India’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy is intertwined as a hyphenated Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) policy. Its Pakistan policy is centred around the Kashmir issue and is focused on preventing and countering export of violence in the region by Pakistan. India’s Afghanistan policy is also centred around security concerns, wherein it is perceived that terrorist violence in Afghanistan can have a spill over impact on India, especially in J&K. It can thus be seen that India’s policy towards both Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to contain and neutralise violence that is being exported from its Western neighbours. Fundamentally, it is a human security policy expressed within the ambit of India’s national security policy doctrine.

India’s military gets into the frame when Pakistan supported terrorists attack military personnel and installations within India.1 Pakistan calls such personnel operating from its soil as non-state actors, but that is mere rhetoric as Pakistan actively aids and abets groups such as the Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul Mujahidin and others to attack targets in India, in effect waging a proxy war on the country.

Indian newspapers frequently write on the Indian economy being attacked through fake Indian currency notes (FICN), which originates in Pakistan and is pumped into India via Nepal and Bangladesh. They also regularly cover the sporadic violation of the ceasefire agreement between the two countries by Pakistan, wherein villages near the LoC (Line of Control) as well as the Indian troops deployed on the LoC are subjected to machine-gun and mortar fire from Pakistani positions. Unfortunately, no Indian newspaper ever covers the blatant abuse of human rights by the Pakistani establishment in Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir (POJ&K). This includes both the region of Gilgit-Baltistan as well as the region of Mirpur-Muzaffarabad, called Azad Kashmir by Pakistan. This silence by the Indian media on what is happening in POJ&K is hard to explain. India still treats Pakistan with kid gloves, despite the fact that terrorist groups that carried out major attacks in India such as the attack on India’s Parliament, the attack on the Akshardham Temple and the Mumbai attacks to mention but a few, were all supported by the Pakistan military. Evidently, Pakistan is waging a proxy war against India, in line with its doctrine of ‘bleeding India with a thousand cuts’.2 Pakistan is also in illegal occupation of Indian territory (POJ&K). Pakistan continues to suppress these people, and the human rights abuses inflicted on this hapless population knows no bounds. They continue to be denied their fundamental rights and have no recourse against the atrocities being inflicted on them by the state. There is thus a need for India to review its policy with respect to the Af-Pak region and view it in a more realistic framework, to enable the charting out of a fresh course which can bring peace to the region and which can have a beneficial impact on stability in South Asia and indeed on the world.

Until March 2019, Pakistan authorities were loathe to admit that they created ‘militants’. However, for the first time, such an admission came from no less a person than the Pakistani premier, Mr Imran Khan. Khan’s electoral rhetoric was venomously anti-India and it was due to his intransigence that both the Sindh and Punjab Assemblies of Pakistan passed resolutions regarding Kashmir against India. The admission from Khan was made in April 2019, while briefing a group of foreign journalists, wherein he stated that Pakistan created these ‘militants’ during the Cold War to fight the Soviet Forces in Afghanistan and that Pakistan is now ready to dismantle these assets. Khan also went on to state that both the Pakistan Army as well as its intelligence arm, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) are also of the same resolve.3

However, such statements make little sense and have even lesser sanctity. If, at any time in the future, the Pakistan military establishment wishes to withdraw the statement made by the Pakistani Prime Minister, then all that is required is that the Pakistani Assembly will pass a unanimous resolution disassociating itself from the statement made by Khan. There is thus no reason for India to feel elated at the statement given by Prime Minister Khan. By itself, it carries no weight and is worthless.

For some reason, many in India get carried away by such Pakistani theatrics. It must be remembered that a chance for peace was derailed by General Pervez Musharraf, when Pakistan attacked India on the Kargil heights. The Pakistani premiers attempt to remove Musharraf did not only not succeed, but resulted in a coup and the ouster of the elected Prime Minister himself! After the coup, Musharraf visited India and was accorded a red carpet welcome! It is only to be hoped that in future course of time, the likes of Hafiz Saeed, the head of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, are not accorded such VIP treatment! India thus needs to review its South Asia policy. As of now, the policy appears to be tactical, and has little strategic impact.

What exactly has changed since 2013 in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The period saw Nawaz Sharif being deposed from the office of the Prime Minister. It also saw the SAARC Summit becoming conditional to the drawdown of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. We have seen the flare up of tensions along the Durand Line with Afghan and Pakistani troops clashing across the Line. We also see the complete breakdown of the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, with violations taking place almost on a daily basis. The period has also seen the emergence of ISIS in Afghanistan, which has been named the ‘Khorasan’ module, but which in effect is ISIS ‘Lahore’ module. There also appear to be Pakistani links to the 9/11 attacks in the US as also to the St. Petersburg metro blasts. In all, the security situation remains grim.

Pakistan-Afghanistan relations also exhibit similar indicators of unending conflict as existing in the India-Pakistan relationship, with all initiatives for peace coming to nought. It is unfortunate, that in the minds of the Pakistani establishment, Afghanistan is little more than a colony of Pakistan. The Pakistan government’s persistent meddling in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, with Prime Minister Khan seeking a change in government also adds to tension in the region. Another factor to be considered in this equation is the presence of three terrorist groups in Afghanistan: the Afghan Taliban, al-Qaida and the Islamic State. If Afghanistan has a truce with the Afghan Taliban, the latter is likely to be replaced by the ISIS. This game, if it can be called such, is unlikely to end, as it has too many players and too many conflicting interests.

