In less than two weeks, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina will visit Delhi at the invitation of her Indian counterpart Narendra Modi, a much looked-forward-to visit that had been postponed twice.
Speculations are rife in the media about possible agreements between the two countries, well ahead of the visit, that cover all plausible areas, ranging from security and border management, to trade, transit, power, energy, and water.
According to a Times of India report earlier this month, this visit is expected to raise Indo-Bangladesh relations to the “next level.”
Given the already public perception of a close relationship between Bangladesh and India, one wonders what the “next level” would take our relationship to. Does this mean that this impending visit will lead to solution of all our bilateral problems? Does this mean Bangladesh will get preferential treatment from India in all aspects of its relationship?
The hype cannot be overstated. But we should frame our expectations against hard realities and our experience in the past from such high-level visits.
There were wild speculations during Modi’s visit to Bangladesh in 2015 over likely agreements in a variety of subjects, including land boundary, transit, trade, and, most importantly, sharing Teesta waters.
The visit began and ended with much fanfare and Modi wowed our public with his inimitable oratory. But in the end, the most significant outcome was the conclusion of the languishing agreement on the exchange of enclaves.
The transit agreement was kept in abeyance because of a lack of agreement on Teesta waters in the immediate future. This is why Sheikh Hasina’s visit raises a lot of hope, as it revives the prospect of solutions to many of the unresolved issues between the two neighbours, perhaps more for Bangladesh than India.
The visit takes place nearly two years after Modi’s visit to Bangladesh. Even though two years is a tiny part in the 46 years of our bilateral relationship, much has changed -- both in India and world politics.
Two years ago, Modi was heading a fledgling government that had the twin tasks of winning the confidence of a divided nation and that of the neighbours who eyed the new rightist government with sceptical eyes.
Modi was a provincial leader who had built his base on right-wing populist ideologies that seemed to disregard the secular traditions of his country and encouraged the growth of religious forces in politics. But his meteoric rise in national politics in a few short years surprised not only his opponents but the world at large. Defying all predictions, he became the prime minister of India, outgrowing his provincial image.
Modi has come a long way since. He has consolidated his position within the party and within the country. His party’s dominance in recent state elections, most spectacularly in UP, is proof of this consolidation. Modi is stronger politically than he was before.
Internationally, Modi has made his mark as an adroit negotiator. He has successfully maintained a relationship with China despite tensions in the north-east. He has kept the traditional Indo-Russian relationship warm without endangering India’s increasingly close ties with the US. While keeping China at bay, he is deftly courting US President Trump even though Trump remains untested as a reliable ally.
When Sheikh Hasina visits India in April, she will meet a counterpart who has grown more comfortable in his position as leader of a country that is not only most powerful in the region, but is aspiring to be a leader among the emerging economies of Asia, both economically and politically.
This is not just a friendly visit, but one where Bangladesh expects much.
Bangladesh has a host of bilateral issues with this powerful country -- none of which can be resolved without India’s active support and willingness.
As a pragmatic leader, it will also be in Modi’s interest to continue to have Bangladesh on India’s side in its foreign relations. To that end, Modi will endeavour to resolve as many outstanding issues, but also ensure that Bangladesh mitigates India’s many security concerns.
Chief among the concerns are dangers posed by growing religious militancy in Bangladesh that shows a foreign nexus, cross-border terrorism, and illegal migration. These concerns may prompt India to have a more binding security agreement with Bangladesh that encompasses some of these concerns.
This is not just a friendly visit, but one where Bangladesh expects much
The paradox of Indo-Bangladesh ties is that, despite a fairly harmonious relationship that dates from the birth of Bangladesh, questions have often been raised on the costs and mutual benefits the two countries have derived over this long period.
Certain quarters in India are questioning whether their nation has unwittingly created a third threat on its borders, and a burden on its economy, when it helped Bangladesh in its Independence War.
In Bangladesh, the question is whether Bangladesh swapped one economic domination for another when it gained its independence?
Did India ever visualise that it would have to build hundreds of miles of barbed wire fencing along its border with Bangladesh to stop illegal crossing, when four decades ago, it had welcomed a sea of refugees into India?
Did Bangladesh know that the alliance and friendship of 1971 would be replaced by a lack of trust and suspicion?
Our PM has her work cut out for her. The list of unresolved problems with India, and those that are new and evolving, cannot be solved in one visit.
However, what is doable is the reaffirmation of trust through agreements that bring mutual benefits to both countries.
The agreement on Teesta waters may not happen this time as well -- at least not without West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s nod -- but other agreements on trade and transit, travel, and perhaps security are likelier.
We will welcome these agreements as long as these are transparent and shown as beneficial to the people of both countries.
Politics is an important part of bilateral relationship -- we cannot ignore that. No country would like to appear as appeasing a foreign country by foregoing its own interests. No deal should be shown as a sacrifice.
“Quid pro quo” is the principle that guides a bilateral deal.
Ziauddin Choudhury has worked in the higher civil service of Bangladesh early in his career, and later for the World Bank in the US.