Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
At present, foreign policy is understood as a government's relations with other states through diplomats designated and installed abroad at high cost to keep the states friendly. The assumption is that each state acts in its best interests, and the job of the diplomats is to negotiate to convince the other states that it is not against their interests. In the course of time, out of experience, each state lists the friendly states, enemy states, and states that are enemies of enemy states. These diplomatic relations are made visible by friendly gestures of the leaders on visit with protocol honours, gifts, cocktail parties, hugs and firm handshakes before the photographers. Often, they are roleplaying. Sometimes, they also negotiate, among other things, to sell or buy arms. Trade relations are a positive domain but they are affected by diplomatic strategies. Preventing trade relations with the people living across borders is a tragic act for the people. The powerful states and those who want to become powerful make generous outright grants; and give soft loans: open credit lines for projects, whether productive or not. The relations among the political heads might imply, sometimes accommodating their personal and family interests in other states. Many authoritarian leaders try to keep a door open to them in friendly countries to fly away from the country as a refugee, whenever necessary.Although Kautilya in his Arthasastra said a long time ago, while talking of foreign policy, that there is no state without people, the modern states, which are around 200 in this world, are more concerned about dealing with the leaders of other states i.e. their administrative and political operators, rather than with the people living in them. The political authorities and diplomats think it is their patriotic duty to defend their national interests and enhance their power, prestige, glory and greatness. The diplomats' direct contact with the people where they are posted is minimal, as much as with the people of their own country. The usefulness of such elaborate embassies can now be questioned when swift and direct means of communication are available between the ministries. They are no longer the frugal emissaries of Emperor Ashok to promote human solidarity, compassion, and lasting peace for all humanity. Most of the precious foreign currency spent on these embassies and other diplomatic functions can be, more usefully spent on promoting the health and education of their own citizens, who provided this money by way of taxes.Let us take the case of relations between the government of India and the government of Bangladesh, which is a hot topic. Historically, the kings of different parts of Bengal have played an active role in India. The partition of Bengal took place already in 1905 by the then British Governor General, though it was repealed in 1911. Nevertheless, it did sow the seeds of communal and divisive politics in the re-united Bengal. Much to the regret of Gandhiji, history repeated itself with a new Partition in 1947. The people of East Bengal became a part of Pakistan when politicians decided that Pakistan was to be separated from India based on religious identity. But, the Bengalis with their language, literature and culture and with their Hindu background remained alienated and could not integrate themselves into Western Pakistan and its Urdu language and culture. When the people in great numbers, nearly 13 million sought refuge in India, India had to intervene militarily in 1971, not to annex it but to facilitate making Bangladesh an independent country. During those 9 months of conflict, the undersigned, an Indian student in Paris, France also contributed in a small way to the campaign for the recognition of Bangladesh as a new state, by rallying the support of France and also by helping to get printed in England the first set of postal stamps in the name of independent Bangladesh state. Yet, in 1972, the undersigned well-wisher of new Bangladesh was pained to see the amount of foreign currency spent by the new Bangladeshi Embassy in Paris on the ambassador, ministers and other embassy and consular staff with necessary paraphernalia to maintain their dignity. Most probably, they had to do the same thing in all important other capital cities worldwide. At that time, Bangladesh had been receiving generous aid from all over the world, as it was one of the 53 Least Developed countries in the world for many years. Ever since, the relations between the government of Bangladesh and the Government of India have been, no doubt very cordial but mostly official and diplomatic. The relations have been mostly state-to-state, governed by bureaucratic and diplomatic procedures and attitudes of the busy political leadership.What has been happening since August 2024 in Bangladesh is a very common phenomenon that occurs very frequently in all developing countries, when an authoritarian regime falls. Now, due to the sudden disappearance of Shaik Hasina who governed mercilessly and who is known to have enjoyed the unstinted support of India, some sections of students and radical Islamists are emboldened to attack all their public institutions and all religious minorities, more particularly the Hindus as they are a majority among the weaker groups. Though the basic discontent and frustration were expressed by all students and youth bodies gathered, some small, radical and militant dispersed groups among them made themselves more more destructive and visible. The weaker sections of the population became easily victims of attack, vandalism and loot. And suddenly, some active revolting Bangladeshis protested against the Indian government which gave the impression of favouring and protecting the hated head of the government who oppressed all opposition parties.The events that succeeded took several turns for a few weeks, as no final authority was able to assert itself in power to re-establish and execute democratic processes and impose a code of respect for Human Rights. The Indian authorities should have given some benefit of the doubt, when a noble –laureate, a civil activist