The world apparently, has also not focused sufficiently on understanding, why a Sindhi student from Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS), in Jamshoro district, Sindh province, actually joined up with the Islamic State in Lahore. The student, NaureenLaghari, was arrested in Lahore, during a security operation. She was a brilliant student and never exhibited any extremist leanings, yet she chose to join the Islamic State and was planning, along with three other colleagues, to target Churches and Christian gatherings during the Easter festivities. It appears she was radicalised through the social media.4 It is apparent that the Islamic State has established roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as in other countries in South Asia. In April 2017, the US used a large yield bomb, the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), commonly known as “Mother of All Bombs” to destroy a network of tunnels and caves in Nangarhar province of Afghanistan, in which a large number of terrorists who were from the Islamic State were killed.5 According to Afghanistan Times, the cave complex also had some fighters who had earlier served in the Pakistan military as well as from groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

It is apparent that the Islamic State as well as other terrorist groups have a foothold in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. Both the countries also have indigenous movements which are fighting the state. Ultimately, what needs to be secured is human security for the entire South Asian region, but this can only come about if terrorism is eliminated from Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are the tectonic plates from which terrorism emanates. What therefore needs to be done to bring out this outcome?

The following requires consideration:

l  A return of all the fighters to their respective countries. This outcome is easier said than done, as fighters from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Central Asia, Russia, China, Thailand, Africa, Europe and North America are  dispersed in various trouble spots across the world. On return, these fighters would need to be put through a process of de-radicalisation.

l  For the Muslim masses, the education system must now inculcate programmes, which can insulate the youth from embracing a radical culture.

l  There is a danger of the Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of radical groups. It may be worth considering if such assets could be shifted to Sindh, the only province so far in Pakistan that has not been completely radicalised. The government of Sindh too, needs to see that Punjabi influence, which has dominated life in the whole of Pakistan since 1947, is curtailed and there is greater space for regional aspirations. The Sindhi and Baloch Diaspora could also play a greater role in achieving such an outcome.

l  The international community, with India taking the lead, could look into the possibility of holding a referendum in Pakistan, in Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the local people could vote to remain with the state of Pakistan. If the people desire to do so, then a state-building and state-making process along with the nation-making process in Pakistan should be kicked off. Based on the Lahore Resolution of 1940, Pakistan must transform itself into a confederation, or perhaps a union of Indus Republics.

For sustainable peace in the region, we could also look into the possibility of having an International Security Force intervention in Pakistan to eradicate terrorist elements, which have inflicted a reign of terror and insecurity, not only in Pakistan, but across the world.

For peace in south Asia, the initiative must be from within South Asia and not from outside the region. Prime Minister Modi has to some extent broken the mould when he spoke about the Rohingya issue and of the rights of the people of Balochistan. This change in the Indian approach must be pushed through with vigour by the Indian foreign policy.

(Mr. Zulfiqar Shah is a Sindh and Balochistan civil and political rights activist.)

References:

1   Some of the more dastardly attacks were the attacks on an Indian Air Force base in Pathankot in January 2016, attack on a brigade HQ in Uri in September 2016 and a suicide attack on a police convoy in Pulwama in February 2019.

2   Gates, Scott, Kaushik Roy (2016). Unconventional Warfare in South Asia: Shadow Warriors and Counterinsurgency. Routledge. pp. Chapter 4.

3   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/world/asia/imran-khan-pakistan.html

4   https://tribune.com.pk/story/1386225/naureen-not-recruited-terrorists-university-lumhs-vc/

5   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39607213

(This article is carried in the print edition of May-June 2019 issue of India Foundation Journal.)

Pakistan’s endemic denials notwithstanding, the Pulwama carnage and its aftermath became a catalyst to cognizable shift in regional political scenario leaving its vibrations to reach other parts of the region under discussion. IAF’s Balakot blitzkrieg is a turning point in the three-decade-old Pakistan sponsored proxy war in Kashmir. Major world powers have begun to take a pragmatic view of India obliged to react to terrorist outrage in which the limits of her tolerance are subjected to a test. States have the prerogative of demonstrating their might in situations of self-defence.

The news of India’s airstrike on Azhar’sJaish stronghold was more stunning for China; it amounted to indirect rebuff to her for her sustained effort of taking Azhar under her protective wings against the Security Council’s resolve to designate him. It took the wind out of China’s sail. The first reaction which knowledgeable circles noted was Beijing’s subtle hint to Pakistan that she had to respond to the opinion of the world community. Ever since China vetoed the resolution for the fourth time and the big three decided to take the issue to an open debate, China was ill at ease and loath to be publicly exposed.

China’s antics of making the SC drop reference to Pulwama and Kashmir from the text of the resolution is to keep Pakistan in a state of false expectancy. Nonetheless, both know that after the resolution was passed the US, UK and France conceded in their individual statements that Pulwama proved the catalyst to the passing of a unanimous resolution. This is indirect recognition of India’s right to make bigger strikes on Pakistan-based terrorist installations if the need arises. India and the US are committed to taking joint action in a counter-terrorism bid.

Suspecting that Indo-Pak spat, if allowed to escalate, would gravely impact Afghan situation and the role of Pakistan and her army at Doha negotiations, the US seriously intervened to desist both India and Pakistan from crossing the red line.

The US achieved some success in its interventionist mission primarily because of a critical financial situation bedevilling Pakistan. American authorities bluntly told her that the US would not encourage IMF to sanction loans which Pakistan would pay to liquidate burgeoning Chinese debts.Pakistan’s economy at its nadir would not sustain a war with India for more than a day.

Not losing the sight of astute statesmanship, the Western powers very carefully maintained stoicism over two developments on Indo-Pak political chessboard. One was not to dig into or even randomly underplay India’s claim of having decimated the Balakot terrorist camp, and the second was to remain non-committal about IAF Mig shooting down an F-16 fighter craft of PAF. Though at one point of time India did raise the issue of Pakistan’s infringement of the conditions of sale of F-16s by the US to Pakistan but she mysteriously did not push the matter obviously because of American pressure to refrain from giving media hype to the vulnerability of her so-called impregnable F.16. The US did not like adverse impact on the marketing of her war machine.  The US and the western media somehow saw prudence in keeping the issue under wraps to the entire satisfaction of Pakistani GHQ. India, too, would not overplay Pak’s incredulous deniability. The world knew what Pakistan did not like it to know and forthwith release of Indian pilot was a face-saving rather than a goodwill gesture.

