Bangladesh None did as much for India’s northeast as Bangladesh: Ex-NSG chief

Isa Khan

Experienced member
Moderator
Messages
5,058
Reactions
8 8,154
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
1654699620599.png


A former director general of India's elite National Security Guard (NSG) has commended Bangladesh's "amazing" cooperation to help India contain insurgency issues in the country's north-eastern states.

The security issues India had in its northeast region has been "controlled and managed" partly because of the immense help provided by Bangladesh, former NSG DG Jayanto Narayan Choudhury said.

"At all levels, Bangladesh has so far been an outstanding and amazing partner of India on security issues. No one has done as much for the northeast as Bangladesh," he said.

Choudhury was speaking at a programme in Kolkata to mark the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh's independence at the Presidency University, reports our New Delhi correspondent.

Terming Bangladesh as an "outstanding partner" of India on security issues, he said "all the trouble we had in the northeast has been controlled and managed, partly because of Bangladesh. After we started tracking down shelters (of insurgents), almost every state in the northeast is now in peace."

"When I was posted in Calcutta for five to six years, the informal help given by the Rapid Action Battalion of Bangladesh... I have no words to express my gratitude," Choudhury said.

Choudhury also pitched for easy movement of people between the Bangladesh and India, pointing to the shared cross-border culture.

Retied diplomat Sarvajit Chakravarti, who was once posted in the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, said India and Bangladesh need to collaborate on a host of issues of common concern, including disaster management.

"We need to devise ways which will allow people to move between the countries without too much of a problem – by means of national identification cards, without visas and passports," he said.

Bangladesh Deputy High Commission Counsellor Sikder Mohammad Ashrafur Rahaman said the country aims to be a developing nation by 2026, and by 2041, it would strive to become a developed country.

 

Gessler

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
409
Reactions
6 901
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
So sad that Bangladesh has to kow-tow to India.
Its weak armed forces does not help the situation

It's mutual cooperation.

It's not very practical for India to interact with its north-eastern states avoiding Bangladesh, best to transit through instead. Bangladesh on the other hand cannot interact with the wider world via land except through India (or Myanmar with which they have bad relations).

If Bangladesh decides to get belligerent & block India's access to its North-Eastern states, they would hurt India but also be hurting themselves a lot if India retaliates by refusing to allow Bangladesh's overland trade, and imposing a naval blockade which would make them unable to trade with anyone. The last part was already done once, successfully (at a time when both US & China were against us), so we know its feasible.

India's North-Eastern states have strategic value but economically they don't amount to much, on the other hand textile exports are hugely important to Bangladesh's economy. Won't take long for them to go Sri Lanka's way if they start to compromise India's security interests vis-a-vis China, much earlier than any such act starts to have negative effects on India. Plus India still maintains good relations with Myanmar junta, so that card can also be played, probably in conjunction with the blockade to multiply the effects.

But unless there is a drastic change in security calculus, there's no need for any of this. It is best for both countries to work with each other to grow. Most of the border disagreements that existed since 1971 were also resolved by 2015.
 

Isa Khan

Experienced member
Moderator
Messages
5,058
Reactions
8 8,154
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Bangladesh on the other hand cannot interact with the wider world via land except through India (or Myanmar with which they have bad relations).
If Bangladesh decides to get belligerent & block India's access to its North-Eastern states, they would hurt India but also be hurting themselves a lot if India retaliates by refusing to allow Bangladesh's overland trade

First of all what's the relevance between most of this reply and the OP about cooperation in counter-insurgency or his comment?

The opposite, India getting belligerent has more chance to happen judging by the situation in India, remarks it's leaders made about Bangladesh and what it did and still doing to Bangladesh (Shanti Bahini, border/BSF issue, river issue, continental shelf, interfering in internal issue, threatening to invade/annexing BD, growing extremism with govt support etc). Besides India also have history of intervening/invading/annexing other countries (Hyderabad, Sikkim, Bangladesh in 1971, air strikes in Balakot etc)

The wider world through India is only Nepal and Bhutan and through Myanmar is Thailand and China only. BBIN isn't effective yet while India is already enjoying transit-transshipment through BD in cheap price without any duty/tax or charge to repair our infrastructures. (only Tk 226 for each ton in waterways, original recommendation was Tk 1058 and Tk 2 for per km in road while local pays Tk 40 per km)

Bhutan backed down from from BBIN due environment issue so it only leaves Nepal and there's nothing happening with Myanmar for overland trade.

