Edit writers and the Khaleda boycott

You don’t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala

In 1971 India cut off the eastern wing of Pakistan to create Bangladesh, and thought it now had a friend for life. As always happens to big countries – US in Latin America, Russia and its neighbours, China in East Asia – the goodwill was short-lived. By mid-1975, Bangladeshi sentiment largely turned anti-Indian. It has remained mostly like that ever since.

 

For the last five years, however, with the election of Hasina Wajed as prime minister, things began to get better. But now comes the time for another general election on January 5 and her main opponent, Khaleda Zia, has decided to turn the clock back. In this endeavour she is being helped by the religious group, the Jamaat which has helped with street violence comprising bombing, rioting, arson, murder of policemen and civilians, and attacks on minorities.

 

She has chosen a strange strategy: a boycott of the general election if Ms Wajed does not resign so that there can be a non-political caretaker government before the election. The idea is to question the legitimacy of the government that is elected on January 5. How that will help the people of Bangladesh is anyone’s guess.

 

Leader writers of the main papers seemed as flummoxed as this observer. The Indian Express made this pious noise. “Hasina's attempts to overhaul ties with India through an economic and security partnership as well as by demolishing the terrorist infrastructure… must be placed in the larger context of peace and stability in South Asia. Her success against the Islamists is a regional imperative. Her failure could see a Talibanised Bangladesh…”

 

The Telegraph was less windy. “It became increasingly clear that the BNP was not interested in the elections once the Jamaat was de-recognized as a political party and banned from participating in the polls. Bangladesh could see more violence before and after the elections. But Ms Wajed’s priority should be obvious — she must not allow the Jamaat and its allies to destabilize Bangladesh’s fragile democracy.” Yes, but how?

 

The Pioneer huffed and puffed that “…Ms Zia and her allies  pose a real and serious threat to the democratic process in Bangladesh… it is the Opposition that has vitiated the political atmosphere…(and)has effectively cleared the path for the incumbent Awami League Government to rule for another five years.”

 

The Hindustan Times was unusually patronising. “While street violence is par for the course in the run-up to a Bangladesh election, a boycott by the main opposition party is not.” Then it put its finger on the nub. “What is deafening is New Delhi’s silence on the developments…India should understand that its long-term interests lie in the creation of a stable democratic polity in Bangladesh. A Dhaka which swings from being pro to anti-India each election makes nonsense of India’s neighbourhood policy.’ 

 

The last to comment was The Hindu. “The crisis poses a serious challenge for India’s policy on Bangladesh.” It pointed out how friendly ties between India and Bangladesh had “set off an incredible amount of anti-India feeling, especially as New Delhi was seen as not reciprocating Dhaka’s “concessions” in equal measure. Post-election, New Delhi’s relations with a government that comes to power through a problematic process will only get more complicated.”