Somehow, the Indian media did not seriously debate the decision of the Modi government to give a green signal to Balakot airstrike. In the process, the recklessdomestic opposition front tried to play cheap vote bank politics and avoideddiscussing the situation from an exclusive nationalist perspective. It revealed its inherent weakness rather than an element of unbridled vengeance let loose during the election campaigning.

Modi government took ten days to frame the outlines of reacting to Pulwama carnage. The Balakot airstrike was less a tactical compulsion and more the unfolding of a decisive policy of meeting the challenge of terrorism emanating from our western neighbour. The PMO and the Defence Ministry both burnt the midnight oil in analyzing and anticipating the grave and perilous outcome of a proposed airstrike deep inside Pakistan. It meant war. India was prepared for an armed clash short of a nuclear strike. The Americans were kept informed and Beijing’s ownupdated intelligence input also spoke almost identically. Both were told that the time had come for cleaning the slate. In a grave situation like this, suspension of the ongoing election through a presidential decree would not be a surprise. That exigency, too, did not escape the notice of policy planners.This objective analysis is to be understood from repeated warnings by the Home Minister that India had to take all necessary steps to ensure her national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

When the news came next morning that PAF had tried to bombard our ammunition dumps and arsenals close to the border, the flash went from New Delhi.  It was a matter of hours not days. Not more than an hour was taken for emergent exchange of communication among Washington, Islamabad, UAE and New Delhi.

Heaving a sigh of relief, President Trump made a laconic remark pregnant with meaning.  He said that he was expecting good news from Islamabad. Imran Khan had to decide within minutes that Wing Commander Abhinandan, would be set free to go back to India that afternoon or the next day. The scare of a massive Indian missile attack on all airbases in Pakistan was so alarming as to force senior PAF officers to spend two or three nights in the bunkers and underground shelters. Pentagon czars would have laughed in their sleeves on hearing Prime Minister Imran Khan saying his decision to free the Indian pilot was an “expression of goodwill”.

De-escalation of tension is temporary because it is compulsive. Its stability is conditional upon Pakistan containing terrorism at home and playing a positive role in persuading Taliban for a peace deal in Afghanistan. For Pakistan, the priorities are (a) to mollify the US so that IMF loan could be obtained without loss of time, and (b) a face-saving mechanism that would help administration neither to antagonize nor fraternizing the terrorist organizations and their leaders.

At a recent news briefing, a senior US official told reporters that without getting involved in Pakistan’s internal politics, Washington expects her civil and military leaders to correct the situation. The official went on to say, “We support the fact that Prime Mister Imran Khan says right things and appears to be trying to make some changes within Pakistan, But only time will tell if he is successful in doing that.” Acknowledging that recently both civil and military leaders in Pakistan have taken steps to eliminate terrorism, the official said that Pakistan’s military was also supporting these changes. “So far, we do see support from the military to the direction that Prime Minister Khan seems to be going in,” he said.

The senior administration official noted that Pakistan was not only saying the right things, it had also taken some right steps. Elucidating what he meant by the right things, the official said that Prime Minister Khan was “very public about wanting stability in the region, pointing out how important that is for Pakistanis to prosper and to have economic development which is one of his core campaign promises”.

This statement of the American senior official gives the impression that Pakistan (meaning both civilian government and the GHQ) had found that they need to give a different direction to their state policy in the light of the ground situation. There is more of expectation than expediency in the statement of the American official, and hypnotizing that there is a mode of giving a new direction to her policy.What do we expect Pakistan to do? It has to dismantle the terror structure which is hydra-headed. The question is will that be a reality? This is not what we but what the world community and the peace-loving segments of Pakistani civil society will have to ask.  To put it crudely, will Pakistan army surrender to the diktat of the civilian government which it has been toppling whenever it desired to do so?

American officials believe that the Pakistan army is on board in regard to the dismantling of the terrorist structure. If that is the case, then it is the beginning of the end of Pak army’s long – tested superlative role in the framing of the foreign policy of that country.

In summing up this analysis, the note has to be taken of the 2-day visit of US Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, South and Central Asia, Alice G Wells to Pakistan on 29 April. This visit comprised two inter-connected components. The first component dealt with Afghan situation for which US Special Representative for Afghan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and his team held meetings with Pakistani officials with Wells in the chair. In the second component, Assistant Secretary Wells held extensive meetings with a wide variety of Pakistani official representatives that included top civil and military echelons with the Pakistan Army Chief Bajwa included among them. She also met with Pakistan think tank members and representatives of political parties. It is important to note that these wide-ranging talks and with a wide range of Pakistani officials (army in particular) indicate that the US wants to keep a close track on (a) What Pakistan would be doing in the context of finding a solution to Afghan crisis, and (b) what steps Pakistan will be taking to impose curbs on terrorist organizations operating from her soil against either Afghanistan or India in Kashmir. In her press conference, Secretary Wells made two very clear and unambiguous statements by way of response to the questions put to her by the media persons. She said (a) resumption of a peace dialogue between India and Pakistan depends on how far  Pakistan succeeds in imposing effective curbs on terrorism and denies terrorists all facilities for conducting operations against the neighbours, and (b) How far Pakistan plays a constructive and positive role in strengthening peace and normalcy in the South Asian region. Perhaps Ambassador Wells’ threadbare expression will not go down well with Pakistan, but then Pakistan has to re-assess the consequences of a frozen and fossilized policy in the South Asian region.

(Prof. K.N. Pandita is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, Srinagar. Views expressed are personal.)

