The Issue of FARAKKA: 
An Introduction

 

XI.   Treatment of Ungrateful, Post-Mujib Bangladesh

Even during the Mujib period, India was getting irritated and frustrated with the difficulty it was having in terms of getting agreement from Bangladesh side. This was particularly so because India has always taken the "gratitude" factor quite seriously and Indian media as well as politicians
never had tried to hide their expectation.

India had a fundamental mistake and misperception about Bangladesh. India forgot that Muslims of Bengal (and, yes, Bengal, not just East Bengal) have been at the forefront of separate nationhood once the British leave. The original idea of separate nations for Muslim-majority areas did not include Bengal "as part of Pakistan". But the irony of the colonial politics would not have it that way. There were two fundamental factors that would haunt this part of the subcontinent in future. First, Muslim majority Bengal got sucked into Pakistan - a nation with two parts that are 1100 miles apart. These two parts had different language and the ruling elite of Pakistan (basically West Pakistan) did everything - inadvertently and advertently - to ensure that this won't be a happy and fair union. Second, Muslim majority Bengal got divided into two Bengals. Let alone Bihar, Assam or Orissa being included in this Eastern part, even Bengal itself was split into two, with Dhaka as the capital of the province, not Calcutta.

I have mentioned it before in another context that the party that is primarily responsible for the break-up of the Pakistan union was the Pakistani leadership, consisting primarily of West Pakistani elites. Yet India has provided all the help it could garner to facilitate it. The last straw was the intransigence of Pakistani ruling clique in transferring power to the elected majority party from East Pakistan. The death nail was the crackdown of Pakistani military in 1971 that evolved into a full-scale genocide.

All this is true. However, the part of the subcontinent that is now Bangladesh still carries the same culture and heritage that were more in tune with the line of politics of Suhrawardy, Fazlul Huq and so on. Even Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was no exception. Bangladesh separated from Pakistan and became an independent nation, which was the original plan for this part to begin with, and at the core it still had the same heritage and ethos. Thus, the people of this part suffered all the exploitation and discrimination, and finally a genocide, in the hands of Pakistan, but - India forgot and still forgets - that the root and ethos of this part still has not changed at the core.

India thought the midwifery she performed in 1971 would erase all that. Moreover, Bangladesh would be so much in the bondage of gratitude that basically Bangladesh would either go along with whatever India would dictate or desire; even better, Bangladesh would understand the priorities, needs and ambitions of India to yield at India's will. That dream turned out to be a nightmare. 

Indeed, by August 1975, four months after the Farakka Barrage was test run, Awami League, under the failed leadership of Sheikh Mujib, had created such an atmosphere of disenchantment and rejection of the existing regime that the leader of the independence struggle along with several of his family members were killed. "There was an unusual combination of public feelings of shock (at the death of Sk. Mujib) and relief (at the fall of his government from power)." [Begum, p. 158]

There were some additional casualties of this phase of Bangladesh history. First, the nascent democracy was nipped in the bud. Those who were involved in the killing of Sheikh Mujib bears the immediate responsibility for this. The Awami League was turning the political system into a hegemony and they made everything possible to ensure that no viable, constitutional way of peacefully seeking any change in the country's direction or leadership would remain.

Second casualty was the Bangladesh-India relationship. In retrospect, I have to say that Indian politicians might be foolhardy - driven by the arrogance of their unequal power in the subcontinent - but they do not have a positive, constructive vision to provide a leadership of the subcontinent. Furthermore, they are not politically smart (or, may be the word is, wise). Otherwise, knowing the history and heritage of the part, Bangladesh, they should have known better and dealt with Bangladesh in a manner differently.  

While Bangladesh sought independence as an "independent" nation, India saw her as "INdia-dependent" nation. A part of Awami League was cohort with India in regard to this, and another part, including Sheikh Mujib and others who were within the legacy of Suhrawardy and Fazlul Huq, failed to move the nation beyond "INdia-dependence". The price was high for Sheik Mujib as the leader, Awami League as the ruling party and Bangladesh as a nation.

It is worth noting that it is widely acknowledged that Sheikh Mujib was not a submissive person. "Evidences, as available, suggest he did not follow a submissive policy but was under pressure from India. ... Mujib tried to take a hard line. ... But it was too late. He could not resist India's pressure." [Begum, p. 122-123]. Curiously, it seems to be widely believed in India that Sheikh Mujib was partly responsible for facilitating anti-Indian sentiment and propaganda in Bangladesh. "The anti-India propaganda started during Mujibur Rahman's time and India lodged protests with the government many a time. Though it cannot be said thta Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not wish to stop anti-Indian campaign yet he was unable to pay full attention towards it. ... Probably, it was ALLOWED in order to divert the attention of the people from the incapabilities of his government." [Kuldip Singh, p. 36] (emphasis is mine)

Ultimately, the entire Awami League became identified as a "pro-Indian" lackey or proxy. In reality, other parties, including BNP, practically may not have succeeded in making any difference, but they filled that vacuum that called for a stance of genuine and greater independence.

The yielding of Sheikh Mujib (and Awami League) to India in regard to the Ad hoc agreement to test run the feeder canal became a fundamental setback for Bangladesh. Indeed, "[I]n the Ad hoc Agreement, 1975, Bangladesh has lost what it gained in previous other agreements that India should not take unilateral decision to commission the Barrage." [Begum, p. 124] 41 day's trial sharing agreement paved the way for India subsequently to UNILATERALLY withdraw water as she pleased. The way Pakistan dealt with the Farakka issue in pre-1971 period was dubbed as "criminal neglect" in Awami Leagues' 1970 election manifesto. [Ben Crow, p. 101] One only wonders how the way Awami League dealt with Farakka issue during 1974-75 should be characterized! 

The Farakka issue, thus, entered a new phase in the post-Mujib period. India lost its proxy rule through Awami League in Bangladesh and it also lost the goodwill it generally enjoyed soon after 1971. India was probably shocked at the assassination of Sheikh Mujib and the abrupt demise of Awami League. But she should not have been, if she understood that it was a predictable possibility, given that no other outlet for change was left and, Awami League became so closely identified with India that anti-India feeling, similar to what was during Pakistan period and comparable to the anti-Pakistan feeling during 1969-71, overwhelmed Bangladeshi sentiment.

"The tragedy of the assassination of Sk. Mujibur Rahman, together with the events immediately following the incident, were looked upon with suspicion in India. To the people of India, specially of West Bengal and particularly to the top leaders in the power structure of the Indian political system it was a big shock. ... [H]is tragic fall from power was indeed a political loss for India not only in the sphere of its foreign relation in Asia but also because India knew very well that in the prevailing state of affairs in Bangladesh, Sk. Mujib was the last resort for India to retain its hold, to whatever extent, on Bangladesh." [Begum, pp. 156-157]

In the post-Mujib period, the domestic politics of Bangladesh fundamentally changed. While one block, lead by Awami League at that time and its ghost in present time, still wants to lead the country by catering to anti-Pakistan ethos (even though hardly anyone in Bangladesh believes or wants Bangladesh to be a Pak-province again), the other block caters to the raw, anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh (as India is now perceived to be much more closely related to the conditions in Bangladesh). The subsequent instability and series of events leading to Ziaur Rahman's assumption of power was in tune with a popular uprising. "This popular uprising was not motivated by any evil design against India. It was a sort of 'people's' 'veto' against any kind of subservience to India, against any possible Indian domination or interference in the affairs of Bangladesh. [Begum, p. 158]

Thus, what could have been a relationship between friendly neighbors, Bangladesh and India, transformed into, unequal, and essentially adversarial relationship. India did not get - and could not use any longer - the gratitude factor in regard to Bangladesh. It also no longer felt the need to be nice to Bangladesh. That is hardly a problem for India, but it is a bigger problem for Bangladesh. Consistently, Bangladesh has awakened at every new turn to that hard reality. Bangladesh has hardly any leverage in the context of Bangladesh-India relationship, or in the context of international politics. India also WON'T let the issue be rescued from bilateral level to international level, and so far Bangladesh has not been able to do anything significant about it.

Go to Part XII:  Bangladesh: Instability, chaos and follies.
Go to the Farakka Index

HOME
Index of my writings
Have you visited my site on Kazi Nazrul Islam?
Genocide 1971 Page?
Hadith Humor Page?

Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka
Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka Farakka