The Economist published a number of articles pointing at AL’s close relations with India, http://www.economist.com/node/21524917. AL’s historic ties with India cant be denied. In 1971, India intervened in Pakistan’s civil war to help make an independent Bangladesh. India essentially broke Pakistan’s defensive strength by half. That military advantage can last only as long as Bangladesh remains under Indian dominance. For India, a strong Bangladesh army connected to Pakistan army through Islamic bonding is nothing but a nightmare. It would be surrounded by Pakistan, China and Bangladesh, all of whom could be united in a defensive pact gainst Indian dominance. Its a classic “balance of power’ struggle straight out of war books.
AL can fill that anti Pakistani role for India quite well. Playing on the disasters of Pak Army genocide in 1971, the long and bloody fight against the army, the brutality of soldiers against unarmed civillians and so on are replayed as an everyday dose to control public sentiment against Pakistan. Under the AL regime every Bangalee is forced to remember the ugly past, taking bouts in cursing Pakistan (and the Urdu language) in order to renew their vows of nationalism. Mind it, Z.A. Bhutto (the real butcher of Bengal) is hardly ever blamed for his role in ’71, whereas it was Bhutto who refused to accept the General Yahya’s advice to concede defeat to Mujib. Yahya had announced in Dhaka that Mujib would be the future Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Butto engineered the ’71 war and the ensuing genocide, because he wanted to be the first democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. He thought it was fate waiting for him and none had the right to stop him. Bhutto’s ego split Pakistan into two. But in Dhaka he gets away with murder, literally. AL wants to villifyPak Army specifically for strategic reasons. They avoid blaming Bhutto’s PPP in a strange and twisted interpretation of historic events. That posture, enemity with Pak Army and distant frienship with PPP, is in India’s best interest.
The Economist also reported that AL took “bags of cash” from India for 2008 elections, in which they won 2/3rd majority. AL would not be undone by this. They alleged BNP took 5 million rupees from Pakistan’s ISI. Their basis for the attack according to Foreign Minister Dipu Moni was a court affidavit made by General Durrani, ex boss of ISI. A week later, it turns out that the allegation was actually based on a report by Khaleej Times. General Durrani, in his conversation with BBC Bangla denied mentioning Bangladesh or BNP or Khaleda Zia during judicial proceedings in Islamabad. AL clams that Gen Durrani admitted paying BNP, whereas Gen Durrani insists that he said nothing like that. The obvious question to ask is, who is lying?
Either those reports are baseless, or they are true. Assume both reports are true. One took ‘bags of cash’ from India and another took ‘5 million rupees’ from Pakistan. What would it mean for the country? We must then assume that our country’s fate is locked in the race between pro Inida and pro Pakistan groups. What’s in it for Bangladesh? How are we ensuring the progress and development of our nation in this puzzling situation?