|
|
|
Posts Tagged ‘Asia’
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009 by choudhury
I have to say this is by far the best writing I have seen about the relations of India and Bangladesh. The writer exemplified the peculier yet very true issues that are hindering the relations between India and Bangladesh. I hope the government of India and Bangladesh will take a close look at their predicaments and act accordingly.
——
WHILE envisioning the future of Indo-Bangladesh relations in the current era of democratic optimism, I am reminded of the words of Bangabandhu. In a speech delivered in Kolkata in February 1972, he said, ‘Let us bring to an end once and for all the sterile policy of confrontation between neighbours. Let us not fritter away our national resources but use them to lift the standard of living of our people.’
Unfortunately, he could not shape the destiny of South Asia through cooperation, trust and mutual assistance as he envisioned. The subcontinent not only lost the vision but also the leader. The following decades have seen ebbs and flows in bilateral relationship between India and Bangladesh, making it one of the biggest historical anachronisms.
India and Bangladesh should have had a special relationship, because India supported our war of independence and fought the war along with our freedom fighters and helped liberate Bangladesh from the oppressive rule of Pakistan. Bangladesh is the first country in the post-Second World War period to attain freedom as a consequence of struggle for liberation. Even today, the war of independence and the heroic role of Indian army live in the minds of Bangladeshis who have witnessed the traumatic years of conflict, killings and assassinations. Apart from that, India and Bangladesh share common history, heritage and cultural ethos. So it was expected that both countries will soon herald an era of mutual respect and cooperation to address the issues of poverty and economic underdevelopment.
Bangabandhu’s speech indeed reflected such expectations. However, the folklore of liberation heroism did not last long in Indian political circles which ultimately affected the relationship between these two countries. Mutual respect gave way to distrust and cooperative goals were shifted to diplomats’ dinner tables. Instead of exploring the possibilities of pragmatic policies, we always ended up in never-ending dialogues and accusations. But now the time has come to discuss the core issues in a realistic manner. In an era of globalisation and internationalization of trade, the economic prosperity of India and Bangladesh is closely linked to the future of our bilateral relationship. However, both the countries have yet to find a formula, an acceptable system that can provide with the tranquillity we so desperately need, to effectively confront our enormous human needs. Hence, it is important to discuss the prospects of Indo-Bangladesh relations in the current context of democratic revival in Bangladesh.
From the perspective of a Bangladeshi, I think that we respect India and are grateful to India for playing the role of midwife in the birth of our nation. We are still a nascent democracy, trying to project our own identity as a nation amidst innumerable problems of internal chaos. However, we hail our national spirit, political sovereignty and independence without any compromise. We are always willing to work with India on any bilateral or sub-regional issues on the basis of mutual respect as sovereign equals with full understanding that Bangladesh’s territorial integrity will be respected irrespective of our internal problems and past history.
In international relations, sovereign states are always inclined to protect crucial issues of national interest irrespective of the assistance rendered to them during crisis period. It is the very basis of nation-state system. Naturally, Bangladesh took a realistic stand on issues related to border demarcation, water sharing, transit and refugee problem, etc, which was not reciprocated by India.
As a sovereign country, Bangladesh, for all its inconsistencies, has to seek answers to our impending problems. Bangladesh shares common border with India on the north, west and east. Even in the south, the Bay of Bengal is dominated by Indian naval presence. Hence, the two countries cannot ignore each other, both strategically and politically.
Bangladesh expected that India would extend her help and support in the economic development of the country through better trade relationship and investment. But India’s relationship with Bangladesh was always dominated by military and security concern rather than friendship and equal status.
When there was an acute shortage of rice after the Sidr devastation, the Indian external affairs minister came to Dhaka and offered to sell 500,000 tonnes of rice, and also rehabilitation of an entire village. But in reality the rice sale had lots of problems and there is no news about the reconstruction of the village. In fact, India’s flood control schemes have only compounded the same problem downstream in Bangladesh. Bangladesh’s cries of despair fell on deaf ears in New Delhi.
The border demarcation dispute is still pending from the Indian side whereas Bangladesh has done its part. The maritime border demarcation is also pending with the Indian side.
Though bilateral trade between the countries has increased after the 1990s, the balance of trade is significantly in favor of India. The Indian economy is larger, diversified and more advanced in industry, service, science and technology, etc. India is one of the most important sources of import of Bangladesh.
Approximately 12 per cent of Bangladesh’s total imports originate in India. Imports from India far exceed $1 billion annually (unofficially almost the same amount) and are highly diversified, which makes Bangladesh one of the large clients for Indian goods, whereas exports are very small, around $100 million. Consumer industries in India are booming. Kolkata looks prosperous with its health clinics, hospitals, private schools, hotels, shopping centres minting money. I was told that Bangladeshis spend around 5-6 crore rupees a day in just Kolkata, which should give reason to India to look at us as a very important and useful neighbour.
Bangladesh is more open and liberalised, compared to India. Hence the restrictive trade policies of India also affected the balance of trade in Bangladesh. Apart from that Bangladesh has not had adequate marketing and distribution facilities in India. Hence, Bangladesh goods often fail to penetrate the huge Indian market and compete with domestic firms which enjoy the economies of scale, competitiveness and government support.
We expect reciprocal trade relationship with India with a proactive and concessional trade linkage which will boost our export, trade and economy in general. However, India doesn’t seem to be interested in initiating a proactive and facilitating role in economic relations on this ground. This asymmetric relation has indeed reflected in political sphere as well. We feel India as a big neighbor should extend help and knowledge support to Bangladesh to develop our human resources, scientific and technological innovations, social and physical infrastructure, etc. Bangladesh could have been an ideal place for Indian entrepreneurs to invest in consumer industries whose products could have been exported to the Seven Sister States, and then the pressure for transit would have not been there. However, India was not forthcoming to take active role in emancipating the small neighbor without interfering in territorial integrity.
The slow progress in economic issues between the two countries is due to the fact that Indian military and security establishments play a major role in shaping foreign policy. India suspects that Bangladesh is supporting insurgency movements in its north-eastern region and giving infrastructure support to jihadi forces. India has been demanding for transit facility through Bangladesh because the economic revival of the Seven Sisters depends on a road channel through Bangladesh. In fact, transit plays a vital role in designing Indo-Bangladesh relations. However, the public opinion in Bangladesh is not in favor of transit. Moreover, the physical infrastructure in the country is not developed to carry additional vehicular transport within the territory.
Bangladesh has neither the money nor the technical expertise to modernize internal transport system to accommodate goods passage from India. Strategic and security related concerns will also emerge since north-east is a melting spot of Indian territory. Hence, India should realise the sensitive nature of the transit issue and the practical difficulties involved in it. So, there is a need for ice breaking from both sides on the transit issue. If India can redesign the trade and investment policy to help and emancipate Bangladesh economy through more investment, concession in exports and assistance for infrastructure development, it will definitely create a favorable public opinion in Bangladesh which will ultimately lead to the amicable solution of the transit issue.
Another bone of contention between India and Bangladesh is the issue of illegal migration to West Bengal. However, the Bangladesh government denies that the country has ever encouraged anti-Indian movements in the north-east. Regarding the danger of terrorism, Bangladesh offered support and highlighted the need for a joint task force to counter terrorist attacks within the subcontinent. In fact, the recent election result in our country has ultimately proved the victory of secularism and democracy amidst the widespread propaganda about the Talibanisation of Bangladesh by extremist forces.
Leaders practicing divisive politics and narrow-minded policymakers also contributed to the strained relationship between Bangladesh and India. In Bangladesh, it was believed that anti-Indian slogan was sure to get popular votes in elections. There was a misconception that the masses in Bangladesh view India as a factor for their own economic and political problems. However, the recent election verdict again proved that India-bashing is not necessary to win elections. For, the people of Bangladesh are more concerned about the efficiency and capability of the internal political system rather than outside factors. There is, however, no denying the fact that seeds of hatred was sowed in the minds of people from both sides despite common ethos they share and inherit. We should realise the foolishness of the hatred campaign and try to initiate concrete step towards a better bilateral relationship rather than digging the graveyard of past problems and lack of trust. Meaningful dialogue is required at all levels, from local to national.
Bangladesh needs the support and good will of India not only as a strong neighbour but also as a strong ally in our struggle against all forces of extremism, hegemony and armed conflict. The political and economic destiny of the subcontinent largely depends on sub-regional cooperation rather than dispute and hatred.
I am sure that India has also realised that friendly relationship with Bangladesh is essential for the development of the Seven Sisters. India will continue to share concern for events in Bangladesh because Bangladesh is positioned in a sensitive and highly volatile area. Hence how India will structure its relationship with Bangladesh will be central to the economic life of its Northeast.
Likewise, improving the relationship with the emerging Asian giant will help Bangladesh to develop our industry, trade and infrastructure. Though there are differences of opinion, as a political entity operating under the intricacies of market economy, Bangladesh cannot afford ignoring India’s friendship.
For this to happen, the political leaders of both countries have to change their mindset and myopic vision.Our bilateral relationship was always viewed through the coloured glasses of security concerns and military interests. The mind set and pre-conceptions inherited from the past often influence the policy decisions.
Lack of stable governance in Bangladesh also affected possibilities of concrete steps towards greater cooperation. Now the time has changed. Once again democracy has resurrected in Bangladesh with a clear popular majority. Hence it is the responsibility of the Awami League to take bold and positive initiatives to improve bilateral relationship without compromising the values and national ethos Bangladesh always stands for. I hope our prime minister will succeed in this effort and will make the dreams of her father a reality.
Wajid Ali Khan Panni is a former MP, deputy foreign minister and high commissioner.
Source:NewageBd
Tags: AL, Asia, bangladesh, democracy, dhaka, Economy, india, indian, interest, relations, transit Posted in Politics | No Comments »
Wednesday, December 31st, 2008 by uddin
Introduction
India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), has long faced allegations of meddling in its neighbors’ affairs. Founded in 1968, primarily to counter China’s influence, over time it has shifted its focus to India’s other traditional rival, Pakistan. RAW and Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have been engaged in covert operations against one other for over three decades. The ongoing dispute in Kashmir continues to fuel these clashes, but experts say Afghanistan may be emerging as the new battleground. Islamabad sees India’s growing diplomatic initiatives in Afghanistan as a cover for RAW agents working to destabilize Pakistan. It accuses RAW of training and arming separatists in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province along the Afghan border. RAW denies these charges, and in turn, accuses the ISI of the July 2008 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.
The History of RAW
Until 1968, the Intelligence Bureau (IB), which is responsible for India’s internal intelligence, also handled external intelligence. But after India’s miserable performance in a 1962 border war with China, the need for a separate external intelligence agency was clear. During that conflict, “our intelligence failed to detect Chinese build up for the attack,” writes Maj. Gen. VK Singh, a retired army officer who did a stint in RAW, in his 2007 book, India’s External Intelligence: Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing.
As a result, India established a dedicated external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Founded mainly to focus on China and Pakistan, over the last forty years the organization has expanded its mandate and is credited with greatly increasing India’s influence abroad. Experts say RAW’s powers and its role in India’s foreign policy have varied under different prime ministers. Successes that RAW claims it contributed to include:
- the creation of Bangladesh in 1971;
- India’s growing influence in Afghanistan;
- Sikkim’s accession to India in the northeast in 1975;
- the security of India’s nuclear program;
- the success of African liberation movements during the Cold War.
The first head of RAW, Rameshwar Nath Kao, who headed the IB’s external intelligence division, led the agency until he retired in 1977. Many experts, including officers who worked with him, credit him with RAW’s initial successes: India’s triumph in the 1971 war with Pakistan, and India’s covert assistance to the African National Congress’s anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. “To a large extent, it was Kao who raised RAW to the level of India’s premier intelligence agency, with agents in virtually every major embassy and high commission,” writes Singh. But the organization has been criticized for its lack of coordination with domestic intelligence and security agencies, weak analytical capabilities, and complete lack of transparency.
The Structure and Function of RAW
Not much is known regarding the structure of RAW, say experts. The organization started with 250 people and about $400,000. It has since expanded to several thousand personnel, but there is no clear estimate of its staffing or budget, as both remain secret. However, an estimate by the U.S.-based Federation of American Scientists suggests that in 2000, RAW had about eight to ten thousand agents and a budget that experts place at $145 million. Unlike the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Britain’s MI6, RAW reports directly to the prime minister instead of the Ministry of Defense. The chief of RAW is designated secretary (research) in the Cabinet Secretariat, which is part of the prime minister’s office. Some officers of RAW are members of a specialized service, the Research and Analysis Service, but several officers also serve on deputation from other services such as the Indian Police Service.
RAW had two priorities after its formation, writes B. Raman, a former RAW official, in the 2007 book ,The Kaoboys of R&AW: Down Memory Lane. The organization worked to strengthen its capability for intelligence gathering on Pakistan and China and for covert action in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Some experts say that RAW’s efforts in East Pakistan, which was created from the partition of the Indian state of Bengal and completely separated from the rest of Pakistan, was aimed at fomenting independence sentiment. Over time, RAW’s objectives have broadened to include:
- Monitoring the political and military developments in adjoining countries, which have direct bearing on India’s national security and in the formulation of its foreign policy.
- Seeking the control and limitation of the supply of military hardware to Pakistan, mostly from European countries, the United States, and China.
Experts disagree on the amount of influence RAW asserts on India’s foreign policy. Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science at Indiana University, says the agency has no influence on foreign policy. However, Dipankar Banerjee, a retired army official and current director of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, a New Delhi-based think tank, says the head of RAW has direct access to the head of state, to whom he provides input and analysis.
From the early days, RAW had a secret liaison relationship with the Mossad, Israel’s external intelligence agency. The main purpose was to benefit from Israel’s knowledge of West Asia and North Africa, and to learn from its counterterrorism techniques, say experts.
RAW’s Role in Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka
RAW played a significant role in the formation of Bangladesh along with the Indian army and other Indian security and intelligence agencies. Besides providing intelligence to policymakers and the army, RAW trained and armed Mukti Bahini, a group of East Pakistanis fighting for the separate state of Bangladesh. Analysts say that RAW also facilitated the northeastern state of Sikkim’s accession to India in 1975, and provided military assistance to groups hostile to the pro-China regime in Myanmar, such as the Kachin Independence Army.
But it was the support for the Tamil separatist group, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, that brought RAW much criticism from human rights organizations. RAW helped to train and arm the LTTE in the 1970s, but after the group’s terrorist activities grew in the 1980s-including its alliances with separatist groups in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu-RAW withdrew this support. In 1987, New Delhi made a pact with the Sri Lankan government to send peacekeeping troops to the island and Indian forces ended up fighting the group RAW had armed. In 1991, Rajiv Gandhi, prime minister of India at the time of the peacekeeping force deployment, was assassinated by an LTTE suicide bomber.
Covert Action in Afghanistan, Pakistan
Since its inception in 1968, RAW has had a close liaison relationship with KHAD, the Afghan intelligence agency, due to the intelligence it has provided RAW on Pakistan. This relationship was further strengthened in the early 1980s when the foundation was laid for a trilateral cooperation involving the RAW, KHAD, and the Soviet KGB. Raman says RAW valued KHAD’s cooperation for monitoring the activities of Sikh militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Sikhs in the Indian state of Punjab were demanding an independent state of Khalistan. According to Raman, Pakistan’s ISI set up clandestine camps for training and arming Khalistani recruits in Pakistan’s Punjab Province and North West Frontier Province. During this time, the ISI received large sums from Saudi Arabia and the CIA for arming the Afghan mujahadeen against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. “The ISI diverted part of these funds and arms and ammunition to the Khalistani terrorists,” alleges Raman.
In retaliation, in the mid-1980s, RAW set up two covert groups of its own, Counter Intelligence Team-X (CIT-X) and Counter Intelligence Team-J (CIT-J), the first targeting Pakistan in general and the second directed at Khalistani groups. The two groups were responsible for carrying out terrorist operations inside Pakistan (Newsline), writes Pakistani military expert Ayesha Siddiqa. Indian journalist and associate editor of Frontline magazine, Praveen Swami, writes that a “low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities, notably Karachi and Lahore” was carried out. This forced the head of ISI to meet his counterpart in RAW and agree on the rules of engagement as far as Punjab was concerned, writes Siddiqa. The negotiation was brokered by then-Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan bin-Talal, whose wife, Princess Sarvath, is of Pakistani origin. “It was agreed that Pakistan would not carry out activities in the Punjab as long as RAW refrained from creating mayhem and violence inside Pakistan,” Siddiqa writes.
In the past, Pakistan also accused RAW of supporting Sindhi nationalists demanding a separate state, as well as Seraikis calling for a partition of Pakistan’s Punjab to create a separate Seraiki state. India denies these charges. However, experts point out that India has supported insurgents in Pakistan’s Balochistan, as well as anti-Pakistan forces in Afghanistan. But some experts say India no longer does this. As this Backgrounder explains, Pakistan is suspicious of India’s influence in Afghanistan, which it views as a threat to its own interests in the region. Experts say although it is very likely that India has active intelligence gathering in Afghanistan, it is difficult to say whether it is also involved in covert operations.
Relations with the CIA
The CIA assisted in the creation of RAW, says South Asia expert Stephen P. Cohen of the Brookings Institution. However, India’s intelligence relations with the CIA started even before the existence of RAW, note experts. After India’s war with China in 1962, CIA instructors trained Establishment 22, a “covert organisation raised from among Tibetan refugees in India, to execute deep-penetration terror operations in China,” writes Swami.