“Friendship is a flowing river”, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed quoted Mexican Nobel Laureate Octavio Paz in her Op-Ed article[i] in an Indian daily to describe India-Bangladesh relations. There is no doubt that Indo-Bangla friendship streams like a river, overcoming all the obstacles. Neighbours that share a porous land border of 4096.7 km, 54 rivers, culture, language and history, have always attempted to find a way to make things work. The two countries have genuine concerns for maintaining their fraternal relationship. With Awami League leader Hasina’s fourth term as the PM, Indo-Bangladesh bond remains strong and stable. Interesting enough, Awami League and BJP, the two incumbent parties, have a similarity in their party symbols. The boat of Awami and the lotus of BJP – both are aquatic.

Bangladesh has always been at the core of India’s neighbourhood policy. Dhaka’s foreign policy reflects the principles of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Dhaka is a beneficiary of Modi’s Act East policy – a revised, reviewed and renamed framework of Look East policy. In addition to South Asian Associationfor Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the regional clubs like Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal Initiative (BBIN) and Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar Forum for Regional Cooperation (BCIMforum) have presented additional opportunities to engage Dhaka and Delhi. Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Hasina Wajedvow to maintain the upward trajectory of Indo-Bangla ties.

High-level Visits and Transactions

The present India-Bangladesh relations are an outcome of highly transactional diplomacy. The two neighbours have inked several deals in recent years to strengthen bilateral relations.

Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury, the speaker of Bangladesh Parliament, attended Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s swearing-in ceremony on May 26, 2014. During his maiden visit to Bangladesh in June, 2015, PM Modi settled the forty-one-year-old boundary dispute. As per the Land Boundary Agreement 1974 and protocol of 2011, 51 erstwhile Bangladeshi enclaves in India and 111 erstwhile Indian enclaves in Bangladesh were physically transferred to the other country. India lost 10,000 acres of land in that land swap deal, but Narendra Modi won the hearts of thousands of Bangladeshis. In his hour-long address at Dhaka University, the Indian premier read out a few lines in Bengali and emphasized on Bangladesh’s successes on the social and economic fronts. Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal, also joined the two leaders in Dhaka. The three leaders flagged off two Bangladesh-India bus services. Modi extended a fresh $2 billion Line of Credit (LoC) support for 15 projects to Bangladesh. Dhaka heaved a sigh of relief hearing the announcement of full disbursement of $200 million. The two South Asian supremos inked 22 agreements on different areas like cooperation in maritime safety, curbing human trafficking and fake Indian currency notes. Bangladesh made a few important announcements to appease India. Access to Chittagong and Mongla Ports made India happy. PM Hasina praised Modi for his charismatic role and Modi appreciated Sheikh Hasina for her farsightedness. The two premiers raised the global issues like climate change. PM Modi called on President Md. Abdul Hamid, former PM and opposition leader Khaleda Zia and many other dignitaries.

PM Hasina reciprocated Prime Minister Modi’s state visit. She has visited India five times since 2015. She got a warm reception – whenever she arrived in India. She attended the BRICS-BIMSTEC Goa summit in October 2016. A year later, Delhi hosted Prime Minister Hasina and extended an additional $4.5 billion third LoC support to Bangladesh in 2017, following China’s $24 billion LoC assistance. She came to West Bengal on a two-day official visit at Modi’s invitation in 2018. Hasina and Modi inaugurated the Bangladesh Bhavan, a Rs. 25 crore project of Bangladesh, at Shantiniketan in West Bengal. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had a tête-à-têtewith her. Kazi Nazrul University in West Bengal conferred an honorary D.Litt. degree on PM Hasina.

External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj,her deputy VK Singh, Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Commerce minister Suresh Prabhu and other heavy weight leaders travelled to Bangladesh and announced many initiatives. President Md. Abdul Hamid,Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali, the then foreign minister of Bangladesh, visited India and made important announcements.

Trade

India surrounds Bangladesh on three sides plus there is a long maritime border. The two countries are connected through all modes of transport – land, air and waterways. The connectivity and transport facilities have propelled the growth of bilateral trade. Trade is the main driver of Dhaka’s foreign policy dynamics. The two burgeoning economies have fulfilled each other’s’ commercial requirements and ultimately become trade partners. The nation of 170 million is the largest regional trading partner of India. The trade between the two neighbours crossed $9.3 billion mark in 2017-18 financial year[ii]. Under the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) agreement, India allows duty and quota free entry to most of the Bangladeshi goods.

Bangladesh is the second largest garments exporter after China. India traditionally imports raw jute and jute products, apparels, hosiery products, knitwear, leather shoes, fruit juices, jams and pickles, fish from Bangladesh. In the last five years, trade between Bangladesh and India has soared. Informal and illegal cross-border trades remain unaccounted.  In spite of the security checkups, border patrolling and hi-tech surveillance of Border Security Force (BSF) and Border Guards Bangladesh (BGB), smugglers are expanding their empire.

The smuggling of fake Indian currency, cattle, gold, cough syrup and other goods has reduced in recent years – especially after Hasina and Modi’s arrival in power. Border-haats are set up in Tripura and Meghalaya to promote local businesses. The Economic Times reports, “The inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) to the country has almost tripled during ruling Awami League’s nine years in office under Hasina.”[iii]

PM Hasina accompanied a business delegation, during her India visit in 2017. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FBCCI), the two industrial ombudsmen of India and Bangladesh raised a six-point agenda to boost bilateral business ties as well as investment. They proposed to set up a Joint Task Force on Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers and a Joint Task Force to promote business and investments in several sectors of Bangladesh. India-Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry was formed to boost the bilateral trade.

