This story first appeared in National Herald

With the BJP contesting all 60 seats for the first time, TMC trying hard to make inroads and the ruling NPP determined to retain power, it’s difficult to hazard a guess about poll outcome in Meghalaya

There is something very civilised in the way Meghalaya has been preparing for assembly elections on February 27. There were no ugly posters defacing walls, the decibel levels in election speeches were low and candidates went about quietly to file their nomination, mindful that they should not add to Shillong’s bad traffic jams with a circus.

In a state with a strong choral music tradition, innovative jingles and well-sung musical messages on FM radio are heard more closely than loud political speeches.

These democratic best practices were again on display when, in what can be best described as a town hall meet, leaders of eight political parties and combines converged at Shillong’s Synod College and outlined their political agenda for these elections.

It was ironic that the ruling National People’s Party (NPP) went unrepresented and, deliberately or otherwise, missed taking questions from voters, many of them young and students; but every other party, including the Congress, TMC and BJP, KAM Meghalaya, VPP (Voice of People’s Party), PDF, HSPDP, and UDP, was represented. The interaction saw eight leaders and party spokespersons highlight their priorities for the state.

Manuel Badwar, the Congress candidate from East Shillong, said his party was focused on how to improve the state’s education system and proposed to set up community colleges for students who couldn’t afford normal colleges and also to establish a state university. Badwar said, with education would come employability.

“Online sales portals like Amazon bring in trucks of goods from outside the state but go back carrying nothing. Meghalaya can create a marketing hub and delivery centre for regional products, creating employment opportunities for the youth,” he added hopefully.

Jairam Ramesh of the Congress called Mukul Sangma, former Congress leader who defected to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in November last year, as ‘Judas’. The analogy had resonance in the Christian majority state, but Patricia Mukhim, Editor of the Shillong Times, felt it was an unfair portrayal because the party also needed to introspect on just why Mukul Sangma, who was Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly, felt compelled to leave the party.

Although it could not form the government, Congress had emerged as the single largest party in the last election with 21 MLAs, all of whom have now left the party, most of them moving to Mamata Banerjee’s TMC. The party ‘high command’s’ decision to bring in Vincent Pala, the three– term MP from Shillong, to head the state unit, was apparently the main provocation.

Pala, from a wealthy coal-mining family, has the been valiantly carrying the party flag and, while admitting the party has faced “setbacks,” swiftly named all 60 candidates and has been campaigning hard along with a bunch of young, educated, new faces whose vision appears more in sync with the aspirations of the younger population.

***

It was left to Union home minister Amit Shah to generate some heat and ruffle feathers by calling Meghalaya the most corrupt state in the country. BJP till three months ago was part of the NPP-led Meghalaya Democratic Alliance (MDA) and it is not clear when the powerful home minister finally realised the extent of corruption in the state.

The poll outcome will show whether the statement was a masterstroke for BJP which is contesting for all the 60 seats on its own for the first time.

“This is typical of the BJP,” said a former state minister who did not want to be named. “For a budget deficit and mismanaging an amount of Rs 1,849 crore the state is labelled most corrupt! This has hurt local pride.” Shah also warned people that they were facing an electricity blackout because of MDA corruption and needed to vote in the BJP.

At the Synod College meeting, BJP state secretary G.F. Shullai declared, amidst some titters, “Our only agenda is to serve the people of the state.” While the audience appeared sceptical, Shullai parroted Shah’s claim of people benefiting from programmes initiated by the union government, including free ration.

Education and health, for a change, was on the agenda of every party. TMC leader Fabian Lyngdoh promised that the TMC would aim to restore Meghalaya’s status as the education hub of the Northeast.

Criticising the BJP, the KAM Meghalaya leader Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh said BJP did not respect constitutional values and was destroying the country’s federal structure. Though critical, what was heartening was the civility of the exchanges, with no attempts to denigrate political opponents, even in responses to audience queries.

The disparity in income between the rich and the ordinary person in the state is growing, and is clearly visible. Meghalaya, a resource-rich state with a population of 38 lakhs, generates internal revenue of Rs 2,900 crore while Sikkim, with only eight lakh people, generates internal revenue of Rs 4,600 crore.

Another irony was that in a matrilineal society, where almost 41 per cent of households are headed by single women, there was not a single woman among the representatives on the dais.

In Meghalaya husbands move into their wives’ homes, children get their mother’s last name and the youngest daughter inherits the property. But in the last two assemblies elected in 2013 and 2018, number of women legislators was four each; in 2008 there was none. This time too the number of women candidates is only marginally higher at 36 compared to 32 last time.

At the town hall, Mukhim was vocal in criticising the leaders saying that grave issues, such as high infant and maternal mortality and 52 per cent anaemia among women, had received little or no attention from the men.

Mukhim also highlighted the paucity of data available in the state and the administration’s disinterest in gathering proper data. “Meghalaya’s critical need is to strengthen its database. Without data how does any government know where it needs to invest its most critical resources in.”

A ‘hung house’ was the outcome that seemed most probable at the beginning of February. With polling due on 27 February, however, all bets are off. Will Meghalaya spring a surprise?

Link to original story

This story first appeared in India News Stream

Shillong, February 10: There is something very civilised in the way Meghalaya is gearing up for its state elections. For an observer used to the noise and mudslinging that has come to be synonymous with electoral politics in the rest of India, particularly the Hindi heartland, the gentle decency of candidates adhering to issues at hand and raising and debating issues of importance to the people was a very pleasant revelation.

In fact, it took someone coming in from outside to start the ‘name calling,’ with the Congress Party’s Jairam Ramesh referring to Mukul Sangma, the former Congress party leader who defected to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) last year, as ‘Judas’. The analogy would find resonance in the Christian majority state, but, as Patricia Mukhim, Editor of the Shillong Times, told this reporter, it was an unfair portrayal because the Congress party needed to introspect on just why Mukul Sangma, who was Leader of the Opposition in the state assembly, felt compelled to leave the party. And correct those issues if it wants to remain relevant.

After all, though it could not form the government, the Congress was the single largest party in the previous (2018) elections, with 21 MLAs, all of whom have now left the party, with most of its legislators moving almost overnight to the TMC. Apparently, the ‘high command’s’ decision to bring in Vincent Pala, a 3 – term Member of Parliament from Shillong, to head the state unit, caused the local legislators to move out. Pala, from a wealthy coal-mining family, has been valiantly carrying the party flag and, while admitting the party has faced “setbacks,” is campaigning hard along with a bunch of young, educated, new people whose vision appears more in sync with the requirements of the hill state’s younger population.

