What does Trump's India visit mean for Bangladesh?

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 29, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/220622/what-does-trumps-india-visit-mean-for-bangladesh

Even without a major trade agreement, this week's India visit by United States President Donald Trump indicates how close the two geopolitical allies have become. When I first started coming to India in the early 2000's, one of the most frequent questions Indians would ask me was, "Why does the US support Pakistan?"

The answer in part is that India allied itself with the Soviet Union almost since the start of the Cold War, not long after its birth. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru called his alliance "non-aligned (NAM), but no one believed that. Nehru's pro-USSR tilt had been on display for a decade before he started his movement, and all of the major leaders were communists:

Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia, Yugoslavia's Josip Broz Tito, and Nehru.There were natural consequences to its being non-aligned in name only, because until the USSR passed into the dustbin of history in 1991, US foreign policy was conducted through the prism of the Cold War; and with Nehru hobnobbing with some of the most anti-American leaders on the planet, US-India relations suffered.

Members of the US State and Defense departments are no different than their counterparts around the world. When they want to know what's going on in a particular area, they rarely get on a plane and go there. Their best bet is to pick up the phone and talk with people there whom they trust. And for more than four decades, for South Asia, that meant Pakistanis.

Even today, the Indian Congress Party, which ruled India for almost the entire period of the Cold War, maintains at least an overall distaste for the United States. For instance, the most recent Indian Prime Minister from the Congress Party, Manmohan Singh, along with the Congress leaders in both houses of the Indian parliament, boycotted the state dinner for President Trump.

Things began to thaw a little in 2000 when US President Bill Clinton visited India and its first Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee; the first visit by a US President in 22 years.

Today old animosities seem long forgotten, and the first day of Trump's visit was a daylong love fest between him and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. One Indian station counted the number of "power hugs" between Trump and Modi, declaring that the number was greater than Modi's hugs for any other world leader and another indication of their close relationship.

More seriously, the world's largest and the world's oldest democracies do share critical geopolitical interests, especially stopping China's aggressive expansion, which includes surrounding India and superseding the United States.

"Regardless," one of your former cabinet ministers asked me, "what does any of that mean for Bangladesh?" That's the key question, and there are a lot of good answers, beginning with China. The visit gives Bangladesh a roadmap for navigating its way forward, especially given the Chinese economy's likely collapse that will leave your Prime Minister looking for a new patron.

And, if she didn't know it before, she found out again that her path to one, namely the United States, runs through India. The first thing that the Trump trip does is to give your Prime Minister a way out of her disastrous decision to hook your country's rising star to China's declining economy.

Even before the coronavirus crisis, China was in trouble. The government was force to take an increasing number of actions to save business from defaulting on their sizable loans. Manufacturing demand was dropping with other players entering the market. And China's trade war with the United States was taking its toll on a fragile economy.

Moreover, these factors are making it ever more difficult for China to sustain the large number of loans it's been making under the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). From a "road to nowhere" in Macedonia to an empty airport in The Maldives, countries are not generating sufficient income from their BRI projects to service their debt to China; and deals like China's taking control of Sri Lanka's Hambantota port in exchange for debt relief are not enough to fill the gaping hole. Even Pakistan, which became something close to a Chinese client state thought the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, began canceling some BRI projects to save its struggling economy.

Bangladesh can do the same, and at the same time, leverage its strategic importance to get the best deals from both the United States and China (assuming China still has the ability to do anything after the coronavirus dust settles). Here are some actions and initiatives that Bangladesh can take, which US-India closeness makes possible.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina can use her good relationship with Prime Minister Modi to have him signal to the United States that she would like to discuss a number of ways the US and Bangladesh can cooperate and extend US and Indian influence in the region.