India’s newly implemented unified tax system GST has benefited the Bangladeshi entrepreneurs. Indian enterprises relish the taste of success in several business sectors in Bangladesh. Indian and Bangladeshi Inc inked a deal worth $9 billion to invest in Bangladesh. Reliance Power signed a deal worth $1billion with Bangladesh’s Ministry of power, energy and mineral Resources for the first phase of the 3000 MW power project at Meghnaghat in Bangladesh. Energy behemoth Adani Power signed an agreement worth $2 billion to supply 1600 MW of power from its Jharkhand plant to Bangladesh[iv]. Big Indian enterprises like Indian Oil Corporation, ONGC Videsh, Numaligarh Refinery Limited, Petronet LNG Ltd have significant presence in the oil and gas sector of Bangladesh.

Defence Diplomacy

Bangladesh is a success saga of defence. Mukti Bahini, with the help of Indian forces, heralded a new era in 1971. Bangladesh still expresses her gratitude to India for her liberation. During her 2017 India visit, PM Sheikh Hasina met with the families of seven Indian soldiers who died in the 1971 Liberation War. A cheque of Rs 5 lakh

Bangladesh and India, both are victims of terrorism. The two nations have not come out of the shock of deadly attacks on them. There are similarities between the attacks in Mumbai and Artisan bakery in Gulshan, Dhaka’s diplomatic enclave.

Modi and Hasina government have come forward to fight terrorism. The two leaders are hailed for remarkable success in strategic co-operation. The AwamiLeague government has been assisting India to crack down on northeastern militants. In recent years, India’s defence relation with Bangladesh is not competitive. The two defence forces co-operate and collaborate each other even though there are serious allegations against B[v]. During Awami League’s tenure, Bangladesh has shown a genuine concern for regional security. BGB (erstwhile BDR), Bangladesh Police, and Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) took several initiatives to curb terrorism, illegal trades and smuggling. BGB catches up with BSF, conduct flag meetings – whenever the situation demands. Policing the border is now easier through direct engagement of BGB and BSF.

India has provided expert training, technical and logistic support to Bangladesh defence forces. In a friendly gesture, Indian Air Force aircraft airlifted 25 Bangladesh Army officers and their spouses from Dhaka to New Delhi in 2018. A coordinated patrol (IN-BN CORPATby two naval forces was kicked off in last year. Indian forces reached Bangladesh with aids during severe natural disasters. Indian Navy’s rescue operation in 2017 after the cyclone Mora is the most recent example. Apart from BSF and BGB meetings, the forces of both the countries exchange communications and participate in tactical drills. Hosted alternately by the two countries, Exercise Sampriti is an important bilateral defence cooperation. The last edition of Sampriti was held in March 2019. The 36 East Bengal Battalion of Bangladesh and 9th Battalion of the Rajputana Rifles took part in the round held at Tangail, Bangladesh. The two countries have huge contributions in UN Peacekeeping operations.

Two agreements were signed in 2017 on co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and cooperation in the regulation of nuclear safety – during PM Hasina’s stay. Besides, an inter agency agreement was signed between the Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership of India and Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission. India’s Defence Services Staff College and Defence Services Command and Staff College of Bangladesh signed an MoU. An agreement was signed between the National Defence College of Bangladesh and India’s National Defence College. Prime Minister Modi extended a separate LoC support of $500 million to Bangladesh for purchasing defence hardware while Hasina was in India on a state visit in April, 2017.[vi]

Most recently, in March 2019, in a video-conference with PM Modi, Hasina condemned Pulwama terror attack and clearly stated about her government’s zero tolerance policy against terrorism. In the video-conference, she also asserted that Indo-Bangladesh relations have now become “a role model of good neighbourliness for the rest of the world.”

Diplomatic Outreach

The two nations have engineered give-and-take diplomacy. Dhaka’s “friendship to all, malice to none,” policy goes well with the South Block doctrine. Even though, BJP’s parliamentary victory was a matter of concern for the Islamic Republic, the two governments shook hands and became friends.

Modi government has taken a few remarkable initiatives to please Dhaka. A road in Delhi has been named after Bangabandhu. A Hindi edition of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s autobiography was released during Hasina’s state visit.[vii] A biopic of Bangabandhu, jointly produced by two countries, will be out by 2021. Several services have been started to tribute the Muktijoddhas such as five-year multiple entry visa for all Muktijoddhas and free of cost treatment for them.

India is literally empowering her partner Bangladesh. In addition to other aids under the ITEC programme, India is supplying 1.16 gigawatts of power to Bangladesh. The construction of India-Bangladesh Friendship Pipeline from Siliguri to Parbatipur is funded by India. India has contributed in road, water and railway construction, connectivity and other areas in Bangladesh. In the last seven years, Bangladesh has received three LoCs worth $8 billion from the Indian Government.

A Hindi chair was set-up in Dhaka University in January, 2017[viii]. ICCR is the bridge between two societies. India’s Yoga-diplomacy is drawing good responses from Bangladesh.More and more visas are being issued by both the governments. More patients from Bangladesh are now coming to Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and Bangalore for treatment. While in Dhaka in 2018, Rajnath Singh and his Bangladeshi counterpart Asaduzzaman Khan Kama inaugurated world’s largest Visa Application Center.[ix] In Chennai, Bangladesh is opening her sixth diplomatic mission in India. The workers, toiling in India, hugely contribute to the economy of Bangladesh. Bangladesh receives almost half amount of its total remittances from her workers in India. Indian workers on the other side remit million rupees from Bangladesh.

Like their citizens, the two states have great affection for each other. Bangladesh boycotted the 19^th SAARC summit to protest Pakistan. Dhaka stood by India’s side in most of the cases – but the Sinophobia is irritating New Delhi. After Xi Jingping’s historic Bangladesh visit, Beijing has come closer to Dhaka. China is now a strategic partner and largest arm supplier of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is also the second largest destination for Chinese investment under the Belt and Road Initiative.

If the relation between the two governments deteriorates, the brotherhood of Islamic and separatist terror outfits will be stronger. Without Dhaka’s support, it will be very difficult for Delhi to defeat the insurgents and militants. On the other hand, Bangladesh is a den to ferocious species like Al-Qaeda,Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh (HUJI-B). The ISIS footprint in Bangladesh, terrifies all the South Asian states. After the Artisan attack, Pulwama terror attack and most recent carnage in Sri Lanka, South Asia should take the emerging security threats seriously.

India’s internal policy immensely affects Bangladesh. What happens in Bangladesh, impacts on her external relations. While the daughter of democracy at the helm of political affairs, critics say, the political plurality of Bangladesh is under threat. Religious minorities, freethinkers, activists and ahamadias are living in a dystopian democracy. Some Bangladeshis are relinquishing their nationalities and migrating to India and other countries.

On the other hand, New Delhi’s announcement of deporting infiltrators irked Dhaka. Teesta pact is not resolved yet as West Bengal Chief Minister vetoed. A dry and downstream Teesta affects nearly 21 million people in Bangladesh. There’s not adequate water in Teesta. If Bengal agrees to share Teesta water, people in West Bengal’s Teesta basin will suffer. While commenting on this PM Haisina said, “We sought water, but Didi (Banerjee) has given us electricity. However, we have got something.”

CM Banerjee has proposed of sharing water of Teesta’s cousin Torsa, Sankosh and Raidak. But it does not appear to be feasible. Dhaka has pulled off the proposal.A river can’t disobey the flow of politics. A river goes where the current takes her along. But in geo-politics, a set of interests leads a friendship. The two states have to ensure that their friendship continues to flow like a river.Politics not always stops at water’s edge!

(Ayanangsha Maitra is a freelance journalist, tweets @AyanangshaViews expressed are personal.)

[i] The Hindu, April 7, 2017 https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/friendship-is-a-flowing-river/article17854490.ece

[ii] India proposes free trade agreement with Bangladesh, The Economic Times, Sep 26, 2018,

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/india-proposes-free-trade-agreement-with-bangladesh/articleshow/65965232.cms

[iii] Bangladesh seeks wider investments from India, The Economic Times, September 26, 2018

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/bangladesh-seeks-wider-investments-from-india/articleshow/65816460.cms?from=mdr

[iv] Bangladesh, India sign finance deal for Rampal plant, Dhaka Tribune, April 12, 2017

https://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2017/04/12/bangladesh-india-sign-finance-deal-rampal-plant/

[v] Why border killing has not stopped, Dhaka Tribune, Dec 27, 2017

https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2017/12/27/border-killing-not-stopped

[vi] List of Agreements/MoUs exchanged during the State Visit of Prime Minister of Bangladesh to India (April 07-10, 2017)

https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/28360/List_of_AgreementsMoUs_exchanged_during_the_State_Visit_of_PrimeMinister_of_Bangladesh_to_India_April_0710_2017

[vii] Bengali News Article, Daily ProthomAlo, April 8, 2017

https://www.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/article/1138351

[viii] Bengali News Article, Banglanews24, Jan 10, 2017

https://www.banglanews24.com/education/news/bd/546540.details

On 10 March 2019, India’s Chief Election Commissioner Sunil Arora announced the much awaited poll dates for elections to the 17th Lok Sabha, in seven phases from 11 April to 19 May. With this, the model code of conduct came into force and the biggest democratic exercise of the world was set in motion. Over the next few weeks, India will see the setting up of over one million polling stations, to enable over 800 million voters to cast their vote to elect the next government. Electronic voting machines will be used in all the polling booths, each of which will have a voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) to obviate charges of rigging. More than 8,000 contestants will fight for 543 seats. An estimated 1,841 political parties recognised by the Election Commission will contest the polls, which are estimated to cost an unprecedented Rs 500 billion (approx. USD 7 billion, as per estimates of the Centre for Media Studies, New Delhi). Democracy, obviously, does not come cheap.

But this election is more than a matter of mere statistics. In many ways, Election 2019 will be the most defining election for India since the country achieved Independence in 1947. This is an election which will set the course for what India chooses to be. Will the ancient wounded civilisation, colonised and vandalised for over a millennia, seek to rediscover itself and embrace its heritage? After all, India is perhaps the only civilisation that has survived the ravages of time. Or will India continue to be in a state of denial about its true potential, and remain unmindful of its rich heritage, ethos and culture? Election 2019 will determine that too. It is therefore, more than a matter of merely electing its representatives. It is a battle for the Soul of India.

To understand this stream of thought, let us go back in time, first to the early years of the 19th Century and then further back to Indian history dating back 1300 years. It would be interesting to first course through the account of Lt Col James Todd, an officer in the East India Company and the celebrated author of ‘Annals of Rajasthan’. James Todd was born on 20 March 1782 in Islington, London, and died aged 53 on 18 November 1835. When he returned to England, his main job was to advise the Board of Directors of the East India Company on matters concerning India. At that point of time, there was a group of very influential people, including the Governor General of India, Lord William Bentinck who wanted to wipe out all traces of Indian civilisation, which they considered as barbaric. This group was opposed by Col Todd and his friend William Jones Prinseps and also by others at the Asiatic Society who were not only aware of India’s civilisational heritage but were also strong promoters of it. They considered India to be the original source of all knowledge, languages and philosophy of all Europe, and preserving of such a  heritage to be in the best interests of not just India, but also for the rest of the world.

The British Parliament consequently held hearings to determine the future course of action by the British Government and the British East India Company. Todd gave sage advice about the wisdom of preserving Indian heritage and allowing local rulers to govern their kingdoms with minimal interference. On the other hand, James Mills, author of History of British India, espoused the cause of proselytisation, and pitched for the whole of India to be taken over by the East India Company, the population converted and put to work as semi-slaves for England and John Company. In his arguments he said: “The entire population should be subdued and cowed. Their role was to be passive and obedient…we take all military power in our hands. Now it is considered what military power implies; that is, in truth, the whole power; the company must get rid of the abomination of indirect rule…” Mills further urged that panopticons be established all over the country. Panopticon is a modern prison system where people are kept under surveillance and control! Finally he said that he found all of Todd’s reasoning in favour of Indians absurd and irrational. “Nothing is more ridiculous” he told the Parliamentary Committee.

The British Parliament went with the arguments put forward by Mills, and that became the policy for the East India Company. It however led to disaffection amongst the Indian population, resulting in the First War of Independence in 1857. Fortuitously for the British, the Crimean War had just ended a year earlier and that enabled them to bring more troops to India to restore the situation, albeit with the help of some turncoats. But the British government had learned its lesson. The British Parliament withdrew the right of the British East India Company to rule India in November 1858 and India came directly under the Crown, through its representative called the Governor General. But the cultural invasion continued, albeit with a greater degree of sophistication and finesse, the impact of which is still seen, seven decades after Independence. The heirs of Macaulay and Mills tragically continue to live in our midst, and their narrative forms the dominant discourse in the country.

Now let us go back in time to the eighth century CE, when the Arab hordes began invading India. In 712 CE, Mohammed bin Qasim, invaded Sindh, defeating the local ruler Raja Dahir. The Raja died on the battlefield for his people, his daughters were taken as sex slaves for the Umayyad rulers and the land was pillaged and plundered. Despite that, it is Qasim who he is revered today in Pakistan as the first Pakistani and the Raja, who fought for the honour of his people lies forgotten. This is a classic example of one culture subsuming another. The Arab hordes, whenever they plundered the Indian land mass, desecrated the temples, killed the priests and destroyed all institutions of learning. Nalanda is witness to what such destruction entails as are the thousands of ransacked temples and monuments all across India.  That the Indian civilisational structure survived is testimony to its strength and vibrancy. But a thousand plus years of subjugation has dented the psyche of a proud people, many of whom now suffer from the Stockholm syndrome and seek to justify the acts of the perpetrators of violence, as being the customs of those times. India has shed its chains which physically kept the country under subjugation, but the mental chains still hold us captive. These need to be broken as the spirit of India seeks rejuvenation.

This is the battle which now confronts India, as the people go forth to cast their ballots. What is the India we want? And whose idea of India shall prevail. For the first time since Independence, there is a real choice available to the people, with two competing ideologies battling for the soul of India. The elections of 2014 were fought on the plank of rooting out corruption, which had taken a form so venomous and brazen that its perpetrators would openly boast of their misdeeds and flaunt their ill gotten gains. But 2019 is a different matter. The issues are not just about development, jobs and good governance, but also about how we look at ourselves and at our history. Should India be held hostage to ideologies that seek to demean our culture, our heritage and our very way of life? Or should we reclaim with pride the ethos and spirit of a proud people, whose land was pillaged for a thousand years but whose spirit could not be subjugated. The process of rejuvenating the Indian mind began in 2014 and has gone a short distance, but the journey is long and would require to be sustained if we truly wish to unshackle our minds. This too, is what election 2019 is about.

Election 2019 is thus a challenge to the ideologues who deny the very existence of Lord Rama and question his birthplace. The Ram Temple issue at Ayodhya is not just about building a temple, which in any case can be built anywhere. It is about respecting a long held and sacred belief, which transcends religious barriers and which rightly, should not have been disputed in the very first place. It is a challenge to the ideologues who had control of the education system and who used their time in power to corrupt and distort our history. It is a challenge to those who still occupy high positions in India and who with shameless abandon, slipped into the shoes of the British and continued the legacy of Macaulay and his ilk. It is a challenge to the corrupt who so easily looted the land and pillaged it at will. And as many of these ideologues still continue to occupy positions of power and pelf, whether in India’s bureaucracy, the media, the corporate sector, the social circles and even in the  political space, they will resist with all their might and all the cunningness at their disposal, the emergence of alternate ideas which can derail the gravy train that they have fed upon these last seven decades and who have desecrated this sacred land and impoverished its people.

Election 2019 is thus also about reclaiming our heritage, our culture, and our history. It is about acceptance of the good in our scriptures, our traditions and our way of life and embracing our heritage in full measure and with pride. That is why, Election 2019 is not just about electing the lawmakers to the 17th Lok Sabha. It is, in a very true sense, a battle for the soul of India.

(Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch is a Director of India Foundation. Views expresssssed are personal.)

The recent rapid growth of the economy has positioned India more seriously than ever as a major power in world politics, and it is often paired with China as part of the vibrant rise of Asia. But how should India understand and invest in its growing power?

Traditionally, power in world politics was seen in terms of military power. The side with the larger army was likely to win. But even in the past, such a view underestimated the non-tangible aspects of power. And that is more important than ever in the information age. While military power remains important, it does not produce power on the Internet or in dealing with climate change or financial instability. Judging power is more complex than it first appears.

Simply put, power is the ability to alter the behavior of others to get what you want, and there are basically three ways to do that: coercion (sticks), payments (carrots) and attraction (soft power). If you are able to attract others, you can economize on the sticks and carrots. Of course, drinking coke or watching a Bollywood film does not automatically convey power for the United States or India. Whether the possession of soft power resources actually produces favorable outcomes depends upon the context. This is not unique to soft power. It is true of hard power as well. Having a larger tank army may produce military victory if a battle is fought in the desert, but not if it is fought in a swamp.

The soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).  Soft power depends upon attraction, and this can vary among countries, groups and generations. For example, America’s culture produces soft power among some young people, but not others. Similarly, Indian films produce attraction among some viewers more than others.

Economic resources can produce both hard and soft power behavior. A vibrant economy like that of China or India produces a capacity for hard coercion or payments, but a successful economy is also an important source of soft attraction. Sometimes in today’s world, it is difficult to distinguish what part of an economic relationship is comprised of hard and soft power. For example, China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” (BRI) produces both, but the harsher the terms of loans, employment and control in a country, the less soft power the BRI produces in that country.

Because soft power has appeared as an alternative to raw power politics, it is often embraced by ethically-minded scholars and policymakers. But like any form of power, it can be wielded for good or bad purposes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and bin Laden all possessed a great deal of soft power in the eyes of their acolytes, but that did not make it good. It is not necessarily better to twist minds than to twist arms. We often judge ethics on the three dimensions of  motives, means and consequences. Fortunately, while soft power can be used with bad intentions and wreak horrible consequences, it does differ in terms of means because it depends upon the attraction of the subject. Contrast the consequences of Gandhi’s choice of soft power with Yasser Arafat’s choice of the gun. Gandhi was able to attract moderate majorities in Britain to favor India’s independence, and the consequences were impressive both in effectiveness and in ethical terms. He left an important legacy for India’s soft power. In contrast, Arafat’s strategy of hard power, particularly in the second intifada, undercut Israeli moderates and drove politics into the arms of the hard right. The unfortunate consequences persist to this day.

Military force remains crucial in world politics for deterrence and defense. But military resources can also contribute to soft power. A well run military can be a source of attraction, and military to military cooperation and training programs, for example, can establish transnational networks that enhance a country’s soft power. The skills and professionalism of its military is an important source of both hard and soft power for India. The impressive cooperation of the Indian and American militaries in providing humanitarian relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 enhanced the soft power of both countries. Such exercises continue.

On the other hand, misuse of military resources can undercut soft power. The Soviet Union’s resistance to Hitler produced a great deal of soft power for it in the years after World War II, but the Soviets destroyed it by the brutal way it used its hard power against Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. The US similarly damaged its soft power by wars in Vietnam and Iraq. Brutality and indifference to just war principles of discrimination and proportionality can destroy legitimacy. The efficiency of the initial American military invasion of Iraq in 2003 created admiration in the eyes of some foreigners, but that soft power was undercut by the subsequent inefficiency of the occupation and the scenes of mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. How India responds to jihadist terrorism will affect India’s soft power.

There is very little likelihood that the United States, India or other democracies can attract jihadist terrorists. India suffered terribly in the Mumbai attacks. We need hard power to deal with such hard cases. But the current terrorist threat is not Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilizations. It is a civil war within Islam between a mainstream majority and a small minority such as the Islamic State who want to coerce others into their simplified and ideologized version of Islam. Neither India nor the United States can win this struggle unless the mainstream Muslims win. That is impossible without soft power, and we cannot win hearts and minds without it. Soft power is more relevant than ever.

Looking ahead, China and India are the looming giants of Asia, with their huge populations and rapid economic growth rates. Not only are their hard power resources growing, but both countries have attractive traditional cultures. In 2007, President Hu Jintao told the 17th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party that it needed to invest in soft power and President Xi Jinping has continued that line. China has invested in Confucius institutes to promote Chinese culture, and it is promoting its film industry, but Bollywood produces more movies every year than China – or Hollywood for that matter. Indian writers reach large audiences overseas. Large expatriate communities in the United States have increased interest in their home countries in America as well as in Europe. Moreover, the transnational connections in the information industry are close, as high-tech companies increasingly employ affiliates in Bangalore and Silicon Valley.

The real soft power promise for China and India still lies in the future. A country’s soft power rests upon the attractiveness of its culture, the attraction of its domestic political and social values, and the style and substance of its foreign policies. In recent years, both China and India have adopted foreign policies that have increased their attraction to others. But as the Soft Power 30 Index produced by the London consultancy Portland shows that neither country yet ranks as high on the various indices of potential soft power resources as the U.S., Europe and Japan. Polls show that this remains true despite the damage that President Trump’s policies have done to American soft power. Fortunately, much of the soft power is produced by civil society, not government. That helps to explain how American soft power recovered after Vietnam, and will probably do so again after the Trump years. While culture provides some soft power, domestic policies and values set limits, particularly in China, where the Communist Party fears allowing too much intellectual freedom, censors the internet, and resists outside influences.

This is where India possesses an advantage. China has grown more rapidly and done more to reduce poverty over the past two decades, and should be applauded for that, but China has not yet come to terms with the problem of increased political participation and recent events seem to be going in the wrong direction. India was fortunate to be born with a democratic constitution and political structure. This means that it has already passed a test that China still faces in the future, and that makes India a source of attraction to other countries. Of course, India still faces daunting challenges of poverty, unequal treatment of women, inequality tied to a caste system, and corruption and inefficiency in the provision of public services. But India is also changing and adapting within a broad democratic framework, and many foreigners find that attractive. Despite its many problems, it is a safe bet that India’s hard and soft power are both likely to increase in the coming decades. If India can combine the two successfully, it will be a “smart power.”

Fortunately, soft power does not have to be zero sum. If we wish to avoid conflict, we can all benefit if the attraction of another country rises in our own country. Similarly, given the rise of new transnational challenges like climate change, financial stability, pandemics, and terrorism which no one country can solve by itself, increases in soft power can pave the way for the cooperation the world will need to meet such problems. Fortunately, soft power can be part of a vision which understands the importance of power with others rather than merely over others. India can help lead the way.

(Prof. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is a professor emeritus at Harvard University, a former assistant secretary of

defense, and author of ‘Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics’.)

(This article is carried in the print edition of March-April 2019 issue of India Foundation Journal.)