NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

53 clashes between BDR and BSF in 16 months!

The bloodiest clash to date between Bangladesh and Indian border guards this week, which left 19 soldiers killed on both sides, has refocused attention on the thorny problem that remains a major stumbling block in improving relations between the two countries.

The clash came less than three months after foreign secretaries of the two countries agreed to set up a joint boundary working group to quickly settle the dispute over the complex demarcation of only 6.5 kilometres out of the 4,012 km border between the two nations.

Although peace has returned, at least for now, to the troubled border area following hectic diplomatic negotiations between the two neighbors, fears persist whether India, which suffered the heaviest casualties so far, would strike at an opportune moment to avenge the killing of 16 of its troops.

Analysts however, believe that New Delhi is unlikely to engage in a wider conflict with Bangladesh at this point when it is fighting a battle with its arch enemy, Pakistan, over Kashmir. It would mean, they say, that India will have to open a new front to tackle Bangladesh.

"I don't think they are that foolish," said Professor Serajul Islam Chowdhury, a political analyst. India simply cannot afford to put its relationship in jeopardy with a government which is widely perceived to be soft towards New Delhi, he said.

For over 20 years, until the Awami League returned to power in 1996, New Delhi has had to deal with governments in Dhaka which were rabidly anti-Indian.

"Just imagine what the Indian response would have been had it been Pakistan or even Nepal," a Bangladesh official said, referring to the casualties suffered by the Indian side.

Border skirmishes are not unusual here. So much so that there had been 53 clashes between members of the Bangladesh Rifles and the Indian Border Security Force in the last 16 months; they have become so routine that the officials have trouble keeping track of the exact count.

The 45 lives lost in those clashes belong mostly to villagers from both sides who got caught in the crossfire and hence were not of much significance for the newspapers to report in a prominent way.

But the latest clash appears to have jolted both countries not only because of the staggering Indian casualties but also because for the first time the BDR forcibly took control of Padua, ending 30 years of Indian occupation.

The BDR men pulled out of Padua five days later following diplomatic negotiations in which they agreed to maintain the status quo, meaning Padua has now gone back to Indian hands.

Although Foreign Secretary Syed Moazzem Ali said the village still belonged to Bangladesh and that "we would now try to get it back through negotiations," questions are being raised as to what prompted the BDR personnel to retake the village after 30 years.

Ali said the BDR had to act because the Indians were trying to build a road to connect Padua from their side in violation of international law.

"Our purpose is served," he observed saying the Indians agreed to suspend the construction of the road until a settlement was reached.

Although it is still unclear which side was responsible for initiating the attack, theories abound about the timing of the latest flare up.

Some suggestions were made in newspapers of both countries that both Dhaka and New Delhi connived to trigger the incident aimed at deflecting public attention from the woes afflicting Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Sheikh Hasina.

Vajpayee's fragile alliance is under fire from the Opposition because of the Tehelka episode which exposed corruption in high places.

Hasina, on the other hand, is facing the most serious challenge to her government from the combined Opposition aimed at forcing her from power.

"I don't think this is a credible explanation," said retired Brigadier Abdul Hafiz, a defence analyst. "No government would be foolish enough to indulge in such dangerous brinkmanship in order to enjoy a temporary reprieve from its current troubles."

A Bangladesh official suggested it could have been the work of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency which stands to gain the most from any conflict between India and Bangladesh.

The suggestion led some to conclude whether a section in the army might have been involved to embarrass Hasina, especially after the unusually harsh comment made by Major General Fazlur Rahman, the BDR chief, who said India must apologise for sending BSF men into Bangladesh territory.

While senior military officials described such comments as unprofessional and foolhardy, they dismissed the notion that General Rahman played into the hands of the ISI.

"He was definitely behaving like a politician and not as a professional soldier," said retired Major General Moinul Hossain Chowdhury, referring to the comments. "But I am sure he didn't do it as part of any conspiracy. After all, he is a freedom fighter who fought the Pakistani occupation forces in 1971."

Whatever be the reason, independent observers say, in order to make sure that such incidents do not recur and pose another serious situation for the two friendly countries, both India and Bangladesh should now get down to resolving the existing border disputes soonest.

They blame Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the British engineer who was given the daunting task of demarcating the border between two new independent countries -- India and Pakistan in 1947 -- a job he had to complete in just six weeks time.

In the haste, the observers say, he created a situation for which all the countries in the subcontinent are now paying the price.

Arshad Mahmud is a Dhaka-based journalist.