She also can signal her desire to give Bangladesh a healthy alternative to China's BRI, which many people term "debt trap diplomacy," to help assure her people's future.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently concluded a tour of Africa where he offered US investment as an alternative to Chinese loans; that is, mutual effort as opposed to a one-sided lender-debtor relationship. This is a priority for the United States, Bangladesh should seize it.

Against the backdrop of recent riots in the Indian capital of Delhi around India's Citizenship Amendment Act, signal Bangladesh's desire to help ease intercommunal tensions, based on an understanding that minorities face challenges in all the countries of what was once British India.

There is good reason why the Modi government felt it important to pass a law that provides a refuge for Hindus and others from surrounding countries; and that while Bangladesh is committed in its basic principles to protecting people of all faith, it also recognizes that neither the Indian nor Bangladeshi governments are engaging in these actions themselves.

There is a solution with which Bangladesh can help itself and India; and it lies in a comprehensive effort that focuses on concrete actions while eliminating the legacy of "divide and conquer colonialism" that continues to fuel the violence.

Like Bangladesh, India has a history of support for Palestinian aspirations. Yet, today, India has strong, robust, and mutually beneficial relationship with Israel. Few countries still maintain a one-sided policy with regard to the Middle East anymore.

In fact, Bangladesh is one of only eight Muslim-majority countries that have no level of relations with Israel; many of them are war-torn and unable to conduct coherent foreign policy (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen) or radical (Iran and Pakistan). Algeria, the seventh, is neither and might leave this dubious group after its new reformist government settles into office. While it's unlikely that Bangladesh would want to have the sort of full-throated relations enjoyed by India, Egypt, and others right away; there are a host of options that will enable slow testing of economic and other ties. It would strengthen ties with both the US and India and bring tangible results to the people of Bangladesh.

Since its birth, Bangladesh has been committed to democratic ideals. Unfortunately, things have not always worked out so well in practice. The US government funds and operates several agencies that can help with things like religious freedom, press freedom, and political freedom, which sometimes face attack in Bangladesh.

Asking for this help would not identify Bangladesh as un-democratic; quite the contrary. It shows that this democratic nation always looks for help to strengthen its democratic institutions.

Then there are potential initiatives for reduction of pollution, rodent elimination, water purification, and such that Bangladesh can offer to lead as part of regional efforts, further increasing cooperation with India. As an American who frequently is in this beautiful country, I can attest to how badly these initiatives are needed. Israel, by the way, can offer great technical help as well.

These are just some potential projects; there are more. They can help Bangladesh capitalize on the momentum generated by the American president's South Asian visit, and give Bangladesh options with which to move forward. As a capitalist, I know that options and competition will serve to get the best for the people of Bangladesh. And as always, I offer my good offices to help in any way.

The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst

Stop allowing the persecution of minorities!

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 26, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/220439/stop-allowing-the-persecution-of-minorities

Recently, US Senator Charles Grassley sparked an angry response when he called out Bangladesh as a country where religious freedom is not respected in fact. As is so often the case, the Bangladeshi response focused on formal laws and such but ignored the reality on the ground. 

Senator Grassley is the President Pro Tem of the Senate, which makes him fourth in line for Presidential succession, as well as chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which can have an impact on Bangladesh's economy.

The Bangladeshi response, by the way, might have meant something for domestic consumption here, but I can assure you that it convinced no one that things are fine for minorities in Bangladesh.

Fighting the ethnic cleansing of Bangladesh's Hindus is and has been an emotional and strategic roller coaster.  When I first started in 2007, people told me that "no one cares, no one ever will care"; and for a time, it looked like they might be right.  But that sort of human rights action is a marathon, not a sprint; and the fact that the struggle continues 13 years later should not obscure how close we might be getting to a resolution. 

For years, the BNP government refused to let me in the country because of my work.  The interim caretaker and military that followed let me in once or twice but otherwise blocked me. 

And at first, the Awami League government refused to let me in but later ended the ban.  That more open attitude reached its zenith this year when the government gave me a five-year visa, which I find a positive sign for our being able to work together, end the persecution, and make things better for all parties.

