Pick your lie

Culture or counter-culture. "Conservative" or "Liberal." "Left" or "Right."

Ideological.

This is the operative word of the last few millennia. Hordes of the unthinking masses embrace the labels and the veneer of the ideas that form their basis.

Of course, they're not propagated out of thin air. It takes an ideologue. Arundhati Roy is one.

I meant to write this post when she published her long article "Walking with the Comrades" in March 2010. Slate magazine wrote another article earlier this month, which has finally moved me to respond.

While I admit that she partly serves a purpose, calling attention to the failures of governments in that there always winners and losers. I emphasize that every government system will generate winners and losers because humans are inherently selfish. Every governing official, every elite, every middle-class landowner, every voting person, every non-voting person is looking out for themselves and, potentially, their kin. In a democracy there is a least the opportunity of turning over the government to allow other parties, groups of citizens, to take from the war chest. In a one-party authoritarian system there is no democratic turnover. Ms. Roy targets her own government of India; the government of the populous democracy on the planet.

She doesn't serve her purpose very well as her writing is biased and bereft of introspection and critical self-assessment.

Doing a find of the word "why" in the hope of finding one reference of "Why would they allow me into their midst" turns up nothing. Ms. Roy never pauses to question herself, her actions, her thoughts, or those of her hosts. She is a willing traveler, sheep to the slaughter. She gallantly takes up a cause that others have called "David and Goliath" and "Big Government v. little guys."

It sells books, it sells articles, and it sells dollar per word. Exploitation at its finest.

Ms. Roy can galavant around the forest seeking out the noble savages armed with AK-47s, knowing she will return to her "tasteful, spacious apartment... in one of New Delhi's most affluent neighborhoods... lined with books, and a large flat-screen TV... [complete with] domestic help." Excuse me?

Does the woman who discusses "the biggest landlord of all, the Forest Department" and recounts the deaths of "a few of the most notorious landlords" in "true People's War style," really have servants?

In the article Ms. Roy has the gall to say that she wanted to stay in the forest, "Let me stay here." I bet she didn't say, "let me stay, you take my apartment, my books my TV, my servants, and my mangoes."

What is happening in the forests of eastern and central India is much more complicated and nuanced then Arundhati would care to admit. Its not just tribal versus government. Its a fight of exploitation, who has the right to exploit these poor? A democratically-elected government? Or a gang of thugs proclaiming to be the saviors of the poor and underprivileged?

Of course, not everyone in the gang is out for exploitation. Not everyone in the government, or the corporations is corrupt. Not every tribal is poor, and not every Naxalite is bent on murder and destruction. But this is far to nuanced for Arundhati who would prefer to present the story and her argument in black and white - the better to rally support for the cause.

Unfortunately, all she seems to accomplish is alienate those who would support her - the swing class, the middle class with her hypocrisy and constant refrain of othering the culture.

In othering the mainstream, she has created her own other, her own counter-culture. And its just as bad as the class she seeks to demonize.

Post-Post Edit:

Study finds that the one-party state that is China is unequal in terms of wealth distribution between rural and poor (BBC). What would Arundhati say about that?

It was only a matter of time...

... before Pakistan, or Pakistan's ruling elite, betrayed its true colors.

The friends one keeps is generally a good indicator of the person. The same is doubly true of states and their ruling regimes. Its not a coincidence that autocrats like Hugo Chavez regularly praises the Castros in Cuba or Ahmadinejad in Iran. Democracies, for their part, run together as well, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for one.

Thus, the United States' backing of a country like Pakistan (to name but one) has always been of peculiar interest to me. A country always one step away from a return to military dictatorship. There are others to be sure, but none where the U.S. has an active conflict a neighboring country.

The "partnership" (if it can be called that), to my understanding, started during the Cold War as the world divided between the right-leaning countries and left-leaning countries (although supposedly between multi-party democracies and one-party autocracies, the truth is always so much more complicated). Pakistan had become a partner/client of the United States to good effect in the 1980s when it became a conduit for support for mujahid rebels fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. By then it seemed an unshakable bond, though one forged not by two democracies but by a democracy and a military.

For its part, India, though officially neutral (the Non-Aligned Movement), had typically been leaning towards the Soviet Union and dominated by a succession of elites associated with the earlier independence movement.

Then there's China, once an erstwhile supporter of the Soviet Union by the 1980s it had struck its own path. Its political system needs no introduction, a one-party state not emphasizing workers' communism but the righteousness of the Nation (who happen to be composed of workers among others).

Fast forward to the post-11 September 2001 world. China has been on a steady rise, much to India's (and the Southeast Asian nations) chagrin. India is beginning to rise too. China recognizing this and recognizing the importance of geography, most certainly wants to constrain India's growth. Partnership with Bangladesh. Partnership with Pakistan? Oh yes, as the Washington Post finds (Pakistan courts China as relations with U.S. grow strained).

The bin Laden raid earlier this year has become a rallying call for anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Ruling elites have opportunistically harnessed this sentiment and the infringement upon Pakistan's sovereignty to try and partner Pakistan with China. But why?

First, the U.S. routinely makes noise about the Pakistani's state's corruption, lack of political will in dealing with Islamist extremism, and lack of true democracy. China has no qualms about these items, invest in the Sudan, Burma, and other states of a less than savory nature. To be sure, the U.S. invests in Saudi Arabia but at least there's noise about it (at least an acknowledgment).

Second, the Pakistani government recognizes the warming ties between the U.S. and India. Not least of which is the U.S.-India Nuclear deal (Council on Foreign Relations). Not wanting to be left in the lurch, the Pakistani government is the first out of the bed and courting the one-party, non-democratic, Han nationalist economic behemoth that is China.

Despite the weariness of China's officialdom with Pakistan, I doubt it will last long. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has clearly deteriorated, few in the U.S. would be sad to see Pakistan go. India will be happy to see the one-sided partnership end, especially if it believes the U.S. will continue to warm.

However, the long-term implications of a China-Pakistan partnership is significant for both India and the United States. The inevitable return of law and order to Pakistan, whether under a democracy, or more likely a Islamist-military autocracy, would pave the way for safe Chinese investment along the Karakoram highway and from there further access to the Indian Ocean. And from there, the natural resources that it and India, both desperately crave in the Middle East and East Africa.

By developing other "coaling stations," in the Alfred Thayer Mahan sense of the word, in Burma or Bangladesh and China gains the ability to surround the Subcontinent.

The Case for an American-Indian Alliance

It is often said that you could judge a person by the company he or she keeps. For a nation-state, that company would probably be the alliances, security cooperation agreements, and defense pacts with other nation-states. While it is not time for the U.S. to abandon some of its allies, it is time for the U.S. to at least reevaluate its friends and other, new potential partners.

Conventional wisdom, particularly during the Cold War, held that the U.S.'s natural allies were other democracies. This is the line of thinking that produced the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and the entrance of the U.S. into the Vietnam War. For a map of other U.S. military relations (as of 2007) see Wikipedia (link). The map depicts an odd-assortment of bedfellows for the U.S., such as Egypt, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Argentina.

Obviously, the argument that the U.S. is allied to multi-party democracies is an illusion. There are not many who would argue the Egypt is a democracy since President Mubarak has been in that post since the 1980s. Pakistan is less a democracy and more of a rotating feudal oligarchy based on lineage much like the Philippines. But beyond the performance of the actual institutions that can be overlooked, to a certain extent, is the actual character of the democracy.

For me, a crucial factor for my government is its inclusiveness. What makes the U.S. powerful is not that we spend billions on defense (though it helps) nor that our economy makes up some large percentage of the global market (also helps), but rather it is the inclusive nature of the U.S. polity. Anyone can be an "American" as long as you uphold the ideals in the U.S. constitution. Thus, the American nation is not based on ethnicity, religion, or race. Rather, it is based on an ideal of government. Or at least, this is how its supposed to be groups like the Tea Party are straying dangerously close to defining the American nation in racial terms.

Europe has been trending this way for some time now. Unfortunately, many of these states are our allies in NATO or bilaterally. In the United Kingdom, there is the British National Party, an exclusive club for white Britishers that has representation in Parliament and the European Parliament. The existence of these parties is less a problem than the proclivities among the populace that allow these parties to gain representation on the national stage. True, such organizations have always existed but they were always considered far-right, extreme, outside the mainstream debate. As far-right Europe draws on the fears produced from increased migration from Africa and Asia (read: not white) population, these parties and sentiments are being tolerated by conservative parties. In essence, conservative politics is making room for a discussion on what constitutes an Englishman, Frenchman, or German. To the far right in Europe, the "nation" is ethnically and racially-based.