well-versed in international norms and a former victim of authoritarianism is unanimously assigned to the task of bringing back order and democracy. Like all terrorists, the radical Islamist groups wanted to provoke a reaction from those who did not take them seriously. Political changes in all the developing countries, particularly among the Muslim-majority countries have always been tumultuous and violent; often bloody. In Africa also, every time, there are riots in the streets due to the fall of a dictatorial government, the first shops looted belonged to the Indians there. The case of Pakistan is similar and it affects its Muslim minorities. As expected by those radical elements, closely linked to foreign Jihadist groups, the political leadership in India felt obliged to react immediately, condemning the whole riots as antiHindu and anti-India, instead of announcing that they are ―observing the events with great concern‖. Probably, the Indian ruling party does not want to give scope for its Opposition parties to accuse it of doing nothing for the fellow Hindus. Indian media establishments played the chorus by highlighting the aspects of events condemned by the Government of India, without referring to what the local Bangladeshi media had reported. Thus, it was untimely on the part of the Indian authorities to quickly qualify the event as a Muslim attack on Hindus, without taking into account the spontaneous nature of the mob behaviour and internal contradictions among the agitators. Even if it was true, there are more subtle ways than yielding to a provoked reaction wanted by the fanatic groups in Bangladesh. Hence, concerning the ongoing events in Bangladesh, India should have remained 'concerned' and circumspect for a certain period, given long-term perspectives with a big neighbour, instead of antagonising the emerging custodian government and public opinion in Bangladesh.As a consequence, the ongoing clandestine infiltration of Bangladeshis into neighbouring areas in India, where they disappear, cannot be solved without the cooperation of Bangladesh. Further, the unsympathetic attitude of India led Bangladesh, defensively and in defiance, to try to build a 'rapprochement' or reconciliation with Pakistan, which desperately wants to improve its image of being its past oppressor. We need Bangladesh's cooperation in future when we need to re-negotiate river water sharing with China. India should have projected it as a matter of violation of Human Rights and break up of law and order, as we have done in the case of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Reacting to the Bangladeshi situation, the USA regretted the violation of Human Rights and urged for the restoration of civil peace. This could have left us a chance to intervene later to cooperate with the new Bangla government to provide relief, rehabilitation and restoration to the afflicted minorities. Shaik Hasina, by not reacting, allowed the revolt to be projected as much anti-Indian as anti-Hasina and by overstaying in India instead of searching for a Western European country for refuge. Her own political party, the Awami League is not doing anything to make it appear as an internal civil conflict. The Indian diplomats must have their own reasons for continuing to show that they host and protect a fallen leader. Otherwise, to pacify the discontented crowd, India should have announced in the very beginning assuring that they would hand her over after following the due procedure. India should cooperate with the Dhakabased International Crimes Tribunal, which issued in October the arrest warrant for Mrs. Shaik Hasina and 45 others including former cabinet ministers, advisers and military and civil officials since it entered a bilateral extradition treaty in 1913 with Bangladesh.As usual, the governments on both sides have never tried to promote and improve people-topeople relations. Both governments have been content with government-to-government (G2G) and diplomat-to-diplomat (D2D) cordiality, rather than people-to-people relations (P2P). They are not sufficiently focused on the economic potential of the people living on either side of the porous borders. There have not been as many common projects, exchanges and relationships as possible between peoples. India did not adopt a policy towards Bangladesh, which the USA has done towards India – to attract the best of Bangladeshi human and material resources, talent, skills and capital. The fact that they were all Bengalis, a subnationality living in Bangladesh as well as in India who have everything in common- a common history, culture, heritage and language. The West Bengal in India should have been encouraged to renew mutually enriching ways of life, as in the past. We should have very easily invented and promoted joint partnerships and complementarities in production, manufacturing and marketing in jute and textiles, transport and banking. Bangladesh has been showing remarkable progress in economic development without wasting its energies in favour of any ideology. The civil society organizations which have secular objectives should have been encouraged to cooperate. The Bengali diaspora which is significant and active abroad should have been encouraged to provide common links. Thus, the political leadership should have searched to build bridges of understanding with projects of common interests, and a vision or a purpose for stability, development and peace in the region. It is a different matter that a similar strategy should have been adopted in the case of Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis. Under these conditions, who else can take up the mission of improving human relations between people separated by the states, rather than the civil society or non-governmental organisations? Only they can improve democratic values in the governance in each country, and prevent the state operators or the governments yield to the temptation of trying to make their state powerful and great, while the people living there are not so powerful and great. We want glorious human beings, not glorious states. We want the welfare of the people and all the people on either side of the border.