Regardless, the persecution of Bangladesh's Hindus remains a serious problem that is getting more and more international attention, which I will get to in a bit. 

In 1951, Pakistan held its first census after the massive population transfers that accompanied partition.  It found that Hindus accounted for a little less than a third of the East Pakistan population.  When East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971, they were just under a fifth. 

After 30 years of Bangladeshi rule, they were less than a tenth; and today's estimates have them hovering somewhere close to one in 15.Professor Sachi Dastidar of the State University of New York, using demographic data, estimates that the Bangladesh census is missing about 5 crore Hindus due to murder, forced conversion, and forced emigration.  Some people might want to argue about how or why it happened.  The fact is that it happened; and based on documented cases and fleeing population, it still is. 

Bangladeshi cabinet ministers, ambassadors, and other officials have reacted angrily to the data and even questions about what the government is doing about it.  Some responded with silly excuses, my favorite coming from one high official who said that the Hindu "population has gone down because Hindus leave Bangladesh for India for better matches for their children."

During all those years when Bangladeshi governments refused to let me in the country, I spent my time with Bangladeshi Hindu refugees, and not one of them ever said they fled their country so their children would have better marriage prospects.  Those responses hurt Bangladesh's credibility, and not just with me. 

Quite a few lawmakers and staff in Washington shared their derisive opinions of former Bangladeshi officials in Washington.  When I would get these excuses, it always seemed that the official figured that all Americans get their information from the movies and are naïve enough to believe anything they said.

They ultimately found out otherwise as my Capitol Hill allies and I showed them extensive evidence of how Hindus and Hinduism are being eliminated in Bangladesh.While you might or might not consider the United States worthy of being a moral arbiters, in the practical world of geo-politics, they're critical to the Bangladeshi economy and the economic miracle that is today's Bangladesh. 

One of my great pleasures last year was reading mind-boggling growth figures for Bangladesh during my presentation at a Daily Asian Age seminar.   But what would happen to all that if Bangladesh's biggest customer started buying their garments from Latin American countries because companies did not want to be associated with these human rights atrocities and the government's refusal to do anything about them; or because President Trump levied tariffs that made them no longer competitive because of these human rights issues? 

And don't expect China to pick up the slack.  Even before the coronavirus ravaged their economy, it was in serious trouble.  Even at their best, the Chinese are great at selling you stuff, but not much on buying.

In any given week, we receive multiple reports of atrocities against Hindus.  For me to accept one, I either have to confirm it personally or have it confirmed by at least two independent witnesses.  Once I do, they now are going to the US State Department and some of America's most powerful lawmakers, including those with authority over trade and foreign aid. 

Another area currently under review is Bangladesh's participation in UN Peacekeeping, which is funded by US taxpayers far more than anyone else.  If Bangladesh cannot keep the peace at home, those police and soldiers would do better to stay at home, though it would mean the loss of millions of dollars every month.

Late last month one lawmaker, Congressman Brad Schneider from the Chicago area,considered the situation so serious that he was about to take the extraordinary step of going himself to Washington's Bangladeshi embassy until scheduling conflicts forced the parties to find another date and time.

Despite the delay, Bangladeshi officials should understand that this member of the powerful US House Committee Ways and Means, which controls financial and trade legislation, will not relent in his determination to deal with this matter.

As the evidence of human rights abuses against Hindus in Bangladesh continued to accumulate, I have counseled Bangladeshi leaders to formally recognize the problem and be part of the solution.  For Bangladesh has a lot of goodwill in the world.  Your War of Independence is seen as a noble struggle by a great people.

  The fact that the immediate event sparking it was Pakistan's attempt to overturn the legitimate electoral will of the Bengali people strengthens the belief that it was about democracy and freedom; about equal justice for all.  It's an inspiring chapter in world history that touches the best in us all. 