Some of this vision and democratic best practices were on view when, in what can be best described as a town hall meet, leaders of eight political parties and combinations converged at the local Synod College (on February 9) and outlined the main components of their political agendas for these polls, due on February 27. It was a bit ironic that the ruling National People’s Party (NPP) went unrepresented at this first effort to provide a platform for all parties to lay out their agendas and take questions from students and people who are voters, but all other parties, including the Congress, TMC and BJP, KAM Meghalaya, VPP (Voice of People’s Party), PDF, HSPDP, and UDP, were represented.

At the interaction organised by the Synod College’s Department of Political Science, called “Political Parties’ Agenda – A Public Interface,” the eight leaders and party spokespersons highlighted their priorities.

Manuel Badwar, the Congress candidate from East Shillong, said his party was focused on the need to improve the state’s education system and proposed to set up community colleges for students who couldn’t afford normal colleges and also to establish a state university. Quoting a NITI Aayog report, Badwar said, the more educated the person is the more unemployable he/she becomes. “We will address the unemployment problem right from the grassroots. And we can do this by plugging in to the online sales portals like Amazon, who bring in several trucks of goods from outside the state but go back carrying nothing. Meghalaya can create a marketing hub and delivery centre where online merchants like Amazon can source products from Meghalaya, creating employment avenues and job opportunities for the youth,” Badwar said.

Meghalaya, with a population of 38 lakh people (3.8 million) generates internal revenue of Rs 2,900 crore while Sikkim, with only eight lakh people, generates internal revenue of Rs 4,600 crore.

Leaders of all the parties present spoke of the need to revamp the health and education sector and addressed unemployment issues. The United Democratic Party (UDP) representative Allantry F Dkhar added that the UDP-led government had also tried to resolve the inter-state border dispute with Assam.

BJP state spokesperson, GF Shullai said that his party had not released their manifesto, as they are trying to incorporate some new issues in the manifesto. “The only agenda of the party is to serve the people of the state,” he said, evoking some skepticism from the audience. Shullai, whose party is supporting the Conrad Sangma-led NPP in Meghalaya, spoke of how people have benefited from the programmes initiated by the BJP-led government at the Centre, including getting free rice.

TMC leader, Fabian Lyngdoh said his party would revive and strengthen Meghalaya’s economy by reducing revenue leakage and reducing corruption. “Meghalaya is resource rich yet its people are poor because the resources have not been adequately capitalised.” Lyngdoh, whose party is expected to gain significantly in these elections, said the TMC would aim to restore Meghalaya’s status as the education hub of the Northeast.

Criticising the BJP, the KAM Meghalaya North Shillong candidate, Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh said the BJP did not respect constitutional values and was destroying the federal structure of the country. “We are committed to promoting participatory democracy,” Pyrtuh said.

What was heartening was the civility of the exchanges, with no attempts to denigrate political opponents. However, what was ironic at this meeting was, that in a matrilineal society, where almost 41% of households are headed by single women, there was not a single woman among the political parties’ representatives on the dais.

Mukhim lamented this fact, saying therefore grave issues of high infant and maternal mortality 52% anaemia among women received no mention. Given the overall paucity of data, Mukhim urged the need for gender budgeting especially on health issues.

It was interesting to observe how focused the parties and the voters were on issues of vital importance to the state, and how vocal the voters are on seeking their basic rights. From the very local to an example of what genuine  democracy should reflect. – INDA NEWS STREAM

Link to original story

This story first appeared in www.anandabazar.com

কাউন্সিল ফর প্রোটেকশন অব জার্নালিস্টস বিশ্বে সাংবাদিকদের জন্য সবচেয়ে বিপজ্জনক দেশগুলির মধ্যে রেখেছে ভারতকে।

নরেন্দ্র মোদী যখন জার্মানিতে জি-৭ দেশগুলির নেতাদের সঙ্গে গণতন্ত্রকে আরও নমনীয় করার অঙ্গীকারে সই করছেন, সেই সময়েই দিল্লি পুলিশ গ্রেফতার করছে সাংবাদিক মহম্মদ জ়ুবেরকে— এই বৈপরীত্য কাকে না আঘাত করেছে? জ়ুবের ‘অল্ট নিউজ়’-এর অন্যতম প্রতিষ্ঠাতা, যে সংস্থা ভুয়ো খবর চিহ্নিত করার চেষ্টা করে। তবু জ়ুবেরকে ভাগ্যবানই বলতে হবে, হেফাজতে যাওয়ার চব্বিশ দিনের মধ্যে তিনি জামিন পেয়ে গিয়েছেন, সুপ্রিম কোর্টের কাছ থেকে সাংবাদিকের স্বাধীনতার সমর্থনও পেয়েছেন। অনেকেরই অতটা সৌভাগ্য হয়নি। সিদ্দিক কাপ্পানের বাইশ মাস কারাবাস পেরোল। গত ৪ অগস্ট ফের তাঁর জামিনের আবেদন খারিজ করেছে ইলাহাবাদ হাই কোর্টের লখনউ বেঞ্চ। ভারতীয় ভাষায় যাঁরা সাংবাদিকতা করেন, ক্ষমতার অলিন্দ যে তাঁদের নাগালের বাইরে, কাপ্পানের দীর্ঘ কারাবাস তারই ইঙ্গিত। কাপ্পান একটি মালয়ালম সংবাদ পোর্টালের সাংবাদিক। হাথরসে উনিশ বছরের একটি দলিত মেয়ের গণধর্ষণ ও হত্যার সংবাদ করতে গিয়ে তিনি গ্রেফতার হন ২০২০ সালের অক্টোবরে।

সংবাদের স্বাধীনতার নিরিখে ভারত ইতিমধ্যেই ১৮০টি দেশের মধ্যে পৌঁছেছে ১৫০তম স্থানে। কাউন্সিল ফর প্রোটেকশন অব জার্নালিস্টস বিশ্বে সাংবাদিকদের জন্য সবচেয়ে বিপজ্জনক দেশগুলির মধ্যে রেখেছে ভারতকে। ছ’জন সাংবাদিক দীর্ঘ দিন ধরে রয়েছেন জেলে— আসিফ সুলতান, সিদ্দিক কাপ্পান, আনন্দ তেলতুম্বডে, গৌতম নওলাখা, মানান ডর, রাজীব শর্মা। কাপ্পানের বিরুদ্ধে রাষ্ট্রদ্রোহিতা, সন্ত্রাস, সাম্প্রদায়িক বিদ্বেষ ওস্কানো, ধর্মবিশ্বাসে আঘাত প্রভৃতি অভিযোগ এনেছে পুলিশ। কাপ্পানকে বন্দি রাখার বিরুদ্ধে প্রতিবাদ যত জোরালো হয়েছে, তত কঠোর আইনি ধারা আরোপ করা হয়েছে তাঁর উপর। অথচ কাপ্পান হাথরস অবধি পৌঁছতেই পারেননি, ঘটনার উপর রিপোর্টও লেখেননি।

জ়ুবেরের জামিনের শুনানিতে সুপ্রিম কোর্ট স্পষ্টই রায় দিয়েছে সাংবাদিক, বা সরকারের কোনও সমালোচকের বিরুদ্ধে রাষ্ট্রের অবমাননার ধারা আনা যাবে না। যে সাংবাদিকদের ধরা হয়েছে, তাঁদের জামিন দেওয়ার পরামর্শ দিয়েছে সুপ্রিম কোর্ট। তার পরেও একক বিচারপতির বেঞ্চ পুলিশের অভিযোগকেই মান্যতা দিলেন। বিচারপতি কৃষণ পালের পর্যবেক্ষণ: কাপ্পানের “হাথরসে কোনও কাজ ছিল না।” তাঁর সহযাত্রীরা (যাঁরা রাষ্ট্রদ্রোহিতায় অভিযুক্ত) যে সাংবাদিক নন, এটা কাপ্পানের বিরুদ্ধে একটি ‘গুরুতর প্রমাণ’ বলে মনে করেছে আদালত। সাংবাদিকের কাজ সম্পর্কে অত্যন্ত সঙ্কীর্ণ মনোভাব মেলে এখানে। কেবল প্রশাসনের সঙ্গে সম্পর্কে নয়, বৃহত্তর জনজীবনের সঙ্গেও যে সাংবাদিকের দূরত্ব, আস্থাহীনতা বাড়ছে, এ যেন তারই অংশ।

অথচ প্রধান বিচারপতি এনভি রমণা সম্প্রতি বলেছেন, “স্বাধীন সাংবাদিকতা হল গণতন্ত্রের মেরুদণ্ড। সাংবাদিকরা মানুষের চোখ-কান। সংবাদ সংস্থাগুলির দায়িত্ব তথ্য সামনে আনা, বিশেষ করে ভারতের সামাজিক পরিস্থিতিতে।” সেই সঙ্গে সতর্ক করেছেন, মিডিয়াকে তার প্রভাব সৎ সাংবাদিকতায় সীমাবদ্ধ রাখতে হবে, ব্যবসায়িক স্বার্থ বাড়ানো চলবে না। মিডিয়ার নয়া প্রযুক্তি যে কোনও বার্তাকে বহুগুণ প্রসারিত করতে পারে, কিন্তু ঠিক-ভুল ভাল-মন্দ, সত্য আর ভ্রান্তির তফাত করতে পারে না।

আজকের প্রশাসন এবং বিচারব্যবস্থায় এমনই একটা অভিভাবকসুলভ মনোভাব দেখা যায়, বিশেষত মিডিয়ার প্রতি। সরকারের পক্ষে মিডিয়াকে নিয়ন্ত্রণের ইচ্ছা অস্বাভাবিক নয়। কিন্তু এখন ভারতে মিডিয়াকে যে ভাবে সরকারের লেজুড় হিসেবে ব্যবহার করা হচ্ছে, তথ্যের অধিকার আইনকে কোণঠাসা করা হচ্ছে, আরও বেশি করে বিষয়কে ‘জনসাধারণের জন্য নয়’ বলে দাবি করা হচ্ছে, তাতে তথ্য নিয়ে সরকারের মনোভাব স্পষ্ট হয়।

নেহরুর সঙ্গে কার্টুনশিল্পী শংকরের বন্ধুত্ব ছিল, শংকর চার হাজারেরও বেশি কার্টুনে এঁকেছেন নেহরুকে, যার অনেকগুলি ছিল নির্মম ব্যঙ্গচিত্র। তবু তাঁদের পরস্পরের প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা অটুট বোঝা যায় নেহরুর সেই বিখ্যাত উক্তি থেকে, “আমাকে রেহাই দেবেন না, শংকর।” তবু নেহরুর সরকারই সংবিধানের প্রথম সংশোধন করে ১৯৫১ সালে, যা বাক্‌স্বাধীনতাকে (১৯ নং ধারা) খর্ব করতে ঘোষণা করে, মতপ্রকাশের স্বাধীনতার অপব্যবহার করা চলবে না। পাশ হওয়ার সত্তর বছর পরে এই সংশোধন ভারতের প্রশাসনের এক প্রধান অস্ত্র হয়ে উঠেছে। যদিও মোদী সরকার, এবং তার বশীভূত মিডিয়ার একাংশ, কেন্দ্রীয় সরকারকে মিডিয়ার ‘শিকার’ বলে দেখাতে চায়, তবু মিডিয়ার উপর মোদী সরকারের পীড়ন স্পষ্ট হয়ে উঠেছে। বিরোধীদের বক্তব্য যে ভাবে দমন করা হচ্ছে, তা দেখে অন্যান্য রাষ্ট্র, এবং আন্তর্জাতিক মানবাধিকার, নাগরিক অধিকার সংস্থাগুলি সরকারের খোলাখুলি সমালোচনা করেছে। সম্প্রতি ‘টুইটার’ একটি রিপোর্টে বলেছে, সাংবাদিক, বা সংবাদ সংস্থার টুইট সরিয়ে দেওয়ার দাবি করে সবচেয়ে বেশি আইনি নোটিস এসেছে ভারত সরকারের থেকেই।

কেন্দ্র নিজের পক্ষে যে যুক্তিই দিক, বাক্‌স্বাধীনতা এবং সংবাদ-স্বাধীনতার জন্য যাঁরা লড়াই করছেন, রাজনীতি যে তাঁদের নিশানা করছে ও রাষ্ট্র মুখ ঘুরিয়ে থাকছে, এ সত্য আর চাপা থাকছে না।

Link to original story

This story first appeared in India News Stream

When she presented her credentials in New York to the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to assume charge as India’s Permanent Representative (PR) to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj cracked the final frontier or glass ceiling of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), becoming the first woman to ever hold that charge for India.

Deeming it a “privilege to be the first Indian woman to be given the honour to hold this position,” Kamboj had a special message: “To the girls out there, we all can make it!”

Kamboj, who broke another glass ceiling when she served in New Delhi as India’s only woman Chief of Protocol, and as the first woman to head India’s diplomatic Mission in the Kingdom of Bhutan, is very mindful of what exactly her appointment signifies, in terms of gender equality in the elite service.

This stage of gender parity has not exactly come easily to the IFS, despite the fact that the first woman ever to be elected President of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) was an Indian, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, back in 1953. And the fact that India had Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister for over 16 years.

Around the time that Pandit was presiding at the UNGA, Chonira B. Muthamma, India’s first woman IFS officer who had topped the civil service entrance exams and joined the IFS in 1949, had to give a blatantly discriminatory undertaking, along with other women then, that she would quit the service if she got married. While that rule was changed, Muthamma had to seek legal redress against gender discrimination several times; to get a foreign posting, to get a foreign posting as Ambassador and then to get her due promotion to Secretary- rank.

Finally, after decades of struggle, it was in a landmark judgement in 1979 that a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer struck down the discriminatory provisions governing foreign service personnel and upheld Muthamma’s case. In a scathing rebuff to the government, the apex court impressed upon the government of India “the need to overhaul all service rules to remove the stains of sex discrimination, without waiting for ad-hoc inspiration from writ petitions or gender charity.”

Muthamma retired from the IFS in 1982 after 32 years of exemplary service, after breaking South Block’s glass ceiling for all the women who joined the IFS after her. Since then, the IFS has come a long way in changing gender stereotypes.

India has subsequently had many very distinguished woman diplomats, ambassadors and high commissioners who have held charge in countries like the USA, China, Spain, Sri Lanka, Australia, Lebanon, Bangladesh, Qatar, Switzerland, Serbia, Russia, Slovakia and Ghana, among numerous other countries. Three women have served as Foreign Secretary – Chokila Iyer, Nirupama Rao and Sujatha Singh – all of whom have been highly respected for their equanimity, determination and unflappable poise in upholding Indian national interest during their years of distinguished service.

Rao broke another glass ceiling as India’s first foreign office spokesperson and was among the first to embrace the use of social media to disseminate key aspects of foreign policy. India refused to give up her nuclear options at the Conference on Disarmament when Ambassador Arundhati Ghose refused to even countenance the huge pressure from the combined hectoring of the P-5 and other nations to join the discriminatory NPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty).

Women have held charge in countries of West Asia and in war-torn countries such as Libya, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. In Libya and Lebanon, in fact, the Ambassadors, exemplarily, refused to desert their posts and stayed on with the Indian communities under extremely trying conditions of war and bombings.

Kamboj, who has assumed charge at a time when India is nearing the end of its two-year non-permanent tenure as a member of the UN Security Council, has her work cut out. She is looking forward to a “productive tenure” that will most effectively weave Indian national priorities into the global multilateral framework.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in India News Stream

It is ironic, and sad, that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) now has to increasingly defend India from adverse foreign commentary on the country’s internal processes. It is tragic that the country’s “independent judicial system,” once universally upheld as a beacon of enlightened fair play, is coming under heightened global scrutiny with judges, when abroad, being forced to defend their record and impartiality.

Dismissing as “misleading and unacceptable” comments by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights that legal action against Teesta Setalvad and two others was “persecution for activism,” MEA spokesman Arindam Bagchi lashed out, saying “remarks by OHCHR are completely unwarranted and constitute an interference in India’s independent judicial system. Authorities in India act against violations of law strictly in accordance with established judicial processes,” he asserted. A day after Setalvad was detained, United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, said the police action and Setalvad’s detention was “deeply concerning.”

Interestingly, the MEA comment came on a day when eminent constitutional lawyer and senior advocate Kamini Jaiswal said the ruling of the Supreme Court dismissing the appeal of Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress legislator Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the 2002 Gujarat riots, based on which Setalvad was taken into custody, is “completely illegal, unconstitutional and violates every tenet of law and fundamental rights.” Speaking at a public gathering, Jaiswal said, “What is unpardonable and violates every tenet of law and fundamental right is para-88 (of the judgement),” wherein the judges urge that the appellants be themselves “placed in the dock.” Setalvad was a petitioner in the case, on behalf of Zakia Jafri.

It is also a sad irony that on the day Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed the “2022 Resilient Democracies Statement” in Schloss Elmau in Germany, along with the leaders of the G-7 and four other countries, Delhi Police arrested journalist Muhammad Zubair, co-founder of AltNews, an organisation that vets news and attempts to weed out the copious quantities of fake news that abounds on the social and other media. He was arrested reportedly for “spreading hatred” on the basis of a tweet he posted in 2018. However, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s suspended spokesperson Nupur Sharma, whose despicable remarks against the Prophet of Islam triggered widespread protests across India and abroad and a volley of international censure, remains free and, apparently untraceable, despite multiple FIRs against her!

Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mamata Banerjee was among top political leaders from the opposition who lashed out at the central government over the arrests of Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair and social activist Teesta Setalvad for “trying to expose the truth” and wondered how those who spread “hatred among communities” are roaming free.

“Those who spread hatred and violence in the country are not being arrested;” she said. “Those who create animosity among communities are not even touched by them (BJP). But those who fight against such people are being harassed,” Banerjee said.

It is this lack of even handed treatment to people for the same alleged crime that has civil society in India and all those who value human rights worldwide that is causing India to increasingly come under adverse international scrutiny. Those who are part of the ruling establishment face little or no judicial process while the law-enforcement authorities are very swift in dealing with perceived opponents, particularly of the ruling party and its particular ideology. The overwhelming targeting of people from a particular minority community, along with many advocates of freedom of speech has become too noticeable to miss, even while the establishment chooses to look away.

India has proudly and rightly reaped considerable international dividends for being a democracy including, most recently, an invitation for the outreach session of the group of the world’s richest nations, the G-7. Germany, the current chair of the G-7, did not invite China, the world’s second largest economy, but invited India, along with Argentina, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, as guests for the summit to “recognise these democracies of the global south as its partners.”

The 2022 Resilient democracies statement, which the prime minister signed, states that “Democracies enable open public debate, independent and pluralistic media and the free flow of information online and offline, fostering legitimacy, transparency, responsibility and accountability for citizens and elected representatives alike. We are prepared to defend these principles and are resolved to Protecting the freedom of expression and opinion online and offline and ensuring a free and independent media landscape through our work with relevant international initiatives.”

It is supremely ironic that the Delhi Police arrested Zubair, showing a “blatant violation of the country’s commitment on the global platform given by none other than the Prime Minister himself,” the Press Club of India stated in a statement condemning Zubair’s arrest.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing on behalf of Zubair, stated in court that her client was “targeted” because of his profession and religious community, since several others who had posted the same tweet remained free.

While the MEA and its spokesman may spring to defend India’s record as a democracy where the rule of law is upheld for all and where the right to free speech and dissent is enshrined in the Constitution, the defence sounds jaded and at variance with the reality of mounting cases of the abuse of process and India’s pride of place as the world’s largest democracy is getting increasingly tarnished as time goes by. – INDIA NEWS STREAM

Link to original story

This story first appeared in www.anandabazar.com

এক সমৃদ্ধ দেশের দিশা দেখানোর প্রতিশ্রুতি দিয়ে ২০১৯ সালে বিপুল সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠতা নিয়ে ক্ষমতায় এসেছিলেন রাজাপক্ষে।

যেহেতু শ্রীলঙ্কার গৌরবের দিনে সে দেশকে দেখার সুযোগ হয়েছে, তাই ভারত মহাসাগরের এই দ্বীপরাষ্ট্রের আজকের পরিস্থিতি কল্পনা করতেও কষ্ট হচ্ছে। তীব্র অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কটের জেরে খাবার, জ্বালানি, বিদ্যুৎ, সবেতেই টান পড়েছে, কমেছে সে দেশের মুদ্রার ক্রয়ক্ষমতা। মানুষের বিক্ষোভ সামলাতে সামরিক বাহিনীকে ডাকা হচ্ছে, কার্ফু জারি করা হচ্ছে। যাঁরা এই পরিস্থিতির জন্য দায়ী, সেই ক্ষমতাসীনদের গদিচ্যুত করার ডাক উঠেছে। কিন্তু প্রশাসনের অবস্থা এখন এতই অস্থির, সঙ্কটজনক যে, তার সমাধান করার, স্বাভাবিক অবস্থা ফেরানোর দায়িত্ব কেউ নিতে চাইছে না। নেওয়ার ক্ষমতা কারও আছে বলেও মনে হচ্ছে না।

প্রেসিডেন্ট গোতাবায়া রাজাপক্ষে এমন এক পরিবার থেকে এসেছেন, যাঁরা এলটিটিই-কে মুছে ফেলে তিন দশকের সন্ত্রাসবাদ শেষ করেছিলেন, যদিও মানবাধিকার লঙ্ঘনের গুরুতর অভিযোগ উঠেছিল তাঁর বিরুদ্ধে। সন্ত্রাসবাদী অশান্তিকে শেষ করা, এক সমৃদ্ধ দেশের দিশা দেখানোর প্রতিশ্রুতি দিয়ে ২০১৯ সালে বিপুল সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠতা নিয়ে ক্ষমতায় এসেছিলেন রাজাপক্ষে। সিংহল আধিপত্যবাদের ঢেউয়ের চূড়ায় বসে প্রেসিডেন্ট গোতাবায়া নিজের বড় ভাই মহিন্দাকে প্রধানমন্ত্রী পদে নিয়োগ করেন, এবং স্বজনপোষণের এক ভয়ানক নিদর্শন দেখিয়ে নিজের আরও দুই ভাই চামাল এবং বাসিলকে মন্ত্রিত্বের আসনে বসান। আমেরিকার নাগরিক বাসিল বসেন অর্থমন্ত্রীর পদে। রাজাপক্ষে পরিবারের সদস্যরা নিজেদের মধ্যে শ্রীলঙ্কার এগারোটা মন্ত্রক ভাগ করে নেন।

এই জন্যই অর্থনৈতিক সঙ্কট ঘোরালো হয়ে উঠতে তার দায় সরাসরি রাজাপক্ষে পরিবারের উপরে বর্তাচ্ছে, অস্বীকারের কোনও উপায়ই থাকছে না। ভোটাররা দেশের নেতাদের থেকে কৈফিয়ত দাবি করছেন, আর্থিক সঙ্কটের নিরসনও চাইছেন। রাজাপক্ষেরা বরাবরই দেশের মানুষের থেকে বিপুল সমাদর, সমর্থন পেতে অভ্যস্ত, আজ তাঁরা পড়েছেন সম্পূর্ণ ভিন্ন পরিস্থিতিতে। আজ তাঁদের দেশবাসীকে দেওয়ার মতো কোনও উত্তর নেই।

অস্বীকার করার উপায় নেই যে, সরকারেরই অনেকগুলি ভুল সিদ্ধান্তের ফলে এই সঙ্কট তৈরি হয়েছে। রাসায়নিক সার বন্ধ করে সম্পূর্ণ জৈব চাষে যাওয়ার ফলে ফসল উৎপাদন মার খেয়েছে, দেখা দিয়েছে কৃষির সঙ্কট। একই সঙ্গে করোনা অতিমারির জন্য পর্যটন শিল্প থেকে রাজস্ব আদায় বন্ধ হয়ে যাওয়ায় সরকারের হাতে আর বিদেশি মুদ্রা অবশিষ্ট নেই। ঋণের পরিমাণ ছাড়িয়ে গিয়েছে জাতীয় মোট উৎপাদন বা জিডিপি-কে। জোটসঙ্গীদের একটা বড় অংশের পদত্যাগের পরে রাজাপক্ষেরা ক্রমশ আরও কোণঠাসা, সহায়হীন হয়ে পড়ছেন। এখন তাঁদের ‘গো গোতা গো’ স্লোগান শুনতে হচ্ছে, সরকারের দায়িত্ব নিতে কেউ এগিয়ে আসছেন না।

প্রতিবেশী রাষ্ট্রের এই আর্থিক বিপর্যয় ভারতের জন্য কী অর্থ বহন করছে? বস্তুত তা ভারতের সামনে একটা সম্ভাবনা তৈরি করেছে— অতিমারির পর দক্ষিণ এশিয়াতে প্রাধান্য ফিরে পাওয়ার সুযোগ। তাই কলম্বোর ঋণখেলাপি হয়ে যাওয়ার পরিস্থিতি তৈরি হতে দিল্লি উদ্যোগী হয় প্রতিবেশী দেশটির সহায়তায়। এ বছর ভারত কলম্বোকে আড়াই বিলিয়ন আমেরিকান ডলার দিয়েছে খাদ্য ও জ্বালানির জন্য, ঋণ খেলাপের লজ্জা থেকে বাঁচার জন্যও। এই প্রতিবেশিতা হয়তো দ্বিপাক্ষিক সম্পর্ককে আরও ঘনিষ্ঠ করবে, কিন্তু ভারতকে এ-ও দেখতে হবে যে, এই সহায়তা যেন রাজাপক্ষেদের বাঁচানোর চেষ্টা বলে না দেখা হয়। রাজাপক্ষে পরিবার চিনের ঘনিষ্ঠ বলে পরিচিত। ভারতের নিরাপত্তা এবং কৌশলগত স্বার্থরক্ষায় শ্রীলঙ্কার ভূমিকা খুবই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ। চিনের ঘনিষ্ঠ আলিঙ্গন থেকে শ্রীলঙ্কাকে সরিয়ে আনাই ভারতের আশা।

যদিও ভারত উপকারী বন্ধুর ভূমিকা নিতে চায়, তবু পরিস্থিতির মধ্যে বেশ কিছু স্ববিরোধ থেকে গিয়েছে। ক্ষমতায় আসার পর থেকে গোতাবায়া খোলাখুলি নিজের সিংহলী পরিচিতিকে প্রাধান্য দিয়েছেন। তিনি শ্রীলঙ্কার উত্তর ও পূর্ব অংশের তামিলদের জন্য সাংবিধানিক সুরক্ষার প্রতিশ্রুতি দিয়ে থাকলেও কাজের বেলা তা হয়নি। ২০১৯ সালের ইস্টারে সন্ত্রাসী হানার পর মুসলিম সংখ্যালঘুদের উপর বৌদ্ধ সিংহলীদের আক্রমণে তেমন কোনও লাগাম টানা হয়নি।

শ্রীলঙ্কার পরিস্থিতি ভারতের প্রশাসকদের জন্যেও বার্তা বহন করে না কি? সংখ্যাগুরুর অবাধ আধিপত্য কায়েম করেও দ্রুত মূল্যবৃদ্ধির জন্য বাহুবলী নেতাদের প্রতি জনরোষ আটকানো যায়নি। শ্রীলঙ্কায় বন্দরের মতো জাতীয় সম্পদ বিক্রি করা, বিপুল ঋণের বোঝা তৈরি শ্রীলঙ্কার অর্থনীতিকে ধ্বংস করেছে। ভারতের ঋণের সঙ্গে জিডিপি-র অনুপাত ইতিমধ্যেই পঁচাশি শতাংশ ছাড়িয়েছে। ভারতে যে ভাবে দ্রুত বাড়ছে খাবার আর পেট্রল-ডিজ়েলের দাম, তাতে সেই দাম নিয়ন্ত্রণে আনতে না পারলে অচিরেই সীমা ছাড়িয়ে যাবে। আর তখন মানুষের ক্রোধ আছড়ে পড়বে রাস্তায়— কলম্বো সেই বার্তাই দিচ্ছে দিল্লিকে।

Link to original story

This story first appeared in National Herald

If the UN cannot agree on what constitutes terrorism and cannot stop even its permanent Security Council members from waging war and violating the UN charter, how useful can it be?

Enough is enough,” UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on February 28, addressing the UN General Assembly (UNGA) which was hearing a resolution to condemn Russia’s attack on Ukraine. He was seeking an immediate end to the violence and a withdrawal of Russia’s military from Ukrainian territory. “We are facing a tragedy for Ukraine, but also a major regional crisis with potentially disastrous implications for us all,” Guterres said.

In the nearly eight decades of its existence, the United Nations organisation’s raison d’etre has frequently been questioned. It has been criticised as a white elephant and an organisation that is out of sync with global reality, as it refuses to amend and adapt itself to the 21st century.

The UN celebrated the 75th anniversary of its founding on October 24, 2020, while the global Coronavirus pandemic was raging and the concept of holding things together fell on the UN’s World Health Organisation. Speaking at the UNGA then, on September 22, 2020, Guterres had called COVID-19 a “fifth horseman”, a potential global apocalypse.

The UN then, too, faced an existential crisis, in which some of its biggest former advocates, like the United States under Donald Trump, were challenging the very premises of multilateralism upon which the organization was founded. The COVID-19 pandemic seemed to mark an era of de-globalization which saw countries increasingly practice isolationism and protectionism and many governments loudly emphasizing sovereignty, nationalism, and self-reliance.

However, even as individual nations struggled to cope and largely fended for themselves, the WHO somehow managed to spearhead a global response and appeared the most coherent way of moving forward, particularly with the COVAX initiative, once vaccines against the disease started becoming available. In a similar vein, the UNO has frequently come together as one to accept and attempt to jointly confront the horrors of terrorism and the disastrous consequences of rapid climate change.

Russia’s assault on Ukraine from February 24 has embroiled Europe in that continent’s largest military conflict since World War II and has again confronted the global organisation with a new existential dilemma. This military conflict appears so unnecessary, particularly with the continent and the rest of the world still struggling to emerge from the throes of the deadly Covid pandemic. It has already taken on the dimensions of a global conflict as people from countries around the world are getting badly hit and even killed, and economies ravaged, with rising energy and food costs and a rash of as yet unknown consequences.

Referring to the more chilling threat from the Russian President Vladimir Putin, to place nuclear forces on “high alert,” Guterres on Monday said the “mere idea of a nuclear conflict is simply inconceivable,” adding that, “Nothing can justify the use of nuclear weapons.”

Whatever the perceived provocation for such an assault, for Russia as a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to breach the sovereignty of another UN member state undermines the efficacy of the organisation created at the end of WWII by the victorious allied powers, to ensure global peace and security and does not bode well for its future.

The impunity with which Russia has chosen to ignore multiple requests for restraint and blocked efforts to censure its act of aggression within the UN has highlighted the UN’s ineffectiveness in upholding its own laws and protecting interests of its less powerful members.

In fact, Russia has been in breach of the charter since 1991. Russia assumed the chair of the erstwhile Soviet Union as a P-5 member of the UNSC in 1991, without any sanction from the world body.

Sadly, while Guterres sincerely meant what he said and despite a myriad laws being in place, there is little the UN Secretary General or, indeed, the UN can do to enforce its resolution. And therein lies the problem for international organisations.

It has been effective only when member states have chosen to voluntarily comply with international law and the general consensus. If not, punitive sanctions are possible, but often, openly bypassed. And when a P-5 member decides to veto any sanctions, then they cannot be imposed. Only individual nations can then sanction any perceived rogue states.

Moving away from the collective norm to the individual perception is the greatest danger to not only the organisation, but also to the notion of global multi-polarity and democratization. What Russia has done and its refusal to consider the opinion of the majority, as outlined in the vote at the end of the rare special session of the UNGA, not only highlights the organisation’s fault lines but also outlines just how some countries can pursue individual interests to the detriment of others.

The grant of a veto to the five permanent members of the security council, when bestowed on them, was intended to prevent misuse of international laws by member states. Unfortunately, over the decades, it has served only to uphold the interests of the P-5 veto-wielding members.

The 15-nation UNSC met on February 27 to vote on calling an emergency special session of the 193-member General Assembly on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is only the 11th time such an emergency session has been called, the last time in 2014, when Russian annexed Crimea. Under the resolution “Uniting for Peace,” an emergency special session can be convened within 24 hours of such a meeting being requested.

Russia which, ironically, was the UNSC chair through February, had earlier vetoed a UNSC resolution on its “aggression” against Ukraine, thereby blocking its adoption. A UNSC resolution would have been legally binding, UNGA motions are not. A vote in the 193-member UN body is merely symbolic of world opinion. The special UNGA session, with 100 countries scheduled to speak, began February 28 and would, at best, be a rap or a tap on the knuckles.

While India is facing considerable criticism for not openly censuring Russia’s act of aggression against another sovereign state, its Explanation of Vote (explaining why it abstained) outlines the organisation’s common dilemma.

“The contemporary global order has been built on the UN Charter, international law, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states,” India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, T.S. Tirumurti said, adding, “All member states need to honour these principles in finding a constructive way forward.” That is easier said than done at the UN which, in 26 years, has not managed to jointly agree upon a comprehensive definition of the term terrorism!

Link to original story

This story first appeared in National Herald

While Government seems fixated on putting up statues to honour the memory of icons it wants to appropriate, its reluctance to embrace the ideals they held dear is striking

Two days before the 125th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on January 23, 2022, it was announced that a statue of his would be installed in the canopy where a statue once stood of the British monarch George V.

While the decision to install Netaji’s statue where the statue of the British monarch once stood was hailed as apt and as poetic justice, there is also little doubt that it was an after thought or else the statue at least would have been ready. The embarrassment of projecting a hologram, which too ‘failed’ after two days, could have been avoided.

Bose’s relatives, including his daughter Anita Bose-Pfaff and grand-nephew Sugato Bose have gone on record to say that had he been alive, Bose would have been distressed and dismayed at Modi Government’s treatment of minorities. Netaji believed in democracy and in a secular India and would have condemned deviation from both. Netaji, they pointed out, needs to be honoured by emulating his all-encompassing humanist ideals and pluralism embodied in the Indian National Army (INA), founded on principles of human equity, cutting across religion, gender and caste.

The announcement however served the purpose of triggering old conspiracy theories of Netaji having been imprisoned and killed in Russia and Jawaharlal Nehru’s alleged animosity for the iconic commander of the Indian National Army (INA) and former Congress President. These allegations have been made consistently since 2015 without the Government looking willing or even able to resolve the mystery.

In 2015 Prime Minister Narendra Modi had dramatically declassified official files related to Netaji, all barring 87! He had also announced that he would be requesting foreign governments, Russia, Ukraine and Britain in particular, to similarly release any record they might have on Netaji. But despite the personal chemistry he is said to share with world leaders, the foreign governments do not appear to have obliged him till now. Neither Ukraine nor Russia, about which Winston Churchill had famously said that it was a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” have thrown any light on the alleged incarceration of Netaji in Siberia.

When Britain declared war against Nazi Germany and Axis powers in 1939, Bose, a former president of the Congress party, left India in 1940 to seek assistance from his “enemy’s enemy”. He called on Hitler, undertook a daring submarine ride and arrived at Singapore with Japanese forces.

He formed the Indian National Army to militarily liberate India with the help of Japan. When Japan lost the war, Bose tried to leave Formosa (Taiwan) to go to Manchuria and on to Russia to seek its assistance. Intelligence reports and records suggest he died in a plane crash on August 18, 1945. Ashes, supposedly belonging to Bose, are still preserved in a shrine at the Renkoji Temple in Tokyo.

Two Indian government-appointed Commissions of Inquiry accepted that Bose died in 1945. However, the one appointed in 1998 claimed that Bose did not die in the crash and had escaped to the Soviet Union. The Bose family largely believes that he died in August 1945 and that his ashes are indeed preserved in the Renkoji shrine.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has always sought to portray Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi as having been antagonistic to Bose and somehow responsible for his disappearance. This effort peaked soon after the Narendra Modiled government first assumed office in 2014, petered off by 2021 and revived in 2022.

Claiming that Bose did not die in a plane crash in 1945 but was killed at the instance of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy said he had papers to back his claims. Swamy also said Nehru was aware that Bose was held captive in Yakutsk Prison in Siberia.

Soon after he met Bose’s relatives in 2015, Modi said his government would open to the public all secret files on the matter in the government’s possession. The process of declassifying the files would begin from January 23, 2016, Bose’s birth anniversary. Much fanfare surrounded de-classification of files related reportedly to circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of Netaji. The media speculated that declassified files would implicate Nehru and show up his role in the mystery surrounding Bose’s death. That did not happen.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee also declassified 64 files on Bose which were with the state’s home department and displayed them at the Kolkata police museum from September, 2015.

But the Prime Minister’s Office told Central Information Commission in October 2015 that it could not declassify all files related to Bose as it would “adversely affect relations” with foreign countries. The government informed Parliament that there were 87 files (60 with the PMO and 27 with the MEA) which could not be brought to public domain owing to their sensitive nature and that it was “not desirable from the point of view of India’s relations with other countries”. The countries in question are Russia and Britain. The files remain hidden. Would the Government have been as squeamish if the files corroborated the conspiracy theories?

While the Indian government spoke of declassifying the Bose files, Ukraine also said it would declassify over 800, 000 ‘top secret’ files of Russian spy agencies of the Soviet era and make them available to the public. Among the files, dated between 1917 and 1991, were said to be intelligence dispatches of Siberian gulags (Russian camps for political prisoners), where Bose was suspected to have been imprisoned along with prisoners of war and political dissidents.

The decision to declassify the top-secret files of State Security (KGB), Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), CHEKA, Prosecution of USSR, NKVD, SMERSH and Ministry of State Security (MGB) was taken by the Ukraine Parliament in April 2015. However, these, too, have not been made public and are likely to remain buried.

In the Modi government’s selective recollection of historical events as a ‘zero sum game’, there have been suggestions that Nehru was responsible for what happened to Bose in 1945, although India was still not free and Nehru not yet the Prime Minister. Neither Britain nor Russia or Japan had any reason or incentive to do Nehru’s bidding.

What is more, Bose and Nehru shared a very special, close personal bond. Bose, younger to Nehru by a few years, was the only Congress leader in Switzerland with Nehru when Kamala Nehru died. After Bose’s death, Nehru arranged a special trust from the Congress Party’s own funds to ensure that a monthly stipend was given to Bose’s wife and infant daughter. Nehru also personally participated in the 1946 trials to free the INA prisoners of war. In fact, Nehru and Bose were allies and socialists within the Congress.

According to records, it was then Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel–whom the current government claims was also denied his due by Nehru–who disliked what he thought was Bose’s defiance of Mahatma Gandhi and therefore appeared antagonistic to Bose.

The twists and turns over Netaji in the last seven years suggest he is being used as a pawn by the Government to serve its political agenda. If they are serious about honouring the memory and sacrifice of Netaji, can they at least think beyond his statue?

Link to original story

This story first appeared in The Financial Express

BIMSTEC, a sub-regional grouping, comprising some geographically contiguous South Asian and ASEAN countries in the Bay of Bengal, was formed to leverage synergies in their capabilities for their development.

India and Bangladesh celebrated 50 years of the establishment of diplomatic relations between themselves as ‘Maitri Divas’ (friendship day) on December 6, in a year that is very special for both countries. Bangladesh celebrated 50 years of its independence from Pakistan on March 26, 2021 as India entered its 75th year as a free nation. Both landmarks provided an opportunity for introspection on what has arguably been the most significant bilateral relationship between two nations.

For India, Bangladesh will always be special, and vice-versa. Their shared history and geography will continue to dictate their intertwined destinies. For people of India’s Northeast, this ‘Bangladesh-locked’ region can have an entirely different future through the gateway of Bangladesh, making it, from that perspective, India’s most strategic neighbour.

As Bangladesh marks the golden anniversary of its independence, there is admiration for its remarkably successful economic and social transformation. Earlier, the main players in South Asia were India and Pakistan. That has changed and, today, Bangladesh has outstripped and overtaken Pakistan economically. Emerging from least developed country status, it is now an economic tiger in the making, threatening to outdo India on major economic indices.

Today, Bangladesh is among the world’s fastest-growing economies; estimated to grow at around 8%, (ahead of India), a remarkable success story, set to become a middle-income nation by 2030. India, hitherto confident about being the only South Asian economy that mattered,must grapple with the fact that it is, on some indices today, poorer than Bangladesh. India’s purchasing power per capita in 2020-21 was $1,947.India’s bilateral trade with Bangladesh is over US$10 billion.

Among the vital geopolitical consequences of Bangladesh’s economic rise is a shift in South Asia’s centre of economic gravity to the east and the reintegration of an eastern subcontinent, set to play a stronger role in the region and beyond, with new maritime possibilities in the Indo-Pacific, where both New Delhi and Dhaka are looking to focus.

Thus, the BIMSTEC (or The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation)forum is increasingly assuming a critical role for the foreign policy of both India and Bangladesh, certainly over the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation), even though the latter was founded in 1985 as an initiative of Dhaka, to promote regional cooperation and trade.That India had largely lost interest in SAARC was apparent during the BRICS summit of 2016, when leaders of BIMSTEC nations were invited to Goa for the outreach summit with the heads of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

However, when the Covid-19 pandemic started to grip India and the world, from March 2020, Prime Minister Modi tried to revive the largely defunct SAARC forum to foster a common South Asian response to the pandemic, even setting up a fund and discussing best practices with the neighbouring countries. Despite supply of Covid kits and medical supplies and vaccines, India’s SAARC neighbours seemed largely unimpressed by New Delhi’s efforts to contain the pandemic, particularly after it suspended the Vaccine ‘Maitri’ initiative and stopped exporting India-made vaccines as cases within India spiraled, and SAARC is rarely contained in the neighbourhood foreign policy discourse.

BIMSTEC, a sub-regional grouping, comprising some geographically contiguous South Asian and ASEAN countries in the Bay of Bengal, was formed to leverage synergies in their capabilities for their development. The member countries Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand, have economies with strong complementarities. BIMSTEC constitutes a significant building block for eventual establishment of a Bay Bengal Economic Community. Except Afghanistan and Pakistan, all other SAARC nations are members, along with Myanmar and Thailand, allowing BIMSTEC to serve as a crucial link for both India’s ‘Neighbourhood First’ and ‘Act East’ policies.

As the largest bay in the world, the Bay of Bengal is of pivotal importance to the countries bordering it. One-fourth of the world’s populations live in the seven countries around it, and half a billion people live directly on its coastal rim. The bay is also rich in untapped natural resources, with large reserves of gas and other seabed minerals.

India’s growing focus on the Bay of Bengal as a maritime space and as a gateway to Southeast Asia makes Bangladesh central to New Delhi’s regional remapping. By utilising the Bay of Bengal astutely, Bangladesh can become a hub of the Indo-Pacific economic corridor. Bangladesh’s sea ports, particularly Chittagong, are therefore highly important because of their geographical location in the Bay of Bengal, and can become a connecting route for its neighbouring countries, allowing trade and economies to flourish.

Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said, “I reiterate our government’s total commitment to the BIMSTEC. It has the potential to move us all to our common goals.” Dhaka is pushing Delhi to move beyond bilateralism and “work closely in furthering relevant regional/sub-regional cooperation processes.”

Realising that growth of its economy is also vitally dependent on economic commerce along sea-lanes; the Indian government seeks an Indo-Pacific that is free, open and inclusive, and founded upon a cooperative and collaborative rules-based order. India’s participation in the ‘Quad’ (or quadrilateral of four major democracies, USA, Japan, Australia and India), is based on this premise.

As India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said, “We see Bangladesh as a key neighbour and a valued partner not only in South Asia but also in the broader Indo-Pacific region. Every outcome and achievement in our relationship resonates through this region.”

The development of India’s economy and the core of its Neighbourhood First and Act East policies can only be fulfilled with Bangladesh’s help. The first 50 years of bilateral relations consolidated the foundation of India-Bangladesh ties. The future can replicate the current “shonar adhyay” (golden chapter) in relations provided that the leadership of both neighbours play their diplomatic cards with maturity and pragmatism, keeping their regional aspirations and sensitivities in mind.

Link to original story