This notion is simply incompatible with the U.S. whose polity thrives on the multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, and the multi-gender characteristics of the population. While the line between non-interference in domestic politics and upholding American ideals is thin - more can be done to promote the notion of multinational democracy. One thing is to build partnerships with those democracies who do emphasize the multinational nature of their society.

A useful place to start would be India. Since 1947, India's existence has depended on inclusion. Despite the Partition, a large number of Muslims are still Indian citizens. Besides Islam, India is home to a number of other external and internal religions, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. Besides religion, the other primary determinant among people is language of India has well over 1,000. Without a commitment to pluralism and the promise of representation promised in the Constitution India would cease to exist.

Centripetal forces are present in India, just as in the U.S. Unequal development has seen India's resources concentrated in the northwestern areas of the country, Punjab and Gujarat. Similarly, U.S. resources are concentrated in the coasts, primarily the Atlantic and Pacific. In attempting to institute a national language in Hindi, India created an uproar in its southern states who were weary of northern linguistic imperialism. The U.S. could borrow this lesson in the occasional discussions of an English-only policy. Where the states markedly differ is in the internal security threat. India's "gravest" threat (according to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) are the Naxalites/Maoists. Solving a number of local issues in Naxalite areas, good governance, equal representation, and a reduction in corruption would go a long way to bring many Naxalite recruits back into the mainstream discussion.

The U.S. should pay attention to the internal discussions that its allies and partners are having on the issue of the national character. The far-right's demand for a racial or ethnically-centered nation-state is anachronistic and dangerous. Most importantly, it is contrary to U.S. values. While disregarding longtime allies and commitments is not advisable at this stage, maintaining awareness of the situation is important. Rather, the U.S. should look to cultivate new partnerships with other pluralistic democracies.

A long way from home...

Bangladesh and India have been presented with a nice opportunity to cooperate in an area that will benefit India, as well as Bangladesh. Delhi should seize this opportunity to open a genuine dialogue with Dhaka on border issues. Although there are a number of outstanding disagreements, the Chittagong Hill Tracts (like the Rajshahi border) offer an area where the two can cooperate in the interests of common defense and shared border security.

Recently, five Indian nationals were arrested in the Noymail area of Dighinala sub-district, Khagrachhari. They evidently entered the country through Tripura, (which makes geographic sense) and Bangladeshi security forces believe they are members of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (Daily Star).

The NDFB, seems to be composed of two factions, one is engaged in talks with the government while the other is blamed on a string of violence since at least last year which has left scores dead and hundreds injured. Both are working for a separate homeland for the Bodo tribe in India's often neglected northeast (which include the states of Mizoram, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh). A number of these states are experiencing various levels of unrest and separatism which mostly stem from tribal-nationalism, uneven regional development, and anti-migrant sentiments (there are a large number of Bangladeshis in Assam).

In March, the NDFB was blamed on a bombing in which 24 were injured while at market in northeastern Assam (BBC). A few months later, Indian intelligence agencies reported that the rebel-NDFB faction was planning bomb attacks throughout Assam (Telegraph).

These arrests seem to suggest that the group is quite a distance away from its normal range. The Bangladeshi security services will no doubt attempt to find out why they crossed into the CHT. Dhaka should provide any relevant information to India as well to address any upcoming threats; Delhi should reciprocate and provide Dhaka with any details regarding the reasons the NDFB would be in the CHT in the first place.

Blast from the past

Occasionally, the past reflects the state of the impending future (now, the present). With the gift of 20/20 hindsight we are able to judge that at certain critical junctures a bad decision was made. A statement may have been, or not have been, uttered, a phone was not picked up, or thoughts not conveyed. While this sort of analysis rarely impacts current problems, it does shed important light on how we arrived at this situation.

Recently declassified reports from the U.S. Office of the Historian related a number of anecdotal encounters between the senior U.S. and Indian leaders following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (called Bangabandhu, Friend of Bengal), the father of Bangladesh on 15 August 1975. The transcripts involve none other than the recently deceased Henry Kissinger.

A few remarks are noteworthy and shed some light on why we are currently dealing with the situation we are now in (meaning Islamist militancy in Bangladesh), Kissinger reportedly said at one point 'the real worry would be if countries with resources like Saudi Arabia get radical leaders. Then there would be trouble.'

