Indo-Bangla ties
Bully, not Brother?

Criticism in Bangladesh about India’s allegedly tardy response to helping the victims of Cyclone Sidr fall into a familiar pattern

By Joyeeta Bhattacharjee

Has India’s response to the devastation wreaked in Bangladesh by Cyclone Sidr on November 15 been adequate or not? Is the criticism levelled against India by a section in Bangladesh justified? If the largest and most-populous nation-state on the subcontinent is to be not repeatedly characterized as Big Brother by its smaller neighbours, including Bangladesh, it is clear that New Delhi will have to play a more proactive role in this part of the world.

In mid-December, four amphibious ships from the Eastern Naval Command in Vishakapatnam were put into action to deliver 5,000 tonnes of rice to Chittagong port. This was the last in a series of aid measures that India had announced after Union External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee undertook a hectic one day trip to Bangladesh on December 1 to express India’s sympathy towards its neighbour after Cyclone Sidr had killed thousands. He had announced that India was committed to rehabilitating those who were living in the ten worst affected villages in coastal regions of Bangladesh, an undertaking that was well appreciated. In addition, the easing of rice exports to Bangladesh was perceived as a good gesture.

For quite some time now, there has been criticism in Bangladesh about India’s slow and meagre relief support to the natural calamity. It has been claimed that India acted expeditiously in sending relief material to Sri Lanka after the December 2004 tsunami (that also hit India) whereas the country was tardy in responding to the cyclonic disaster in Bangladesh. Around the time such comparisons were being made, many India-bashing elements in Bangladesh highlighted the news relating to Taslima Nasreen’s departure from Kolkata to propagate arguments to the effect that India was not acting in a “responsible” manner when it came to her neighbour. These same critics had, of course, conveniently forgotten why Taslima had to leaver Bangladesh in the first place and come to live in India.

India’s first response to the November 15 cyclone might have been delayed by a day or two. It may even be argued that the first announcement made by New Delhi that the amount of relief that would be given would be worth US 1 million was perceived as too small an amount. However, over the next few weeks, India increased the quantum of relief that was provided. One Indian Air Force aircraft dispatched relief supplies for almost a week, which included food, blankets and medicines. Moreover, the embargo on exports of rice from India to Bangladesh was lifted in no time to enable 50,000 tonnes of rice to reach that country initially. This was followed by an announcement by Mukherjee as soon as he landed in Dhaka that additional supplies of five lakh tonnes of rice would be provided. If one considers only the quantum of food supplied to Bangladesh, India’s contribution compares favourably with what had been sent to Sri Lanka after the tsunami. In other words, what certain commentators in Bangladesh have been contending – especially on the internet – is not borne out by facts. This would lead one to argue that the recent criticism against New Delhi’s allegedly slow and inadequate response to assist the victims of the cyclone falls into a familiar pattern.

In recent months, sections of the media in Bangladesh have often cited the adverse trade balance between the two countries to criticize India. New Delhi, on the other hand, has argued that Dhaka never made a serious attempt to improve economic ties. The entire issue of Bangladesh supplying
natural gas to ready buyers in India has been politicized over a long period. The fact is that so far no gas has crossed the border. Similarly, Indian requests for transit facilities for goods moving to the north-eastern states of India has been refused ostensibly on security considerations. If these two initiatives had worked out, the trade balance between India and Bangladesh could have changed significantly. In addition, Indian companies – including those in the Tata group – have encountered resistance in setting up joint business ventures in Bangladesh.

Then, intelligence agencies of the Indian government have sought to connect those responsible for the terrorist violence in the country, notably the May 18 Mecca masjid in Hyderbad and the July 2006 Mumbai blasts, to groups operating out of Bangladesh. These groups are in addition to militant organizations like the ULFA who have reportedly been operating out of Bangladesh for many years. The Indian government has claimed more than once that Dhaka has not acted on the basis of hard evidence that has been provided about the activities of such groups and individuals who have been provided “sanctuaries”.

That’s not all. The issue of illegal immigration to West Bengal and the north-east continues to simmer – those considered “economic refugees” continue to trickle into the country despite attempts to fence the long and porous international border between the two countries. The social and cultural affinities of people who live in the two countries (that were historically one) prevent easy solutions to this long-standing problem. Finally, despite all the efforts that have been made to promote regional bonding and multilateral cooperation in SAARC, New Delhi is of the view that Dhaka has in the past stressed – and continues to emphasize – bilateral issues during meetings of the forum. (Inciden-tally, India levels the same criticism against Islamabad as well.)

The need for good neighbourly relations is very important and for that, there has to be some demonstrative action from Bangladesh. India has evidently refrained from exerting any form of influence or pressure in the current fluid political situation in that country. India’s Foreign Office merely keeps reiterating the point that New Delhi hopes that democracy will be restored soon. What rankled many in this country is the decision of the caretaker government in Bangladesh not to vote in favour of the candidature of Kamalesh Sharma who was elected Secretary General of the Commonwealth. Sharma on November 24 by a handsome margin around the time India’s relief efforts for the victims of Cyclone Sidr were on.

The attempts that have been made by the caretaker government in Dhaka to reform that country’s electoral system and root out corruption in high places have been welcomed by many observers in India. At the same time, however, the caretaker regime in Dhaka has not made any special efforts to improve ties with India.

The Indian government needs to think hard about its policies towards its neighbours. Needless to say, apart from Bhutan, India hardly has the best of relations with any of its smaller neighbours. Our growing stature in world politics and the economic progress we have made in the recent past should not divert our attention from what is happening in countries around it where political instability is accompanied by economic vulnerability. When it comes to providing relief to victims of natural disasters, the Indian government has not only to act in a magnanimous and expeditious manner but should be seen to be doing so. Even if there are quite a few in our neighbouring countries who will always carp, crib and accuse India of behaving like a bully and not a brother, New Delhi has no choice but to play a more proactive role in the region. India will have to continue to harp on the need to enhance economic relations with its neighbours as the best way to improve political relations.