—Mahfuzur Rahman—

Each year, India observes its Republic Day on 26 January. It is the day that commemorates the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of India, which came into effect on 26 January 1950. I have learnt that during these 75 years, the Constitution has been amended 106 times. 75 years is quite a significant time for a republic. If we consider another 25 years, i.e., 100 years of the Republic of India, I would be interested to see where India will stand in 2050. According to a popular notion, India’s economy will then surpass the US economy, and India will then be the second-largest economy in the world after China. Furthermore, it is another estimate that India’s per capita income will be above US$20,000, which would mark it as a developed country. However, there are more ifs and buts and pros and cons beyond the simple prediction, and therefore, it is really a matter of study to see where exactly India may stand in 2050. It may happen that, with the largest or second-largest economy in the world, India may still remain a vulnerable country. Or it could be that, along with India, regional economic integration could also ensure prosperity for the region.

While contemplating these possibilities, the foreign policy of India, especially its policy towards the region, kept running through my mind. In the previous weeks, I wrote several pieces on similar subjects. However, the response that I received to those articles has made it necessary to write about some fundamental issues of foreign policy.

Anti-India sentiment is strong among those who are more politically active in Bangladesh now. Perhaps, they are in favour of maintaining the anti-India trend in foreign policy as well. It may happen that the foreign policy of an independent and sovereign country is hostile to another specific country. In fact, to a large extent, this was the case during the Cold War period. This is not the case for Bangladesh. The constitution spells out what Bangladesh’s foreign policy will be. It does not endorse any policy that is directed against a specific country. Rather, it advocates for the principles of respect for national sovereignty and equality, peaceful settlement of disputes and the renunciation of the use of force.

If we are to apply this principle to Bangladesh-India bilateral relations, we must avoid childishness like provocation or war madness. We must try to resolve any outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. However, in recent times, those active in politics in Bangladesh have been raising their voices for respecting sovereignty and determining relations on the basis of equality, which is actually the essence of the Constitution.

Now, let us look at what exactly the foreign policy is. It is the sum of actions and behaviours that a state pursues in its relations with other states. One of my friends was criticising me that instead of advocating for self-reliance, I am preaching interdependence. I could not tell him that foreign policy can be hard or soft; it can be idealist or pragmatic. The foreign policy can be liberal or conservative. It can be dynamic or aggressive, but it cannot be termed or remain self-reliant. Is foreign policy interdependent? Of course, it is. It may change its course frequently when external forces and factors change their positions.

During the Cold War era, many countries had put efforts into following a sort of self-reliance policy. India, Brazil, Sri Lanka – the examples are many. Instead of trade, they had adopted an import-substitution policy. I often call it communist-influenced policy. Although the exploitation, oppression and injustice of the Pakistani regime were criticised, Bangladesh was very fortunate that Pakistan joined the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) on time. This legacy of Pakistan had proved a blessing for Bangladesh, because it helped Bangladesh to become a member of the World Trade Organisation since its inception. In my observation, although Bangladesh followed a somewhat ideological path in its foreign policy for a few years immediately after its independence, it quickly chose a pragmatic path and prioritised its own interests. Even in the very initial ideological days, Bangladesh did not completely abandon its own interests. Joining the Commonwealth, the Non-Aligned Movement, or the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is direct proof of this. I can prove that during the previous government’s tenure, when Bangladesh was criticised for its knee-jerk foreign policy, Bangladesh actually followed a pragmatic path.

Is there a country that follows self-reliance in its foreign policy? Maybe, yes. North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar, and even Venezuela till the abduction of its leader, Maduro – the examples are a few. I am sure my friend will not be happy to position Bangladesh in that bracket.

When Khaleda Zia formed the government for the second term, the BNP’s junior partner in the government was Jamaat-e-Islami. It was the time when, after the 9/11 incident, the United States gradually started following a hardline foreign policy. Muslim-majority countries fell victim to its horror. Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan – the United States continued to impose its aggressive policy everywhere. In the name of eradicating terrorism, the United States declared war on terrorism. Behind this lies the desire to spread exclusive influence in Muslim-majority countries and to control the geopolitics. The right-wing government in Bangladesh, along with its Islamic partner, began to realise this hostility. Who can say that 1/11 did not come just like that? The external factors played a crucial role there. The new government quickly signed an anti-terrorism agreement with India. My friends will remind me that quinine may cure a disease, but it is difficult to cure quinine. The story needs to end here. Following the tradition of state protocol, I greet the people of India on its Republic Day. In 2050, I want to see a celebration of achievement across South Asia.

—————————————————-

The writer is a former Bangladeshi Ambassador