Confronting "Jihadis" in the village, the new trench

If there has never been a more golden opportunity for the US and UK to work with Bangladesh on substantial issues of border security, this is it. The US and UK must support Bangladesh's training program for border village paramilitaries. Their support will not only increase the effectiveness of the village guards but they will also be able to increase cooperation between paramilitary units and the security forces. Dhaka's plan has enough credibility to seriously undermine militant efforts in moving across the Indo-Bangladesh frontier. American and British support for the plan will make the militants' efforts much more costly. In short, this plan is brilliant and should be supported by Washington and London.

Dhaka's plan calls for training the Ansar-Village Defence Party units in border villages to be able to "eradicate militancy." They reason that since the Ansars will be working primarily in their own villages they will easily identify strangers and, with their new training, will be able to gather information on the newcomers and provide it to security forces for action. In addition, the plan also calls for recruiting women in equal numbers as men (Daily Star).

However, Dhaka must be on guard against walking into a similar situation that West Bengal is facing in Midnapur. It must not rely totally on the Ansar-VDP for its information and security, doing so could cause a total collapse in information-gathering if the Ansar-VDP is unable to complete its mission. JMB members clearly read newspapers: What is going to protect Ansar-VDP agents from their wrath, especially if the village is far from any security force? The answer: a strong relationship with the Bangladesh Rifles.

Bangla Nation believes that in addition to training the Ansar-VDP in this regard, Dhaka, Washington, and London should also look to training and providing for the local Bangladesh Rifles units as an additional facet to the recent proposal to PM Sheikh Hasina.

Although the proposal by the BDR Director General included such mundane things as changing the name, uniform, and insignia of the BDR. A more substantive proposal involved creating a three-tiered intelligence unit.

The first tier would sit alongside National Security Intelligence and Directorate General for Forces Intelligence, the national intelligence organizations. The second tier, under a regional head, would focus on counter-intelligence similar to Rapid Action Battalion. The lowest tier would focus on field intelligence and cross-border intelligence, similar to the army (Daily Star).

This intelligence unit has great potential and would allow the BDR to extend its eyes and ears in the border areas, its home, and work with the Ansars. US and UK training for the BDR and the Ansars would encourage these two organizations to work together for their mutual benefit. Ansars could call in information to BDR, informing them of possible JMB cadres moving across the border into their village, BDR moves in and apprehends the suspects, brilliant.

This may solve security issues along the border, but what about the local governance...

Sidenote: The proposal did not seem to resolve any of the outstanding issues of the BDR including poor payment (as compared to the Army) and the continued appointment of Army officers to lead the BDR. Dhaka must allow the BDR to command itself. The proposal to recruit retired army personnel should be rejected, allowing retired army personnel to join is fine, pushing for it will simply make the BDR a de facto extension of the Army.

The 'Bad Neighbor' Policy

Usually, when something doesn't make sense or there are multiple possible solutions to a question one applies the principle known as "Occam's Razor." This basically states that if there are two explanations the "simpler," the one with less assumptions, should be taken as the primary hypothesis. India's recent aggressions in the Indo-Bangladesh border leaves one with at least hypotheses, neither of which casts Delhi in a good light.

In the first (and the more simpler), we may surmise that Delhi has lost control over its far-flung Meghalaya-based Border Security Forces.

In the second Delhi has decided that, regardless of the pro-India government in power in Bangladesh, it will press its border claims. In this hypothesis Delhi doesn't appear to care that it is simply gift-wrapping more ammunition for the anti-India bogeyman speeches of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami.

This hypothesis would also tie into the first and will probably be verified upon the eventual press release from Delhi that the BSF units in question acted of their own volition and that it has summarily dismissed the low-ranking officers responsible.

In this latest incident, BSF troops took position within Bangladesh and refused to vacate until BDR troops took up a stronger position and forced the BSF to depart under "strong protests." The Director General of the BDR noted there were still some outstanding border claims leftover from the 1948 Partition (New Nation).

Bangla Nation hopes that the former hypothesis is the case, though this would be an embarrassment for the Congress Party. For the latter would signify that Delhi has little interest in being the 'good neighbor.' Taking Awami League's pro-India stance as cheap change would severely hamper a number of India's efforts particularly counter-terrorism and regional hegemony.

In counter-terrorism, India needs the cooperation of Bangladesh to effectively police and, eventually, govern the border. It is no secret that Islamist militant groups cross the Indo-Bangladesh frontier (see...).

India's status as sole regional hegemon would be challenged if the Awami League forsakes its pro-India stance. If Awami League cannot find a reliable political ally in the Congress Party where else would they turn? Certainly not to Pakistan, but to China.

Bangla Nation imagines that the last thing Delhi would want would be the Awami League cosying up to the People's Republic.

Rather than sending in the BSF to claim and possibly start a shooting-skirmish, Delhi (and especially the Congress Party0 would be well advised to diplomatically engage Dhaka on resolving the outstanding border issues, as well as the status of the enclaves and exclaves.

Addendum: In a odd twist, a pre-scheduled battalion-level flag meeting between the BDR and BSF was to take place as well in Jakiganj sub-district, not far from the recent flashpoints (Daily Star). This twist makes one wonder as to Delhi's grasp of this situation.

Empty words from the Elephant

Despite its size the elephant is not generally acknowledged to be the king of the forest or of the savanna. That title is reserved for the tigers and the lions. The elephant, in most circumstances, does not cause smaller animals to run, hide, or otherwise avoid its presence. The elephant is more a part of the community than the lion or tiger.

Delhi, assuming it wants to enjoy a good relationship with its neighbors in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), might still need to learn this lesson. India is the regional elephant - demographically, economically and politically. This status, and the region's history since independence, can make its neighbors a bit anxious - and that is probably an understatement. Whether or not Delhi has genuine goodwill towards its neighbors will never be known but a recent border spat with Bangladesh, and events over the preceding weeks, call it into question.

Near the Shreepur border (Jaintapur, Sylhet) the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) have alleged that Indian Border Security Forces (BSF) are actively assisting the Khasi community in Meghalaya with resolving land disputes - across the Indo-Bangladesh border. The allegations state that BSF troops, over the last three days, have walked across the border and "captured" disputed land by removing flags that the BDR had placed (New Nation). It is very likely that the Khasi's border dispute is with Khasis in Bangladesh - the tribal community had been split in 1948 during Independence and Partition.

By itself these allegations are serious the BSF is assisting in resolving land disputes, making a mockery of the civil justice system. That these disputes are across an international boundary, makes the BSF's actions a casus belli.

But there's also another dimension. Two weeks ago the BSF and BDR held a flag meeting in which they pledged to maintain a "tension-free" border. At the Tinbigha Corridor point (Patgram sub-district, Lalmonirhat) the BSF Deputy Inspector General of Jalpaiguri Sector agreed "not to open fire or kill innocent Bangladeshis." Besides, the BDR and BSF agreed to address other cross-border issues including human and drug trafficking (New Nation).

Within a week the BSF Director General ML Kumawat held a conference with his BDR counterparts in Dhaka. The discussion featured topics such as the continued murder of Bangladeshi citizens on the border, the repatriation of criminals, and border development and policing (Daily Star). Since the beginning of July the BSF has killed at least 4 people in addition to the land-grabbing (13 July, 16 July, 21 July).

If the recent BSF actions, regarding the "capturing" of land, were undertaken unilaterally, without the consent of Delhi or BSF command than the officers responsible should be held responsible for their brazen disregard for international law. If these actions were taken with the consent of Delhi - then not much can be done.

As the regional hegemon, India will act as it sees fit. However, only through cooperation (and trust) will the region progress in any meaningful way. Trust is not built through holding a conference and simultaneously "capturing" land.

Dropping the Ball.

Human Rights Watch often makes a big deal of the authoritarian tendencies of South Asian democracies. In "Ignoring Executions and Torture" (subtitled: Impunity for Bangladesh’s Security Forces), a 76-page report published in May 2009, the watchdog makes only a passing reference to the BDR mutiny three months before.

"However, there is credible evidence that several members of the country’s border security force, the Bangladesh Rifles, were tortured to death by the army following their detention as suspects in an apparent mutiny that took place in February 2009 and left more than 70 people dead."

Ignoring the jibe at the Bangladeshi government ("an apparent mutiny"). The Human Rights Watch has been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of these tortures, as over this weekend the 35th death of a BDR jawan was recorded.

However, the context presented by the Daily Star contains two notable items: 1.) the deceased was not accused in the mutiny case and 2.) his colleague noted that the jawan was complaining of chest pains that morning. In this instance, torture on the part of the army is probably not the cause.

An earlier death did sound a bit strange, another "chest pain" victim was said to have bore "several red marks." However, the article did not explicitly state that the Army was involved. The article also indicated, up to that point, four jawans had committed suicide, seven died of heart attacks, and nine of "other diseases" (Daily Star).

Yet the HRW has not issued a statement since May 2009. It may be that the organization is faced with a dilemma. The narrative of an authoritarian state's organs working in concert to oppress the common people breaks down somewhat when it is not oppressing its people - but its own security services.

Whatever the case, the deaths of each jawan needs to be investigated, particularly those that perished under mysterious circumstances.

Moreover, the Bangladesh Rifles should be reformed. The Army should no longer provide officers for the organization, pay should be improved to the greatest extent possible (perhaps with a redistribution of funding following the demobilization of the Army brigade that was recently recalled from the CHT), and the link between the BDR and the Ministry of Home Affairs should be strengthened.

Finally, a perspective shift needs to occur. The BDR, as the BBC points out, has never mutinied. The Army cannot claim to be such a stalwart back of democracy. General Ziaur Rahman (husband of current Opposition leader Khaleda Zia, BNP) and General Hussain Muhammad Ershad (MP, Jatiya Party) both attained the Presidency of Bangladesh through a military coup. Finally, the Caretaker Government, in power from 2007 to Dec 2008, had the backing of General Moeen U Ahmed, who retired in mid-June 2009 (New Nation).

Bangladesh, the U.S., UK, and Australia should support the reformation of the Bangladesh Rifles and they should ensure that the jawans are treated with the respect, dignity, and honor deserving of Bangladesh's "first line of defense."