'India has tried to deal with the BNP and Begum Zia in the past but it takes two to tango'

New Delhi
7 July 2011

India’s obsession with Pakistan is hurting its ties with Bangladesh and

other neighbours, says Deb Mukharji, a former Indian high commissioner
to Bangladesh, in an interview to Ramesh Ramachandran. Excerpts:

Q: The January 2010 visit to India by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of
Bangladesh generated hopes of a big shift in the bilateral ties. Two
years on, where are we?
A: I think the joint statement issued at the conclusion of Prime
Minister Hasina's visit is extremely significant. There are many
aspects to the elements in the joint statement; some are long term;
others, short term. There is a general feeling that progress has not
been quite as rapid as may have been. Projects such as power
transmission take time, but on other issues such as the one-billion-
dollar credit, some of us don't see adequate, rapid movement in seeing
that the projects are identified. I don't believe any disbursement as
such has taken place. Obviously, this requires negotiations with regard
to details, because Bangladesh can accept only that which is useful and
good for it. But at the same time there should have been a greater
sense of urgency in seeing that the projects are identified and the
disbursement does take place. There are other areas which continue to
be awkward, like non-tariff barriers in trade. If there are problems,
they need to be resolved by the ministries of commerce, finance, etc,
but it should not be allowed to drag on. The main border transit point
at Petrapole is in an abysmal state. It has very poor connectivity to
Kolkata. Now, there is no point in somebody saying this is the
responsibility of the state and the state says no, we don't have
money... this is something that we as a State and a Government have to
sort out, instead of passing the buck. The shelters for people affected
by the Cyclone Sidr of 2007 have not been completed. Several lakh
tonnes of rice were offered at another point in time but it has not yet
materialised. There are these petty things, in a sense, but which also
become important in the mind of Bangladesh. There are always excuses
for not doing things but I don’t believe in excuses. When a government
makes a commitment, that commitment has to be fulfilled. I think we
frankly need to be a little more forthcoming on concessions in trade.
At the end of the day I don't believe that Bangladeshi exports to India
could threaten our industry. So this is something on which our commerce
ministry really ought to take an energetic look.

Q: How do you see the progress on issues such as demarcation of borders and sharing of river waters?
A: From what I understand we are moving forward rapidly on the border
issue. I think we should be able to put this to rest by the time Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh visits Dhaka. River waters are a much more
difficult subject because you have to look after the interests of your
own people. Now, obviously, India cannot utilise waters to such an
extent that Bangladesh is grievously hurt. Yet, at the same time, I
don't think Bangladesh can expect that the same flows will continue
forever. There are 300 million Indians upstream on the Ganga and the
Brahmaputra. Their interests also need to be looked after. As I have
said in the past, I think the only real, long-term, answer is a
regional approach to water resources development because a great deal
of the water that comes into India and then to Bangladesh comes from
Nepal. Similarly you have the Brahmaputra coming in from Tibet. So
there has to be a regional approach both on development of water
resources and management of water resources so that we don't waste
water. So that has to be looked at in the long term, but in the short
term I think that India and Bangladesh have to have a system of
transparent exchange of information so that Bangladesh knows that what
whatever is happening will not be harmful to it. I think Tipaimukh dam
is a case in point. There has been a lot of opposition to it in
Bangladesh but to the best of my understanding Tipaimukh would be good
for Bangladesh and not hurt its interests. But sometimes politics gets
involved.

Q: Have Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s unguarded remarks on Bangladesh
damaged India’s ties with the government and people of that country?
Would it hurt Prime Minister Hasina politically?
A: I think this is something that really has to be put behind us. We
must not continue to churn this on a permanent basis. Obviously what
the Prime Minister said was unfortunate and in some cases not based on
facts. I do believe that Bangladesh is mature enough to put this behind
them. I don’t think this would hurt our long-term relationship. I don't
think it will hurt Hasina but unfortunately these remarks give the
Jamaat-e-Islami far greater importance than they deserve; I think that
is an unfortunate part of it. On the positive side, what these remarks
do tell us is the need for a greater understanding of the state of
affairs in our neighbourhood so that we do not arrive at conclusions
without sufficient facts.

Q: What could be some of the deliverables from Prime Minister Singh's

visit to Dhaka in September?
A: I expect some kind of an agreement on the Teesta. I expect the
border issues of demarcation, exchange of enclaves, and adverse
possessions, to be finally resolved by then. And I hope that we will
have greater clarity on how the Indian credit is being utilised and I
hope the Prime Minister would be able to carry a trade package with him

to Dhaka.

Q: Is a section of the Indian establishment doing Ms Hasina a disfavour
by branding her or viewing her as being pro-India?
A: Firstly I don't think Hasina is pro-India. I don't think Sheikh
Mujib was pro-India. And I think when we say that, we are indeed doing
her a disservice. I think whatever Sheikh Hasina is doing is in the
enlightened self interest of Bangladesh. Let's be clear on that. So I
think it is a very valid question you are making. But just as her
father had done in the past, positive relationship with India is in the
interest of Bangladesh. As far as BNP and Khaleda Zia are concerned, we
have seen what happened in the past when the BNP was in power.
Insurgency in India and terrorism was actively promoted if not by the
BNP but by its partner in government, the Jamaat. All this is well
established. Obviously India does not choose who’s going to be in
government in Bangladesh. India has tried to deal with the BNP and
Begum Zia as positively as possible in the past but it takes two to
tango and in the past there has simple been no positive reaction
towards India from the BNP. Certainly, both in principle and in
practice, we should retain an open dialogue with the BNP. I mean, that
is unquestionable. But it takes two to come to a positive relationship.

Q: Does India have a neighbourhood policy and where does Bangladesh
figure in it? In the past India has spoken about engaging its
neighbours without expecting reciprocity in return.
A: Well, each of our neighbours has a different kind of equation with
us. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan ... our relationship with each
is very distinct, so I really cannot talk of a general neighbourhood
policy. There was something called the Gujral doctrine. I think that
was also somewhat misunderstood. We have to understand that if our
neighbourhood does not prosper then it has an adverse impact on us. And
that is I think really the bottom-line and I frankly don't think we
have done enough. And I'll tell you the reason for this is we have been
so totally preoccupied, perhaps obsessed, with one neighbour that we
just do not give adequate attention or employ adequate stamina in
dealing with the other neighbours. Let me add that it is not only the
politicians; the media also has a great responsibility. I think
Bangladesh is in many ways India's most important neighbour, not least
because of its location. And I think that we should do whatever we can
to enhance our relationship to a level of partnership.