The murder of as many as three million innocents, massive use of rape to attack the Bengali gene pool, and targeted execution of intellectuals and others was a tragedy that the world should recognize as the attempted genocide it was.  That Hindus might face a similar fate in Bangladesh now, does not fit with the nation's carefully cultivated image around the world, which is changing as a result.

Even under the Awami League, long considered a party with affection for minorities, there were targeted anti-Hindu actions at the rate of one and a half per week during its first term in office.  And they were only those atrocities I was able to confirm myself.  Decision-makers are aware that the actual number is much higher.

Unlike nations like Pakistan, identified in Senator Grassley's statement, Bangladesh does not carry out these atrocities itself-even though we have proof of participation in the atrocities and their cover ups by individual members of the government.  More people see it as equally guilty, however, because Bangladeshi governments (of all parties and factions) refused to prosecute the atrocities or punish the perpetrators, sending a clear message that if you commit these crimes against Hindus, nothing will happen to you. 

When police and government officials tried to tell me that "the same thing happens to the majority community," such arguments fell flat.  I asked them for the last time a group of Hindus destroyed a mosque, and the government did nothing; or the last time a Muslim child was abducted and forcibly converted.  No one ever produced a single example.

After a police official posted guards at a threatened Mandir while I was here last year, he was transferred for it, and his successor has not renewed the protection.  I have given reams of evidence of crimes to former cabinet ministers and ambassadors who promised to "take care of it personally," but never once received a response.

Time might be running out for a solution that does not put Bangladesh in the same human rights category as Pakistan.  India, too, has recognized the problem by including Bangladeshi Hindus as a group protected by the recent citizenship laws.

Here is my suggestion.  Bangladesh's diplomats in Washington are top-notch, bright, and quite savvy about the different ways things might get done.

  Even when we disagree, there always is mutual respect.  I suggest that they, along with my good offices, and perhaps the assistance of the Bangladesh International Mediation Society, hammer out a solution that protects all Bangladeshis, assures that the rule of law is applied equally to all citizens, and secures Bangladesh's place among the great nations of the world.  We can do it.  The solution is there.  All we need is the authority.

In the end, what happens is up to the Bangladeshis themselves-not the US or China or the British Raj.  The nation's leaders will have to decide if they want to continue gambling that people will ignore these atrocities and continue to fund the economy responsible for them; or take the lead in solving this increasingly known human rights tragedy.


The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst

What's really happening with India's NRC/CAA

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 22, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/219706/whats-really-happening-with-indias-nrccaa

Pretty much worldwide, but especially in South Asia, people react to events and the people on either side of conflicts with more emotion than analysis.  My role often is providing some analysis for people to consider—maybe accept it, maybe reject it, maybe think about and alter it.

Perhaps no issue is generating more heat and less light these days than India's National Registry of Citizens/Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 (NRC/CAA).  As someone who has been fighting for persecuted minorities in surrounding countries, I applaud the law's providing a safe having for them.

I just landed in Bangladesh after a four-week residency in Silchar, Assam, with the Northeast India Company and Gurucharan College.  While there and since, I heard the expected hyperbole from both sides of the NRC/CAA debate; people who love it, and people who hate it.

But love and hate are two strong emotions, and emotion is a poor basis for analysis.  Partisans on both sides traffic in scare tactics, trying to get their supporters worked up over a potential disaster if their side does not prevail.  The law's supporters say that it's necessary for India to control its borders and stop the decades-long flood of illegal migrants; without it, they say, the nation will lose its very character. 

The law's opponents, on the other hand, liken NRC/CAA to Nazi Germany's Nuremberg Laws that set the groundwork for the Holocaust; and warn that that law will lead inexorably to the expulsion of 20 percent of India's populace.  Those latter positions are on display in the extreme at the Shaheen Bagh protests, which have been going strong since 15 December of last year.  Emotions are running high.

However, after spending considerable time in Assam, which is ground zero for this law, as it is the only Indian state to attempt its implementation; it is clear from an on-the-ground perspective that both sets of partisans are fear merchants more than anything else.  And that's a shame because the issues that they both champion could hardly be more important.  Back to reality.

Let's take the first group of fear merchants who warn of mass deportations and an end to democratic India.  Citizens in Assam tell me that the whole thing is a mess. They recount examples of children on the list and their parents not, as well as parents on the list and their children not.  Even a former Indian President is not on the rolls.  Does anyone really believe that the Modi government will placidly accept a terribly flawed system implementation and let the chips fall where they may?  (If they do, they do not know Prime Minister Narendra Modi.)

Do they really believe that India will forcibly deport its former President?  And who would do the deporting?  The military?  How many of them would find themselves off the list?  Moreover, the logistics in forcibly removing one fifth of the entire Indian population would be a nightmare beyond the capacity of any nation.  The numbers would exceed by ten to 20 times the entire population transfer at the time of Indian Partition.

It would be greater than the entire population of Bangladesh!   If implementation is so faulty in Assam, which is India's fourteenth smallest state, representing only two and a half percent of the nation's population; imagine what it would be like across the entire country. So, even if we concede the hyperbole of loudest voices against the bill, which I do not, their fears are unwarranted.

If indeed the NRC/CAA is discriminatory, that will be determined by the courts.  The law is being challenged in front of the Supreme Court right now, and I recently participated in an Impleading on the challenge.  That challenge alleges that NRC/CAA violates Part III of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

It alleges that all illegal migrants represent one class and treating any subset of it differently violates the Constitution.  Will that argument sway the justices?  The Indian Supreme Court has a stellar reputation internationally and is known for its independence.  If the violation is there, it will rule as such.  My own belief is that NRC/CAA will take much the same path taken by US President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The law's opponents decried it as a "Muslim ban," which is in fairness what Candidate Trump promised during the election.  And indeed the US Supreme Court reaffirmed US democracy and struck it down as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The ban went through several iterations before it passed muster with the court and the Constitution.  It's in force today in a way that carries out its intended function within the confines of equal justice, and includes 13 countries, split almost evenly between Muslim-majority nations and others.

On the other side, even if the law was implemented fairly and flawlessly, it still would not solve India's problem with illegal immigrants.  It does not address the porous borders adjacent to Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and West Bengal.  It does not do anything about the corruption that motivates border police to look the other way when people come into the country illegally; a matter I addressed twice, once on the Nepal border at Panitanki and again on the Bangladesh border with Meghalaya.

In both cases, Indian border guards remained passive to illegal crossings and only took action—to confront me —when they saw that I was documenting their negligence.  Israel presents a good example of a comprehensive approach.  The tiny nation had a serious problem with illegal migration.

The migrants came from challenged circumstances in Africa, trekked from their homes, through Egypt, to the Sinai, then across Israel's southern border.  While Israelis have a great deal of sympathy for the migrants, their numbers were straining the state's resources.  So Israel built a wall, and the number of migrants decreased by 99 percent.  While the barrier did have a significant impact, it was not entirely responsible for the success.

Israel also implemented other measures, such as imprisoning illegal migrants before deporting them and adding technological elements to its border control.  To really get on top of illegal immigration, India will have to do more than the NRC/CAA.

Thus, there are very real problems involved with addressing illegal migration and maintaining the values of a nation's constitution and values, be it India, Israel, or Bangladesh; and the Assam example emphasizes their extent.  Unfortunately, the anger, name calling, and hyperbole, much of which is pure fantasy, do not help us tackle them.

The first step is for all sides to recognize that every nation has the right, in fact the duty to its citizens, to control its borders and regulate who can and cannot enter.  The second is for people on all sides of the issue to identify the actual issues and come to a consensus.  And the third is to test those solutions against the principles of the nation's Constitution.

The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst