Published : 18 May 2014, 02:33 PM
Updated : 21 Jun 2022, 08:30 PM
It is amusing to see traces of unconcealed joy in the BNP (possibly in Jamaat-e-Islami well) over Narendra Modi's BJP winning a decisive majority in Indian parliament polls. No less amusing was the Awami League's reactions with its general secretary Syed Ashraful venturing 'foreign policy' lessons to those who he thought were 'fools'. There is no reason to disagree with Ashraf when he says Bangladesh won its freedom through huge sacrifice and not as a gift from 'someone'. But why would he need to react, unless provoked, by expressions of delight in the Opposition camp over the shameful drubbing the Congress got?
Everyone knows the League is comfortable with the Congress in Delhi – so it is natural for the Opposition to feel happy about the Congress defeat. The BNP may expect a non-Congress, especially a rightist regime, in Delhi will not play favourites in Dhaka. They may expect a re-run of the policy adopted by the Vajpayee's regime when National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra rushed to Dhaka to congratulate Khaleda Zia on taking over as the Prime Minister and publicly announced that India has 'no favourites' in Dhaka.
Times have changed and Modi is no Vajpayee. He has been invited by Nawaz Sharif to visit Pakistan and restart the dialogue that broke down after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Modi's aide Amit Shah has made it clear there will not be 'much of a change' in foreign policy. That is good enough hint that Modi is not going to rush to Lahore like Vajpayee did – rather he would follow the post-2008 Congress line of linking resumption of dialogue to end of terror patronage by Pakistani agencies.
That is the hint Amit Shah dropped during his NDTV interview with Barkha Dutt – "our government will not compromise on national security and national honour". Meaning clearly that you cannot expect Modi to send his foreign minister with three terrorists to be freed at Kandahar, were such a hijack to happen again! Vajpayee may have been in a hurry to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Nawaz Sharif by sorting out the Kashmir imbroglio and all the other problems between India and Pakistan, but Modi's priority is economy and not foreign policy. He is a hardcore home-grown RSS product with no Nehruvian flavour, the one found in Vajpayee – so don't expect any major foreign policy initiative from him except those that might benefit Indian economy.
One can expect him to push for more friendly relations with China, Japan and Korea – but all that only to boost investments in India from wherever it can come. And you don't get Nobel Peace Prize for signing a border accord with China that would bring peace between the two Asian giants – simply because it is not a Western priority. But Modi will not pursue Western priorities – he has to deliver to the people of India, its aspirational middle class – or else the tally will reverse and he will find himself with the same number of seats as the Gandhi-led Congress has got.
Now are the BNP and Jamaat feeling excited about Modi because they expect him to drive out the so-called Bangladeshi migrants which will embarrass the present government in Dhaka (and give them the chance of a political comeback riding an anti-Indian wave)? If that is a possible calculation in their political chessboard and explains their hurry to congratulate Modi on his victory ahead of Hasina, one can only feel sorry about how political negativism can become the basis of strategy.
Modi's victory in India indicates (a) the Opposition needs a positive message of hope to triumph and not count merely on anti-incumbency, (b) economic well-being is much more attractive to voters especially the young than the religious fundamentalism which is why Modi almost dropped the Ram Temple construction pledge from the BJP manifesto and focused solely on the economy with his 'acche din ane wale hain' (good days will come back) message and which is why the share market jumped thousands of points in a few trading sessions after his victory which would not happen if trade anticipated rioting like in the post-Babri Masjid demolition phase, (c) even the religious right needs to project a modern face in both campaign styles and promises and not hope to just capitalise on enemy-bashing, real or imaginary.
If Modi played up the anti-migrant card, it was to drive home an economic point – Indian citizens lose land and livelihood in states bordering Bangladesh because of illegal migration. He reaped rich dividends in Assam, where an anti-Bangladesh (often reduced to anti-Bengali) sentiment prevails and the illegal migration is seen as the cause of all woes. But in Bengal, it had the opposite effect – though the BJP did increase its vote share, the minorities panicked and voted with their feet for Mamata, who was much more aggressive than the Left in challenging Modi. For those who are unaware, Modi has a brilliant analytics centre – N-Doc – working overtime to provide him reports and inputs on ground realities, even constituency wise. It is run by some brilliant Indian IT whizkids who have left plush jobs in the US to work for Modi (not so much for BJP) because they believe he will realise India's full potential. Of all who have become prime ministers in India, Modi is the one likely to depend more on cutting edge research and not merely on political instinct or assumptions – even more than economist Dr Manmohan Singh.