At present, foreign policy is understood as a government's relations with other states through diplomats designated and installed abroad at high cost to keep the states friendly. The assumption is that each state acts in its best interests, and the job of the diplomats is to negotiate to convince the other states that it is not against their interests. In the course of time, out of experience, each state lists the friendly states, enemy states, and states that are enemies of enemy states. These diplomatic relations are made visible by friendly gestures of the leaders on visit with protocol honours, gifts, cocktail parties, hugs and firm handshakes before the photographers. Often, they are roleplaying. Sometimes, they also negotiate, among other things, to sell or buy arms. Trade relations are a positive domain but they are affected by diplomatic strategies. Preventing trade relations with the people living across borders is a tragic act for the people. The powerful states and those who want to become powerful make generous outright grants; and give soft loans: open credit lines for projects, whether productive or not. The relations among the political heads might imply, sometimes accommodating their personal and family interests in other states. Many authoritarian leaders try to keep a door open to them in friendly countries to fly away from the country as a refugee, whenever necessary.Although Kautilya in his Arthasastra said a long time ago, while talking of foreign policy, that there is no state without people, the modern states, which are around 200 in this world, are more concerned about dealing with the leaders of other states i.e. their administrative and political operators, rather than with the people living in them. The political authorities and diplomats think it is their patriotic duty to defend their national interests and enhance their power, prestige, glory and greatness. The diplomats' direct contact with the people where they are posted is minimal, as much as with the people of their own country. The usefulness of such elaborate embassies can now be questioned when swift and direct means of communication are available between the ministries. They are no longer the frugal emissaries of Emperor Ashok to promote human solidarity, compassion, and lasting peace for all humanity. Most of the precious foreign currency spent on these embassies and other diplomatic functions can be, more usefully spent on promoting the health and education of their own citizens, who provided this money by way of taxes.Let us take the case of relations between the government of India and the government of Bangladesh, which is a hot topic. Historically, the kings of different parts of Bengal have played an active role in India. The partition of Bengal took place already in 1905 by the then British Governor General, though it was repealed in 1911. Nevertheless, it did sow the seeds of communal and divisive politics in the re-united Bengal. Much to the regret of Gandhiji, history repeated itself with a new Partition in 1947. The people of East Bengal became a part of Pakistan when politicians decided that Pakistan was to be separated from India based on religious identity. But, the Bengalis with their language, literature and culture and with their Hindu background remained alienated and could not integrate themselves into Western Pakistan and its Urdu language and culture. When the people in great numbers, nearly 13 million sought refuge in India, India had to intervene militarily in 1971, not to annex it but to facilitate making Bangladesh an independent country. During those 9 months of conflict, the undersigned, an Indian student in Paris, France also contributed in a small way to the campaign for the recognition of Bangladesh as a new state, by rallying the support of France and also by helping to get printed in England the first set of postal stamps in the name of independent Bangladesh state. Yet, in 1972, the undersigned well-wisher of new Bangladesh was pained to see the amount of foreign currency spent by the new Bangladeshi Embassy in Paris on the ambassador, ministers and other embassy and consular staff with necessary paraphernalia to maintain their dignity. Most probably, they had to do the same thing in all important other capital cities worldwide. At that time, Bangladesh had been receiving generous aid from all over the world, as it was one of the 53 Least Developed countries in the world for many years. Ever since, the relations between the government of Bangladesh and the Government of India have been, no doubt very cordial but mostly official and diplomatic. The relations have been mostly state-to-state, governed by bureaucratic and diplomatic procedures and attitudes of the busy political leadership.What has been happening since August 2024 in Bangladesh is a very common phenomenon that occurs very frequently in all developing countries, when an authoritarian regime falls. Now, due to the sudden disappearance of Shaik Hasina who governed mercilessly and who is known to have enjoyed the unstinted support of India, some sections of students and radical Islamists are emboldened to attack all their public institutions and all religious minorities, more particularly the Hindus as they are a majority among the weaker groups. Though the basic discontent and frustration were expressed by all students and youth bodies gathered, some small, radical and militant dispersed groups among them made themselves more more destructive and visible. The weaker sections of the population became easily victims of attack, vandalism and loot. And suddenly, some active revolting Bangladeshis protested against the Indian government which gave the impression of favouring and protecting the hated head of the government who oppressed all opposition parties.The events that succeeded took several turns for a few weeks, as no final authority was able to assert itself in power to re-establish and execute democratic processes and impose a code of respect for Human Rights. The Indian authorities should have given some benefit of the doubt, when a noble –laureate, a civil activist well-versed in international norms and a former victim of authoritarianism is unanimously