Bangladesh's most trade outside the region and happens through sea routes. So how India will refusing to allow Bangladesh's overland trade which isn't even happening? Bangladesh trade with those two countries doesn't exceed $50 million (Nepal- $48.6 million and Bhutan $8.33 million). The same can be said about India which exports $14 billion while BD's export is only $1.28 billion.

So even if India blocks trade with those countries, it won't hurt BD that much as the trade volume is small and Nepal and Bhutan will be more affected as they are seeking connectivity through BD and volume of Bhutan's export is bigger.

And there's nothing hostile about blocking India's access through BD. As a sovereign nation it's up to us to decide who we will let to use our facilities. Just like it's up to India to decide about exporting their wheat (one anything) in this current crisis in Ukraine or supporting Ukraine or not or like Russia stopping gas supply to EU.

What did India do when US didn't supply raw material for Covid vaccine? If India's access through BD gets revoked then that means finally someone in current govt or led by any other party grew a spine and decided that India is not paying enough for the transit benefits it gets from BD. So deteriorating bilateral relation will mostly hurt India as it enjoys more benefits than BD which gets very little in return.


imposing a naval blockade which would make them unable to trade with anyone. The last part was already done once, successfully (at a time when both US & China were against us), so we know its feasible.

And you're already proving my point about the belligerent issue. Sounds like you made threats here. Naval blockade for revoking India's access through Bangladesh? On what legal ground India can do that? India didn't have to face any significant offensive from Pakistan Navy in Eastern theatre in 1971.

There were only four gunboats in Bangladesh. The 7th fleet didn't reach to help. PN's eastern wing was basically useless. I wonder how much feasible a blockade would be with BD's current capability or when it's fully modernized in future.


Won't take long for them to go Sri Lanka's way if they start to compromise India's security interests vis-a-vis China, much earlier than any such act starts to have negative effects on India. Plus India still maintains good relations with Myanmar junta, so that card can also be played, probably in conjunction with the blockade to multiply the effects.

So you're saying India is responsible for Sri Lanks's current crisis? Myanmar junta has deeper relation with China than India. And just like India maintains good relations with Myanmar, Bangladesh also maintains good relations with China. So if India can play Myanmar card, BD can also play China card.

BD is still not aligned with any country and trying it's best not to side with anyone but the way US and it's "allies" keep antagonizing BD, it will do them no good.
 

Gessler

Well-known member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
409
Reactions
6 901
Nation of residence
India
Nation of origin
India
First of all what's the relevance between most of this reply and the OP about cooperation in counter-insurgency or his comment?

He said Bangladesh was kow-towing to India, the aim of my reply was to show that Bangladesh wasn't "kow-towing", but that they had rightfully chosen to cooperate for the sake of mutual benefit. Do you dispute that?

The opposite, India getting belligerent has more chance to happen judging by the situation in India, remarks it's leaders made about Bangladesh and what it did and still doing to Bangladesh (Shanti Bahini, border/BSF issue, river issue, continental shelf, interfering in internal issue, threatening to invade/annexing BD, growing extremism with govt support etc).

Internal political rhetoric in India rarely influences foreign policy decisions. And if it does, then the situation must have been such that any other political dispensation in India would have arrived at a similar decision in national interest. Keep in mind that most of what you have mentioned below happened when India had very liberal/left-leaning governments.

Besides India also have history of intervening/invading/annexing other countries
(Hyderabad,

Toward the end the Nizam state was an artificial entity with no connect to the people of the region. India didn't invade & oppress, the state simply surrendered on its own without firing a shot - and even after the fact, no rebel/independence movement ever took root with the general public. The state was de facto already part of India, Operation Polo merely changed the de jure status.


Same.

Bangladesh in 1971

Would you rather we didn't?

