Carlile’s expulsion and Bangladesh politics
The Indian government’s unusual refusal to allow a top ranking British human rights lawyer Lord Alex Carlile enter India seems to be a significant political decision which will inevitably have some impact on the upcoming elections in Bangladesh. Treating opposition politicians of neighbouring countries belonging to the South Asian Regional grouping SAARC in contrasting manner certainly reflects strategic preferences of Delhi. The contrast could not be starker as when it had afforded visa to a fugitive politician of Maldives, but deported a lawyer representing the jailed opposition leader of Bangladesh.
Lord Carlile, is commissioner of the Freedom of Information Commission in the UK, has long been at the centre of controversies in Bangladesh for his criticism of the trial process of the war crimes committed during the war of independence. He had publicly lobbied against death sentences awarded to Mir Quasem Ali and other convicts. Later he courted controversy last year when Awami League walked out of a dialogue organised in London with the participation of the BNP. His appointment as the BNP chief’s legal counsel was denounced by Awami League and its allies.
Clearly, the only reason for his expulsion from India was his role as the counsel of Khaleda Zia. Initially upon queries by the media, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson said that he was refused entry on the ground of not having appropriate visa. The statement said his intended activity in India was incompatible with the purpose of his visit as mentioned in his visa application.
Lord Carlile’s intended activity, as reported by the media in India and Bangladesh, was to hold a press briefing in New Delhi about the cases of the Bangladesh opposition leader Khaleda Zia. His justification of holding the press conference in Delhi was that it has a very large press cohort which has an interest in affairs in South Asia and seemed the right place to go. Delhi has been the regional hub of most the international news organisations for many decades and therefore his claims look only plausible. It comes in the backdrop of his long wait for a visa to visit Dhaka which seemed unlikely to materialise soon.
Being sent back to London from Delhi airport, Lord Carlile had alleged that India has succumbed to pressure from Dhaka for not allowing him into the country. A leading newspaper in Bangladesh, Dhaka Tribune, had reported earlier about such a request made by the Bangladesh foreign secretary to the acting Indian High Commissioner. Justifying his visa application, Lord Carlile said there are two types of visas available - one is for tourist purposes and other is business visa. That is what he had applied for.
Following Lord Carlile’s press conference over video-link, the MEA spokesperson Ravish Kumar termed his intent to visit India was ‘suspect.’ His explanation for becoming suspicious was: “One, he was trying to create some kind of problem between India and Bangladesh. And, second, was also trying to create some kind of misunderstanding between India and the opposition party in Bangladesh. Our engagement with the opposition party in Bangladesh is very clear. You must have seen that whenever our dignitaries visit Bangladesh, we have meetings with them.”
The basis of the revocation of the visa seems bizarre as Lord Carlile was representing the head of a legally recognised political party, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), who held the office of the prime minister thrice. So, why do MEA think allowing the opposition voice of a neighbouring country would create problem in bilateral relations? If so, then how could Delhi allow the deposed Maldivian president Mohammad Nashid who was a fugitive in his country to speak and attend several public engagements last February? One may ask now whether India will refuse every single BNP element to enter the country or speak within her territory as suggested by the Bangladesh PM’s adviser HT Imam recently at the Observer Research Foundation seminar?
It was even more intriguing when the MEA spokesperson had claimed that the counsel’s visit could have also created misunderstanding between India and the opposition party in Bangladesh. How can the MEA think the opposite when the expulsion of Khaleda Zia’s legal counsel had shocked her party men most? It also raises question whether Delhi has some different understanding about the opposition party in Bangladesh.
There’s no doubt that India has been enjoying the best ever relations with Bangladesh since the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina won the last participatory elections in 2009. Bilateral relations cemented further since Delhi is the only major power that extended its support to constitutional continuity in Bangladesh in 2014’s controversial elections boycotted by all parties except Awami League and its allies. The then Indian foreign secretary Sujata Singh’s personal intervention to bring in Jatiya Party led by former military dictator General Ershad in the elections had been a subject of serious consternation. It is also widely acknowledged that without Delhi’s backing Sheikh Hasina’s government would not have succeeded in staving off the pressure for holding another participatory and fair election soon.
The denial of Khaleda Zia’s counsel’s entry into India stokes the memories of 2014. Analysts see it as a signal that Delhi is siding with the Awami League in the upcoming election which intends to keep Khaleda Zia away from the electoral fray. An Indian security analyst and a former diplomat, Shantanu Mukherji, writes in The Statesman, “India’s decision to stop Carlile from entering India en route to Dhaka to represent Khaleda Zia is a clear signal to Bangladesh, affirming its committed friendship to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina who has, time and again, proven herself to be a dependable ally and trusted friend by banishing scores of Indian insurgent activists and terrorists who had found shelter in Bangladesh before she came to power in 2009.” Referring to the BNP’s recent attempt to elicit support from the Indian establishment, Shantanu Mukherji writes, “This development is also a clear defeat for the BNP and its affiliates’ attempts to woo India by seeking to drum up support for Zia’s release.” Mr Mukherjee concludes, “India should invest its energy and diplomacy to see that Hasina remains in power.” Is there any reason to think it’s not happening already?
* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist