Message from Delhi: We don’t abandon our friends
Is India putting all its eggs into the Awami League basket? That is the talking point in the capital after British MP Lord Alexander Carlile, legal consultant to jailed Bangladesh leader Khaleda Zia, was turned back from Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International airport, last week. By doing so at the request of Dhaka, was India showing its pro-Awami League sympathies? Significantly, should India get involved in an internal fight between two Bangladeshi political parties?
Or has India done the right thing. By standing up for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, one of India’s closest friends in the neighbourhood, the Modi government has sent out a clear message through the region: Delhi does not abandon its friends. Being sensitive to India’s concerns pays in the end. Look after our interests and we will look after yours. Opinion is divided and the jury is still out on this one.
Khaleda Zia, two time prime minister and leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) is in jail on several corruption charges, which her supporters allege are politically motivated. Lord Carlile was to address a news conference in Delhi to brief the Indian media on his client’s case. Realising that Delhi is close to Sheikh Hasina, the actual motive was to get the Indian government’s attention and explain the vendetta let loose by the Awami League on Khaleda Zia.
Bangladesh’s two national parties, the AL and the BNP, are bitter rivals. The feuding Begums have polarised the nation down the middle. While the BNP is now crying hoarse about the Awami League’s vendetta, if Khaleda Zia was in power, she would have done exactly the same to Sheikh Hasina. There is no meeting ground between the two main Bangladeshi national parties.
The Ministry of External Affairs justified India’s decision. MEA claimed Alexander Carlile had come without the appropriate Indian visa. “His intended activity in India was incompatible with the purpose of his visit as mentioned in his visa application.’’
At a news conference via Skype from London, Lord Carlile said he was “shocked that India should have succumbed supinely to representations by the Bangladesh government.”
That is hardly the case. India did what it did not because it was succumbing to pressure, but because it wanted to oblige Sheikh Hasina.
The Bangladesh PM, has since taking office in January 2009, consistently paid attention to India’s security concerns: Handing over United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) separatist militants, who had camps in Bangladesh, back to India. She has ensured that Pakistan’s spy agency, the ISI, did not use its soil to launch terror attacks against India. Her government has cracked down on anti-India forces, including, religious parties like the Jamaat. Despite disappointment over India’s inability to deliver on the Teesta water agreement, thanks to West Bengal CM Mamta Banerjee’s refusal, Delhi and Dhaka have stayed the course.
In contrast, Khaleda Zia’s two terms in office was a security nightmare for Delhi. Khaleda Zia has excellent relations with Pakistan as well as its powerful army. Her husband served as part of the Pakistan army before the independence war. Anti-India forces got a free run. Though all these Indian intelligence agencies claims cannot be verified, but there is the widespread perception in the establishment, that the BNP is anti-India.
The question is was there a better way of dealing with Lord Carlile? Even if he held a news conference, would it have made much of a difference? It is certain nothing would have changed on the ground. But Dhaka was paranoid and decided to ask India not to entertain him. By doing so, India has further alienated BNP supporters. The BNP regards Sheikh Hasina as an Indian stooge, willing to take dictation from Delhi. It is unlikely that India’s pro-Awami League image would have changed much even if it had allowed Lord Carlile to hold his news conference.
The trial, indictment and death sentence meted out to collaborators who sided with Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation war, has polarised the nation. Unlike Pakistan and the Western democracies, India had not criticised the Sheikh Hasina government for the death sentence of several senior Jamaat leaders, who had opposed independence. The trials have been widely criticised by human rights groups. They allege that these men were not given a fair trial. Sheikh Hasina, was under tremendous pressure from the families of those murdered and raped during the war, to punish the culprits and bring closure to these cases. India had maintained a stoic silence on the issue. This has not gone down well with those who support the BNP.
A BNP delegation had visited India earlier this month to brief Delhi on the situation in Bangladesh where Sheikh Hasina has been ruling for two terms. The BNP had foolishly boycotted the last national elections. This time around, with elections due by the end of the year, the opposition is concerned whether they will be free and fair. With Khaleda Zia facing a five year jail term the BNP is on a weak wicket. The BNP leaders were assured by Delhi that it will respect the mandate of the people and deal with whichever government is in power in Dhaka.
Has India done the right thing? By standing up for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, one of India’s closest friends in the neighbourhood, the Modi government has sent out a clear message through the region: Delhi does not abandon its friends. Being sensitive to India’s concerns pays in the end. Look after our interests and we will look after yours. Opinion is divided and the jury is still out on this one.