Besides, India only invaded after PAF decided to bomb IAF bases in a pre-emptive military action. At that point its war - if the enemy enters your territory, you can enter theirs, and at the time 'Bangladesh' was Pakistani territory.

, air strikes in Balakot etc)

What should we have done if Pakistan was using its own territory to create, train & send terrorists into India? Yes, Balakot was sovereign Pakistani territory, not disputed unlike Kashmir, but so was Pathankot - did that stop ISI from carrying out unprovoked terrorist attacks? Besides, use of military force against a combatant force of a group that's globally designated as terrorists is not illegal. Which is why even the UN/US did not say anything.

The wider world through India is only Nepal and Bhutan and through Myanmar is Thailand and China only. BBIN isn't effective yet while India is already enjoying transit-transshipment through BD in cheap price without any duty/tax or charge to repair our infrastructures. (only Tk 226 for each ton in waterways, original recommendation was Tk 1058 and Tk 2 for per km in road while local pays Tk 40 per km)

Bhutan backed down from from BBIN due environment issue so it only leaves Nepal and there's nothing happening with Myanmar for overland trade.

Bangladesh's most trade outside the region and happens through sea routes. So how India will refusing to allow Bangladesh's overland trade which isn't even happening? Bangladesh trade with those two countries doesn't exceed $50 million (Nepal- $48.6 million and Bhutan $8.33 million). The same can be said about India which exports $14 billion while BD's export is only $1.28 billion.

So even if India blocks trade with those countries, it won't hurt BD that much as the trade volume is small and Nepal and Bhutan will be more affected as they are seeking connectivity through BD and volume of Bhutan's export is bigger.

And there's nothing hostile about blocking India's access through BD. As a sovereign nation it's up to us to decide who we will let to use our facilities. Just like it's up to India to decide about exporting their wheat (one anything) in this current crisis in Ukraine or supporting Ukraine or not or like Russia stopping gas supply to EU.

What did India do when US didn't supply raw material for Covid vaccine? If India's access through BD gets revoked then that means finally someone in current govt or led by any other party grew a spine and decided that India is not paying enough for the transit benefits it gets from BD. So deteriorating bilateral relation will mostly hurt India as it enjoys more benefits than BD which gets very little in return.


Blockading can be construed as an act of war. Especially if such blockade is done with the intent of hurting the other side's territorial integrity & national defence. So there is ground to respond in kind - never mind the legality, half of the stuff done by the world's countries are technically illegal.

Like I said, its better to work toward mutual benefit instead - exactly what both Govts are doing right now. Rest is hypothetical.

And you're already proving my point about the belligerent issue. Sounds like you made threats here. Naval blockade for revoking India's access through Bangladesh? On what legal ground India can do that? India didn't have to face any significant offensive from Pakistan Navy in Eastern theatre in 1971.

There were only four gunboats in Bangladesh. The 7th fleet didn't reach to help. PN's eastern wing was basically useless. I wonder how much feasible a blockade would be with BD's current capability or when it's fully modernized in future.

Very feasible indeed.

So you're saying India is responsible for Sri Lanks's current crisis?

No - I'm saying Sri Lanka ended up where it is because of poorly thought-out decisions, which included choosing to get cozy with the CCP. Now where are the Chinese when SL needs help? SL was the perfect location for the Chinese to maintain control of their energy bloodline that goes from the Gulf through Malacca, and still the Chinese have washed their hands of SL - you think they'll rush to aid (in any way) Bangladesh which is not in as good a geostrategic position as SL?


And against Sri Lanka, we have very few cards to play as compared to Bangladesh due to reasons of geography.

Myanmar junta has deeper relation with China than India. And just like India maintains good relations with Myanmar, Bangladesh also maintains good relations with China. So if India can play Myanmar card, BD can also play China card.

BD is still not aligned with any country and trying it's best not to side with anyone but the way US and it's "allies" keep antagonizing BD, it will do them no good.

You have put the cart before the horse - India has always & will always maintain a balance between Bangladesh & Myanmar and has no intention of changing this equation for as long as BD respects India's security concerns. The question of what India would do against BD does not even arise until & unless the latter decides to get inordinately close to the Chinese & begins to make moves that hurt India (just like SL tried to do).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom