Bangladesh,
the youngest nation in South Asia tore herself
apart from West Pakistan in 1971, under violent
circumstances. It is not a wonder that Pakistan
split. The wonder is, it survived a quarter
of a century, as one nation. The contradictions
inherent in the formation of a united Pakistan,
composed of people separated in two wings, a
thousand kilometres apart, who had nothing in
common except their religion, were bound to
assert themselves. Historically, culturally,
ethnically, socially and sartorially there was
little in common between the peoples in East
Bengal and West Pakistan. Even their food habits
and standard times were not the same. Pakistan
experiment forcefully brought home the fact
that religion by itself was not a strong cementing
force.
It did not take very long for the people of
East Pakistan to reaslise that despite a numerically
superiority, the center and balance of power
was in the other wing and they were condemned
to a acquiescent role. The first shock was administered
by the founder of Pakistan Jinnah himself, who
chided them for daring to demand an equal status
for Bengali with Urdu. East Bengal did win the
first showdown on the language issue but only
after the death of Jinnah and paying a heavy
price in blood and flesh. It nevertheless convinced
the people of East Pakistan that they would
have to go through many more such rounds before
gaining even a semblance of power from their
counter parts in West Pakistan. The aftermath
of the historic elections of 1971 proved the
proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
Suddenly Bangladesh found herself catapulted
into sovereignty, master of her own destiny,
a full member of the comity of nations negotiating
her problems directly with other countries.
As a sovereign nation her problems were no longer
to be seen from the prism of Pakistan. Bangladesh
too got rid of the Pakistani baggage in articulating
her problems with the neighbours. Mentally,
however, Bangladesh could not break with her
past. This was particularly true in her relations
with India. The quarter of a century's existence
as part of Pakistan did not fail to leave its
mark on the psyche of the people of East Bengal.
Bangladesh struggle was not anti-Islamic. Liberation
created a new apprehension that if the new nation
lost its Islamic moorings, it would face an
identity crisis. She did not wish to be engulfed
by the hegemonic Bengali culture. Hence the
need to insulate Bangladeshi culture by emphasizing
its distinctiveness, setting it apart from the
culture of Indian Bengal. It underlined the
need not only to retain the strong Islamic bias
gathered during Pakistan days but also to give
it a sharper edge. This consciousness prevented
her to break away from the past and remain steeped
in the legacy of her existence as part of Pakistan
for 25 years. The emergence of an adversarial
relationship was a natural and inevitable corollary
of the tendency to stay prisoner of the past.
The need to document India's relations with
her neighbours was acutely felt by me during
my three-decade service with the Ministry of
External Affairs. In studying any foreign policy
issue, or a matter of bilateral concern locating
relevant old documents was a time consuming
exercise. The record keeping in the Government
of India being archaic, locating old papers
was a problem. There were embarrassing moments
too when requests from scholars and researchers
for providing copies of old documents in public
domain had to be regretted. One felt grumpy
at such a situation. On retirement from service
in 1993 and took it upon myself to bridge this
lacuna. After almost a decade, some modest success
can be claimed, but a lot remains to be done.
The first in the series was the documentation
of "Nepal's Relations with India and China:
1947-92 " which was published in two volumes
in 1994. The next attempt was at documenting
the "India-Bangladesh Relations".
This collection covering the period 1971 to
1994 was published in 1996. The success of the
two together, encouraged me to undertake a similar
study of another important neighbour, Sri Lanka.
The 5-Volume compendium running into more than
3000 pages came out of the press in January
2001. It was titled: "India-Sri Lanka Relations
and Sri Lanka's Ethnic Conflict" and covered
the period from 1947 to 2000. Since these studies
had been found useful by researchers, academics
and diplomats dealing with South Asian affairs,
a suggestion was made to update the India-Bangladesh
study since the one published in 1996 had run
out of print.
Financially these efforts were not very rewarding.
On the contrary they left a big hole in my not
too deep pocket, sense of fulfillment provided
the locomotive force to go on.
The documents have been arranged thematically
and chronologically in seven sections so that
each aspect of the problem is put across in
bold relief to tell a coherent story. The issues
that confronted the two countries are so enmeshed
that certain overlapping has unavoidably crept
in. I seek the indulgence of the users for the
duplication that may have occurred. That the
collection has become voluminous and bulky is
entirely attributable to the depth and dimensions
of the problems faced by the two countries in
their almost daily interaction. This made it
necessary to split it into five volumes for
facility of handling. For all practical purposes,
it is one integrated study.
