has become marginalized in international politics. In its best interests, Bangladesh should now try its utmost to settle problems with India and cash upon the historical friendship between the AL and the Congress. While speaking on Tipaimukh, Sheikh Hasina has recently stressed the need for unity. She should now do her best for bipartisanship in dealing with India that will not just strengthen her hands but also enhance her standing with India tremendously. Simultaneously, Bangladesh must also seek for strategic relationships with powerful countries that value its geopolitical location.
Bangladesh must also warm up its relations with China and that will not be easy because China has tilted towards Myanmar, which can satisfy China’s strategic interests in place of Bangladesh. Views emanating from USA recently suggest that the world’s only super power has not lost its interest in the Bay of Bengal where, the problems with maritime demarcation notwithstanding, Bangladesh holds a crucial geopolitical location. Meanwhile, USA and India have moved ahead in their strategic relations and hence building strategic relations with USA will be a very difficult task. The strategic choices nevertheless are there; the necessity to go forward with these choices is crucial to Bangladesh’s future. The task of achieving these strategic choices will be a test of Bangladesh’s diplomatic ability and capability. Unfortunately, this is its weakest link. Bangladesh:In search of strategic relationship M. Serajul Islam. The writer is a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies and a former Ambassador to Japan. http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=106363
Greater Brihot Bangladesh Plassey to Muslim Bengal to Bangistan to Bangladesh to Brihot Bangal
Bangladesh today stands at a cross-roads. It is being led into subservience by the same Awami League that wanted to merge it with Bharat. It is looking for a strategic partnership with China. Obviously the road to Beijing leads from Islamabad via the Korakurams ot Beijing. If Bangladesh wants a partnership with China, it has to form a close partnership with Pakistan. The Awami League government in Dhaka is exacerbating the situation in Bangladesh by continued the civil war that ended in the 70s, and the 80s. Thier trial of the Jamat e Islam which was fighting for the Muslims of Bengal is an abomination to Muslims everywhere. The Awami League is selling the soul of Bengal to the highest bidder and allowing Tata truck to rumble through the highways of Bangladesh into Assam. Transit Routes: Shaikh Hasina capitulates Bangladeshi sovereignty? This will not only reduce Bangladeshi sovereignty, it will bring the ire of the Asamese nationalists into Bangladesh and this militancy threat poses huge dangers for the country.
A Muslim ummah is born again in Bangladesh. How long till it uncovers its true potential and create Briohot Bengal or Greater Bangladesh? Plassey to Bangistan dream to Bangladesh to Brohit Bengal
Failure to get Assam included in East Pakistan in 1947 remained a source of abiding resentment in the
country (Pakistan). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in his book, Myths of Independence wrote, “It would be wrong to
think that Kashmir is the only dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most
significant. One at least is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, that of Assam and some districts
of India adjacent to East Pakistan. To these Pakistan has very good claims.
Even a pro-India leader like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in his book, Eastern Pakistan: Its population and
Economics, observed, ‘Because Eastern Pakistan must have sufficient land for its expansion and because
Assam has abundant forest and mineral resources, coal and petroleum etc., Eastern Pakistan must include
Assam to be financially and economically strong. (Quoted in â˜Terror Sans Frontiers: Islamic Militancy
in North East India’).
Historic Plassey Day
The 252nd anniversary of historic Plassey Tragedy Day will be observed today across Bangladesh. The Battle of Plassey was fought between the forces of Nawab Sirajuddaulah and the East India Company on June 23 in 1757. It lasted for about eight hours, in which the Nawab was defeated by the company forces because of the treachery of his leading general Mir Jafar.
Plassey’s political consequences were far-reaching and devastating and hence, though a brief skirmish, it has become known as a battle. It laid the foundation of the British rule in the Bengal. For the English East India Company, Bengal was the catalyst from which the British expanded their territorial domain and subsequently built up the empire, which gradually engulfed most parts of India and ultimately many other parts of Asia as well.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment