Bangladesh needs its big neighbour’s generosity, Lt Gen (retd) Harun Ar Rashid, the country’s former chief of army staff, tells K S Manjunath
After the December 2008 elections in Bangladesh, what’s the likelihood of a military intervention?
The trend in Bangladesh politics must be studied. After the military’s role in the episodes of 1975 (overthrow of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s government and his killing) and 1981 (Ziaur Rahman’s assassination), the circumstances, both domestic and international, were different than what they are now. From 1991, the democratic system has received support from the military. There have been three or four caretaker governments so far and the military has helped each caretaker government conduct free and fair elections. This trend shows that the military supports the democratic process.
When the previous caretaker government took over, there were two-three instances when the military could have overthrown it, but it did not. The military gave a chance to the constitutionally-mandated caretaker government to function. The military recognises that sustaining the democratic process is in everyone’s benefit, including its own. Now, if the performance of the government is good, the chance of a military intervention is low.
Is there a parallel between military interventions in Bangladesh and Pakistan?
No, there is no parallel since the interventions were in different contexts. For instance, when the father of the nation (Bangladesh) was assassinated, the military stepped in. However, in Pakistan, at every instance, the Army chief took over. In Bangladesh, there has been no direct military intervention since 1991.
Instead, the military backed caretaker governments, who then transferred power to elected governments. This model for transfer of power is non-existent in Pakistan. Furthermore, Pakistan’s armed forces’ financial assets — such as the Fauji Foundation — and stake in the economy is the result of 30 years of intervention in the political system. It has also dictated economic, foreign and social policies of the country.
In Bangladesh, the Fauji Foundation focuses purely on the welfare of soldiers. For example, a Bangladeshi soldier does not get free medical treatment after retirement. It’s here that the military’s welfare schemes come in. Moreover, the army’s assets are too meagre to have an influence over policy matters and politics.
What’s your assessment of the recent elections?
Since 1973, a number of elections have taken place under international observers. There’s a general agreement that the December 2008 elections were the fairest of them all. However, we must appreciate the fact that 850 million people voted in a day’s duration. There were a few lapses and incidents, but overall, these have been the fairest elections ever. Also, the law and order machinery didn’t break down and the citizens were enthusiastic. Most notably, those who conducted the elections (the military-backed caretaker government of Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed) didn’t have a stake in the outcome. Accusations by the coalition led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which got reduced to 30-odd seats from 160-odd in the previous House, is reflective of the (people’s) lack of trust in the state’s institutions as well as between political between parties. Hence, the process of setting up caretaker governments came — this arrangement is unique to the country.
Will Sheikh Hasina’s government continue to follow the corruption cases filed against politicians from both the Awami League and the BNP?
The election result is people’s mandate to punish those who abused power. Millions of dollars have been taken out of the country due to nepotism and favouritism by the past governments. If the present government doesn’t draw its lessons from the past, it’ll face the same fate. Fighting corruption is a continuous process. In post-colonial countries, such as those in the Indian sub-continent, the bureaucratic system is immensely corrupt. The level of corruption must be brought down to an acceptable limit. In Bangladesh, the task now is to enforce law and order and to change the system that sows the seeds for corruption.
One such way is setting up an anti-corruption commission, which will be a strong deterrent. So far, the cases filed against the caretaker government have not been withdrawn. Even Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has only received bail and will have to stand trial. Furthermore, trial of war criminals must gather steam and reach it’s logical conclusion.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who will visit Bangladesh next month, has said that addressing the terror threat — from Bangladesh-based Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami (HuJi) and terror groups operating in India’s North-East — is top priority. What’s the common ground for the two countries on this?
Terrorism is a world-wide phenomenon and affects Bangladesh too. Currently, there’s a blame-game on between the two countries. Instead, there must be an information-sharing apparatus. Also, external support to terrorism must be clamped down upon. Sharing of intelligence is the need of the hour.
In the Awami League’s election manifesto, tackling terror and enforcing law and order was top priority. Sheikh Hasina said as much after being elected. She also mentioned in the party manifesto that her government would seek the setting up of a regional task force to handle terrorism. This must include India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka.
Home Minister P Chidambaram recently said, “Bangladeshis without work permits have no business in India.” How can India and Bangladesh deal with illegal migration?
Illegal migration to a place is higher when if offers chances of economic prosperity and it’s a global phenomenon. In the context of India and Bangladesh, between 1965 and 1971, there was mass migration and people were housed in refugee camps. Therefore, there are different categories of Bengalis who came to India from what is now Bangladesh. Both governments will have to identify the criteria to determine who is an illegal Bangladesh citizen residing in India.
Only economic development in the region, in the form of massive investment, can be the final answer to this problem. Bangladesh offers a unique opportunity for investors.
What would Bangladesh like India to act on right away?
The pace of development in the region is dependent on a host of issues such as investment, transit rights to India’s North-East and accessing oil and gas pipelines from South-East Asia. Bangladesh, too, has problems of transit rights with India. The distance between the borders of Nepal and Bangladesh is only 13 kilometres but India refuses to give us transit rights. Dhaka’s desire to link the country’s many islands is still pending as India has not taken action on a treaty signed between Indira Gandhi and Mujibur Rahman. Also, it’s high time for border-demarcation, both on land and sea. Water-sharing arrangements must also be addressed immediately.
The last time the Awami League was in power, many good initiatives were taken, such as the signing of the Ganges water-sharing treaty. This time, too, there is scope for many developments, but New Delhi has to be sensitive to Dhaka’s needs. Pranab Mukherjee has said India cannot choose its neighbours. Bangladesh is in the same situation. Dhaka has to recognise that its “big neighbour” (India) needs it as much as it needs the big neighbour’s help. For peace and prosperity of the region, India has to play its role as the “big neighbour” by coming forward with generous offers and proposals. After 37 years of talking, it’s time for progress in bilateral ties.