The documents have been gathered from various
sources, published and unpublished. Many of
them of the earlier period are from my personal
collection built during my three-decade service
with the Ministry of External Affairs. They
have been put together besides for ready reference,
to save them for posterity. Extensive footnotes
have been added either to amplify the context
or to supplement the contents where necessary.
Some of the footnotes are so extensive and lengthy
that in some cases they are lengthier than the
document itself. It is hoped the users would
find this additional effort worthwhile.
Some of the Indo-Bangladesh issues have their
genesis in the developments of Pakistan days.
Such documents of the pre-1971 period as have
relevance to the post-1971 events have been
included in a separate section. This would,
it is hoped, help the study of the issues in
their historical perspective.
It is not that India and Bangladesh did not
agree on major issues alone. They found it sometimes
difficult to agree on even smaller and mundane
things like whether Ganga, a sacred river in
India which in the Indian folklore and mythology
is the personification of "mother",
should be spelt in desi way or as Ganges, the
spellings given by the British during the colonial
days or whether Teesta river be spelt with "ee"
or with an "i". Readers would find
that both spellings have been used for the two
rivers, depending on the context. Some of the
proper Bangla names too have been spelt differently
at different places. For instance, Razzak has
also been spelt with 'Q' at the end in place
of 'k' or 'Tafael' as 'Tofail'; 'Chowdhury'
as 'Choudhury'. There are several other similar
instances. Every effort has been made to adhere
to the names, spellings and punctuations as
appearing in each text.
I made extensive use of many libraries among
them: Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, Library
of the Ministry of External Affairs, Central
Secretariat Library, Library of the National
Archives of India, Parliament Library, the Library
of the India International Centre, Press Information
Bureau, and the Library of the Jawaharlal Nehru
University are particularly important. I am
grateful to the officers and staff members of
these libraries for their ready and courteous
help.
In the pursuit of this task, help in generous
quantities came from friends and well wishers.
I would have liked to mention all the names
individually. Quite a few of them were anxious
not to be mentioned. I respect their sentiments
and wish not to embarrass them. But some names
I must mention though they too were not keen
to be singled out for mention. Mr. M.L. Tripathi
was the first to encourage the idea of revising
and updating the volumes published in 1996.
He provided all the support to run the race
and breast the tape.. But for his encouragement
this work would not have been possible. M/s
Jaideep Sarkar and R.R. Dash were generous with
their help. M/s TCA Rangachari, R. Rangachari,
I.S. Chadha, Prakash Nanda, S.K. Reddy are some
of the other well wishers who so readily extended
their help and left me in indebted to them.
Thank you, Sir.
During my stay in Dhaka, I met a very large
number of Bangladesh scholars and officials
in different fields and departments who being
appreciative of the earlier effort, which they
had found useful, were enthusiastic and generous
with their help in the present venture. Some
of the names I am under constraint not to mention.
Others who were generous with their help and
advice were Khalilur Rahman of the Bangladesh
Unnayan Parishad, Prof. M. Maniruzzaman miah,
former Vice-Chancellor of Dhaka University,
Prof. Rehman Sobhan of the Centre for Policy
Dialogue, Major General (Retd.) S.M. Shahabuddin,
psc., of the Bangladesh Institute of International
and Strategic Studies and Md. Ashrafuzzaman
of the Bangladesh Institute of Law and International
Affairs. To all of them I offer my sincere thanks.
I was very keen that I should have access to
the debates of the Jatiya Sangsad of Bangladesh
so that the discussions on important India-Bangladesh
issues embellished the pages of my study. I
waited for two weeks in Dhaka for the necessary
permission to come in. Since the proceedings
of the Sangsad from 1995 on ward were not yet
printed, the rules did not permit their access.
Necessarily I had to fall back on the reporting
of the proceedings in the newspapers and be
content with that. I trust the readers would
understand the limitations imposed by the rules
of the Jatiya Sangsad. On the other hand the
proceedings of the Indian Parliament were available
up to the year 2002 and have been included verbatim
where necessary.
Syeda, as always, was generous with her help
and support at all the time. Many thanks to
her.
While taking the help of a large number of people,
I must remain responsible and committed to the
views expressed in the introduction or at any
other place in the main body of the book.