It Ain't Bangladesh-India Relation, It's Between Awami League And India

India's political influence in Bangladeshi politics and administration, may not be like the Israel lobby issues in United States, but is not a very expedient topic however. Characteristically the two kinds of 'issues' in two countries might have some...

India's political influence in Bangladeshi politics and administration, may not be like the Israel lobby issues in United States, but is not a very expedient topic however. Characteristically the two kinds of 'issues' in two countries might have some similarities, not to be surprised if one finds it in the influence on the media.



Any discussion in Bangladesh associating India politically begins being polarized, naturally associating Awami League, India's traditional 'ally'. I was going through the pile of media reports, analysis and opinions on Manmohan's visit. Many times, both in Bangla and English, I had to come by terms like 'traditional relation', 'historical tie' etc., off course between India and Awami League. Yes, it is established.



But what tie? Who the tie is between?
Unfortunately it is between India as a state and Awami League as a party. What happened and what did not happen amid Indian premier's recent trip, could be different if it were strictly between Bangladesh and India. What unearthed after a could-be-landmark Manmohan trip, it appears that this foreign state-party relation is what is in action.



The ultimate outcome of the recent progresses of Bangladesh-India relation is that Bangladesh does not have an assurance on the water sharing deal, but its Prime Minister has signed a framework deal on TRANSIT, where she said Bangladesh agrees that the deal would be signed someday.



If a future Bangladeshi head of state or government states that he or she does not agree to allow a transit for India, it very substantially will become a subject to the international judicial procedure, if the other side accuses the state of Bangladesh of breaking the words once her Prime Minister gave.



Not a lot of us watched the last instalment of James Bond movie series, or a lot did. The movie depicts British intelligence service MI6 to trail an organization which was going to manipulate a fragile South American regime to get a large part of a desert for their pseudo search of oil. It was assured that the desert had been combed repeatedly but no oil was found. The organization said it would find 'something'.



At the end of the movie, it appeared that the organization took over the land because it had a huge reserve of water underneath it. Yes, water! Water is the blue gold of 21st century. The country Quantum of Solace showed was Bolivia, which is one of the endangered countries in short of water.



Bolivia does not have adequate water so it is in crisis. On other hand Bangladesh DOES HAVE WATER, still we are in crisis because WR ARE FAILING TO GET OUR PROPER SHARE!



The political sentience as well as the thought process of a responsible citizen is the blend of his political belief and the practical sense of his country's interest with respect to the geopolitical realities. Such a citizen in Bangladesh should not be able to deny that Bangladesh indeed needs a workably long-lasting relation with India.



As the largest democratic nation of the world, whose voters outnumber those in total of at least a hundred other nations, cannot get anything just relying on a puppet regime running its strategically important neighbour. Recent events might have no example to teach this, but the history of the world politics does not back their theory of dominance.



Bangladesh and India have to have a bilateral relation where both the countries' governments need to have respect to the other's concerns. China has Pakistan so India needs Bangladesh- it has to be forgotten because India never has Bangladesh until the Bangladeshis willingly sustain it.