With polls in Bengal due in 2016, will Modi hand Mamata an easy plank to consolidate her minority vote base (or vote bank, as Modi derided)? He may play the anti-migration card in Assam only for local consumption, but not in Bengal anymore, surely not elsewhere in India where it is a marginal issue. With the BJP aiming to hit off big in Bengal in 2016 assembly elections, Modi will not do anything that gives Trinamool Congress a chance to do well.
So for those who boycott polls they could have easily won, given Bangladesh's contemporary record of changing governments every five years, it is time to ponder. It is time to stop overestimating the value of foreign support for winning elections — be it from the West or India or China. What is not often realised is that if a party in Bangladesh goes to polls seen as likely to fulfil the Western (primarily the US) agenda, it is sure to bring together countries like India and China, who want Bangladesh in their new regional groupings like BCIM and they would end up backing a party seen as opposed to the US! Has that not happened?
If Modi stresses on national security, as his close aide Amit Shah indicated, there is no reason why he would like to unsettle the present regime in Dhaka, which has addressed its security and connectivity concerns so well. And if he chooses as his National Security Advisor someone like former IB chief Ajit Doval, whose primary concern is security, one can safely forget any Brajesh Mishra type 'no favourites in Dhaka' line.
But if the Awami League realises that is the case, why should its leaders react publicly to suggestions that a policy change in India may unsettle them! Is it not doing the same as the Opposition – stressing on the factor of foreign support as a source of sustainability?
Modi's victory in India proves (a) promise of good governance (su-raj) and development (vikas) work much more than identity politics (caste or religion or ethnicity), as the demise of the caste parties in UP and Bihar indicate (b) that the era of political dynasties are coming to an end in post-colonial South Asia (c) that democracy creates its own dynamics, faster in India than in the West – so if it took more than 200 years for an Afro-American to become president in the US, it has only taken 60 years for a low-caste tea-seller to become India's Prime Minister, who battled massive poverty and did not go to Harvard as Obama could.
Political parties in Bangladesh, surely both the Awami League and the BNP, need to realise that the day of the dynasty is fading. As South Asian economies go modern, as the region is subjected to a tech-com revolution, the effectiveness of the message and the credibility of fulfilling promises will become more important than lineage. Leaders who connect to masses (Modi's stress on being a chai-walla against Rahul Gandhi who he projected as shehzada or prince) stand a better chance of victory. What has happened in India will happen in Bangladesh because both neighbours have similar demographics with youth representing a huge part of the electorate. They have less patience for lineage and are more keen on leaders capable of fulfilling their aspirations.
So if a party is unable to provide good governance, if it is unable to contain factionalism (as the Congress failed and the BJP managed to, despite Advani's sulking), if it cannot discipline party workers, and most importantly, if it cannot implement major projects seen as game changers (Padma Bridge or Dhaka Metro and the power plants), they lose whatever popularity they have. Dynasty is no more an insurance against political adversity. The Congress will take a while to realise this because of internal feudalism that developed since the Indira days and many in the party will still believe that Priyanka may be a better option than Rahul. Even a defeat of this magnitude may not convince these sycophants (and there are many like that in Bangladesh) that in India , one needs strong regional leaders like Modi, MP chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Chattisgarh CM Raman Singh or Rajasthan CM Vasundhara Raje to make the party strong . That Raje is a Scindia scion and his nephew Jyotiraditya also won from a Congress ticket is because they strongly connect to grassroots and not just carry the Maharani air.
It is also important to realise – which Congress did not – that you don't need a young leader to connect to the young. You need someone who is a bridge between generations (like Modi) and can understand the aspirations of both old and young, though often it is no different. If a twenty-something wants a good job, will his father and mother not welcome it and vote for a party that is capable of ensuring that?
And if you look at West Bengal, one would realise that 'political machinery' is no guarantee of retaining power. The CPI(M) had the most formidable 'election machinery' India (or South Asia) has ever seen – but from 35 parliament seats in 2004, it is now down to 2 seats a decade later. And both seats won by less than 5000 votes! Much as Mamata Banerji needs to absorb that lesson, it is one that parties in Bangladesh cannot overlook. The Bengali politician, on either side of the border, would do well to develop their skills in good governance and development rather than in developing 'political machinery' in an age of democracy and empowerment.
The message: Don't fall behind.
————————————
Syed Bashir, a columnist with bdnews24.com, specialises on security issues.
