The ‘Second Revolution’ in Bangladesh and after
By
M.L. Sondhi
Nav Hind Times, Assam
Tribune,The Tribune, February 12, 1975
A.B.P., February 13, 1975
The close interrelationship
between India and Bangladesh in domestic and foreign
policies has been the direct result of common involvement
against external forces which challenged the tangible
experience, sympathy and purposive attention of the masses
in both countries. The political mandate of the Indian
Government from its own people was not one of provoking
cross-national violence in relation to the Bangladesh
problem but one of consolidating peace and security in the
context of mass participation by the people of Pakistan’s
East Bengal colony.
The plausibility of the “Second Revolution”
of Sheikh Mujib can be judged in terms of three facets of
public reaction in India: the grave misgivings over enhanced
risks of embroiling India in political intrigues and overt
or covert counter-insurgency actions in Bangladesh the low
public esteem in which a one-party system is regarded as
placing obstacles in the way of a people struggling to build
a new society; and the appraisal of events in Dacca as a low
water-mark in regional sub-continental relations, which will
help Islamabad regain a “democratic” respectability and
justify its accusations against New Delhi’s “manipulative”
power status in South Asia.
Sheikh Mujib’s action in calling himself a
President who is “deemed elected” suggests a pre-emptive
strategy to ensure that the professional role of the Armed
Forces is not diverted to secure an adverse shift in the
distribution of political power. The right of dissent
symbolized by the 7 independent and opposition members of
Parliament did not come in the way of Sheikh Mujib
consolidating his power, but the “Second revolution”
evidently wants to avoid the possibility of internal war by
removing the possibilities of political groups which may
crystallize a consensus for an alternative regime.
The immense and gigantic tasks facing the
Bangladesh Government have not so far been tackled by
tapping the sources of dynamism that could express the
creative energy which was evident at the time of liberation
of Bangladesh. Bangladesh has been heading for dependence
on the two super powers, the Soviet Union and the United
States and both these powers have a tendency to excuse
arbitrary actions and excesses in the indigenous political
processes if the ruling authority generally acts in
conformity with the interests of the “stability” of the
super power dominated “international system”.
The paradox of this development is that
while India has been strongly urging Bangladesh to stand on
its own feet, New Delhi itself has been recommending the
induction of the influential Soviet presence as the
inevitable triumph of the New Delhi-Moscow political axis.
But one may fairly ask whether a more critical attitude
towards Russian operations on the part of New Delhi would
not have reinforced self-conscious groups in Bangladesh who
would have steered clear of personal rivalries and
ideological tensions. The open soviet support to the
Communist Party of Bangladesh and to the NAP of Muzzafar
Ahmad may have given comfort to those who advocate
convergence between the CPI and the Congress Party in India,
but has only landed Sheikh Mujib in a thorny thicket after
he decided to form his Progressive Alliance in September
1973.
There can be no doubt that the arguments and
beliefs of Sheikh Mujib in introducing personal rule in
Bangladesh will go to undermine the faith which sustained
the Simla processes, whose basic direction was determined by
the optimism that “parliamentary rule” was gathering
momentum in the three sister countries of the subcontinent.
Many people in India will feel that the time has come to
focus attention on the likelihood that the return of
authoritarian features on the Pakistan landscape even
leading to rising expectations of a new military regime in
Pakistan. The disquieting impact of such developments will
only create divisive, antagonistic and negative dynamisms in
place of the moderate and middle of the road political style
of the Simla summit.
Political observers in both official and
non-official New Delhi circles have quickly recognized the
unwishdom of the Sheikh’s spectacular devaluation of
Parliament and his denial of legitimate form of political
action to the political parties. One can summarise the
transformation of Indian thinking (whenever it is frankly
expressed) having come full circle: from high enthusiasm
about the moral qualities of Sheikh Mujib and his commitment
to democracy, pluralism and freedom, to total despair about
both grassroots democratization in Bangladesh and the
Sheikh’s obsession with authoritarian use of power.
Contingency planning in India will
inevitably have to take the cue from this drastic change of
attitude. India has bitter memories of the exodus of 10
million Bangladeshis. No matter where the political
vicissitudes of Bangladesh may take Sheikh Mujib, no
responsible government in New Delhi an allow the vital
security interests of India jeopardized by a repression
which leads to another exodus. New Delhi will adopt a
policy of “wait and see” but it is to be expected that it
will prepare itself for the uncertain consequences of the
unleashing of the Rakshi Bahini or the even costlier
involvement of the military forces in Bangladesh if popular
frustrations breed widespread insurrection.
A new sub-continental role for India avoid
“bandwagon” tendencies and in particular, should not pursue
policy courses which conjure up the spectra of possible
Indian help to Sheikh Mujib in a long attritional struggle
with his own domestic opponents.
- INFA |