But the CIA’s operations with the ISI to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s made RAW very wary. However, it did not stop RAW from seeking the CIA’s assistance in counterterrorism training. Raman writes: “One had one more bizarre example of how international intelligence cooperation works.” The CIA trained the officers of the ISI in the use of terrorism against an adversary, and at the same time, he writes, it trained RAW and IB officers “in some of the techniques of countering that terrorism.” India’s intelligence agencies also feel the lack of an equal relationship with the CIA, say experts. Swami says RAW’s grievance is that there is little information they get on Pakistan from the United States; however, Washington expects New Delhi to provide it with intelligence on Afghanistan.
In 1997, Prime Minister I.K. Gujral shut down both the CITs aimed at Pakistan on moral grounds. Before Gujral, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao had ended RAW’s eastern operations in the early 1990s, as part of his efforts to build bridges with China and Myanmar, say analysts.
Successive RAW leaders attempted to gain fresh authorization for deterrent covert operations, but without success, says Swami. Siddiqa writes: “The Indian government probably realized that encouraging covert warfare would not only destabilize bilateral relations but was also dangerous for the peace and stability of the entire region.”
Weaknesses in RAW
The intrusion of Pakistan-backed armed forces into the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (GlobalSecurity) in 1999 prompted questions about RAW’s efficacy. Some analysts saw the conflict as an intelligence failure. However, RAW officials argued they had provided the intelligence but political leadership had failed to act upon it. The Indian government constituted a committee to look into the reasons for the failure and recommend remedial measures. The report of the Kargil review committee was then examined by a group of ministers, established in 2000. The group recommended a formal written charter and pointed out lack of coordination and communication within various intelligence agencies.
Following the review, a new organization was set up-the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO)-modeled on the U.S. National Security Agency-which would be the repository of the nation’s technical intelligence-spy satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and spy planes. The government also decided to create a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), whose head would be the adviser to the Chief of Staffs Committee and the defense minister. The DIA was empowered to conduct transborder operations.
However, the shakeup of the intelligence apparatus has not removed the problems that persisted, especially relating to the overlap of agency activities, say experts. Earlier, RAW was the only organization permitted to conduct espionage operations abroad. Now both the IB and DIA have also been given the authority to conduct such operations, writes Singh.
There have also been occasional media reports of penetration inside RAW by other agencies, in particular the CIA. Swami writes that RAW is exceptional amongst major spy agencies in maintaining no permanent distinction (Hindu) between covert operatives who execute secret tasks, and personnel who must liaise with services such as the CIA or public bodies, such as analysts and area specialists. “As a result, personnel with sensitive operational information are exposed to potentially compromising contacts,” he writes.
Source:
Http://www.cfr.org/publication/17707/raw.html
Tags: afganistan, Asia, bangladesh, india, intelligence, myanmmar, pakistan, RAW Posted in Featured, Politics | No Comments »
Thursday, April 10th, 2008 by Nebula
It is definitely an welcome news to sign a Free Trade Agreement with Malaysia. Being the only Muslim country with rapid technological advancement, stable economy and free market tactics, Malaysia is in a position to help Bangladesh achieve the right kind of development that it deserves. Over the years Malaysia proved to be a stable partner for a lot of other foreign countries and it will be specially profitable for Bangladesh to gather Malaysian knowledge in Trade. In this matter I have to say, if possible try to do the same for Japan as well.
The bilateral trade between Bangladesh and Malaysia stands around 500 million dollars and could easily go to 2-3 billion dollars with the right attitude and mind in a couple of years. Malaysia has invested almost 1 billion dollars in Bangladesh and it is one of the biggest investor in the country and exerts no influence on the politics of Bangladesh unlike other countries of the world. Every year Malaysia employs around 1 lakh Bangladeshis and currently has almost 3 lakh Bangladeshi people employed there legally and Illegally. The recent interest to build the four lane Dhaka, Chittagong highway is another example of its brotherly relation with Bangladesh. Malaysia is also keen to share the right kind of technology with Bangladesh like shipbuilding, palm oil generation and so on.
Considering all those possibilities, we should not wait a long time to sign in a trade pact with Malaysia. I am sure it will help Bangladesh gather the right kind of attention, trade, technology and respect that it deserves. Some of the European countries are also considering signing a free trade pact with Malaysia. If that happens, it will open up another great venue for marketing Bangladeshi products.
[ad#adbrite-1]
Tags: Asia, bangladesh, Economy, EU, Malaysia, Trade Posted in Business | No Comments »
|
|
|