assigned to the task of bringing back order and democracy. Like all terrorists, the radical Islamist groups wanted to provoke a reaction from those who did not take them seriously. Political changes in all the developing countries, particularly among the Muslim-majority countries have always been tumultuous and violent; often bloody. In Africa also, every time, there are riots in the streets due to the fall of a dictatorial government, the first shops looted belonged to the Indians there. The case of Pakistan is similar and it affects its Muslim minorities. As expected by those radical elements, closely linked to foreign Jihadist groups, the political leadership in India felt obliged to react immediately, condemning the whole riots as antiHindu and anti-India, instead of announcing that they are ―observing the events with great concern‖. Probably, the Indian ruling party does not want to give scope for its Opposition parties to accuse it of doing nothing for the fellow Hindus. Indian media establishments played the chorus by highlighting the aspects of events condemned by the Government of India, without referring to what the local Bangladeshi media had reported. Thus, it was untimely on the part of the Indian authorities to quickly qualify the event as a Muslim attack on Hindus, without taking into account the spontaneous nature of the mob behaviour and internal contradictions among the agitators. Even if it was true, there are more subtle ways than yielding to a provoked reaction wanted by the fanatic groups in Bangladesh. Hence, concerning the ongoing events in Bangladesh, India should have remained 'concerned' and circumspect for a certain period, given long-term perspectives with a big neighbour, instead of antagonising the emerging custodian government and public opinion in Bangladesh.As a consequence, the ongoing clandestine infiltration of Bangladeshis into neighbouring areas in India, where they disappear, cannot be solved without the cooperation of Bangladesh. Further, the unsympathetic attitude of India led Bangladesh, defensively and in defiance, to try to build a 'rapprochement' or reconciliation with Pakistan, which desperately wants to improve its image of being its past oppressor. We need Bangladesh's cooperation in future when we need to re-negotiate river water sharing with China. India should have projected it as a matter of violation of Human Rights and break up of law and order, as we have done in the case of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Reacting to the Bangladeshi situation, the USA regretted the violation of Human Rights and urged for the restoration of civil peace. This could have left us a chance to intervene later to cooperate with the new Bangla government to provide relief, rehabilitation and restoration to the afflicted minorities. Shaik Hasina, by not reacting, allowed the revolt to be projected as much anti-Indian as anti-Hasina and by overstaying in India instead of searching for a Western European country for refuge. Her own political party, the Awami League is not doing anything to make it appear as an internal civil conflict. The Indian diplomats must have their own reasons for continuing to show that they host and protect a fallen leader. Otherwise, to pacify the discontented crowd, India should have announced in the very beginning assuring that they would hand her over after following the due procedure. India should cooperate with the Dhakabased International Crimes Tribunal, which issued in October the arrest warrant for Mrs. Shaik Hasina and 45 others including former cabinet ministers, advisers and military and civil officials since it entered a bilateral extradition treaty in 1913 with Bangladesh.As usual, the governments on both sides have never tried to promote and improve people-topeople relations. Both governments have been content with government-to-government (G2G) and diplomat-to-diplomat (D2D) cordiality, rather than people-to-people relations (P2P). They are not sufficiently focused on the economic potential of the people living on either side of the porous borders. There have not been as many common projects, exchanges and relationships as possible between peoples. India did not adopt a policy towards Bangladesh, which the USA has done towards India – to attract the best of Bangladeshi human and material resources, talent, skills and capital. The fact that they were all Bengalis, a subnationality living in Bangladesh as well as in India who have everything in common- a common history, culture, heritage and language. The West Bengal in India should have been encouraged to renew mutually enriching ways of life, as in the past. We should have very easily invented and promoted joint partnerships and complementarities in production, manufacturing and marketing in jute and textiles, transport and banking. Bangladesh has been showing remarkable progress in economic development without wasting its energies in favour of any ideology. The civil society organizations which have secular objectives should have been encouraged to cooperate. The Bengali diaspora which is significant and active abroad should have been encouraged to provide common links. Thus, the political leadership should have searched to build bridges of understanding with projects of common interests, and a vision or a purpose for stability, development and peace in the region. It is a different matter that a similar strategy should have been adopted in the case of Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis. Under these conditions, who else can take up the mission of improving human relations between people separated by the states, rather than the civil society or non-governmental organisations? Only they can improve democratic values in the governance in each country, and prevent the state operators or the governments yield to the temptation of trying to make their state powerful and great, while the people living there are not so powerful and great. We want glorious human beings, not glorious states. We want the welfare of the people and all the people on either side of the border.
JANUARY-2025.
Vol. no. XIV Issue no.6 Monthly News Letter Published on the1st of the month since 2000.
0 Comments