It helps to understand the context of this statement first its temporal place, 1975. The big enemy for the U.S. is the Soviet Union hence the U.S. was probably comfortable in the fact that the military coupsters were 'pro-US, anti-Soviet' though 'less pro-Indian.' Bangla Nation's view on this matter are clear. The only way for Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent India, to progress is together.

The earlier Kissinger remark could be taken as yet another piece of evidence in the framework of realpolitik, for the sake of completeness, it was only for a lack of crude (though Bangladesh apparently has good reserves of natural gas) that Bangladesh missed making the cut.

Though the days of realpolitik have not quite passed, there is at least a general understanding among U.S. leadership that static resources are no longer such a prominent factor in driving policy.

On a side note, the information came from the Daily Star. Sad, that Bangla Nation learns of news about the U.S. from a Bangladeshi newspaper.

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.

Sarbaharas... Islamists... Jihad?

Daily Star reported a bomb attack in Pabna Sadar which left two dead.

Police suspect that 'Janajuddho' (of the Purbo Banglar Communist Party) was responsible and that an 'internal feud' might be part of the dynamic.

News invovling the Sarbaharas has seemed to be picking up in the last few weeks (at least from the Daily Star's perspective). Earlier this week, two members of the 'Red Flag' (PBCP) died from bullet injuries sustained during a gun fight with police and RAB in Atrai upazila (Naogaon).

The police and RAB seemed to have managed to not only clamp down on Islamist militants but the leftist thuggery as well. As long as the security forces keep the groups off-balance they can avoid a situation similar to 2004, when Siddiqul Islam (Bangla Bhai) of the JM(J)B rose to infamy.

The Islamist militancy front has been somewhat more quiet of late (the last week or so), following the sensational arrests of three Lashkar-e-Taiyeba members. First was Mufti Obaidullah (New Nation) who provided a wealth of information. Obaidullah evidently said that while there were similarities (and probably links) between LT and Harakatul Jihad, they did not "work like" JMB. In addition, he claimed (truthfully as it turned out) that there were other LT leaders in Bangladesh working as madrassa teachers (Daily Star). His information contributed to the arrest of Mufti Habibullah in Dhaka.

Mufti Habibullah revealed that he and Obaidullah entered Bangladesh in 1995 after bribing Indian border guards. Obaidullah bounced around the country teaching at madrassas in Moulvibazar (Sylhet), Madaripur (Dhaka), Munshiganj (Dhaka), Jessore (Khulna), as well as Dhaka (New Nation). For his part, Habibullah taught at madrassas in Jessore, Dhaka, and Habiganj (Sylhet) (Daily Star). What is interesting is the complete absence of any links to Rajshahi.

The Daily Star article also noted additional tidbits: Daud Merchant (associated with crime boss Daud Ibrahim), detained about two months ago, are evidently the sources of the leads for the arrest of the LT members. Moreover, on the first day of remand Habibullah admitted that LT was planning for an 'armed-jihad' in Bangladesh (Daily Star). Finally, a third LT member was arrested in Shyamnagar sub-district (Satkhira, Khulna) in the Sundarbans. Like his colleagues, Muhaddis Obaidullah was teaching at a Kawmi madrassa (New Nation).

This LT episode begs some interesting questions. First, what is the extent of the dialogue and networking between Daud Ibrahim and LT? Second, does LT really not have any presence whatsoever in Rajshahi division? Finally, this seems to cast some doubt on the general Western (and Chinese) conception that the Bangladeshis are "inept." This entire operation was carried out by Bangladeshi security forces based on Bangladeshi-derived information from a suspect that they previously arrested.

The Awami League government has certainly started raising expectations that subsequent governments (whether BNP or otherwise) will have to maintain. The first half of 2009 has certainly been a far cry from the five years of BNP-Jamaat rule, when action was only taken following 500 explosions in over 60 districts.

As the Daily Star points out some of these LT cadres are wanted by the US and India as well. The Bangladeshi government is continually demonstrating its resolve in dealing, not only with Bangladeshi Islamist militancy, but in transnational militancy. The next steps should be to engage the Bangladeshi government on multiple levels and either extradite the arrested or ensure that they are given a proper trial.

This episode also points out to additional problems that should be addressed bilaterally between Bangladesh and India. First is the issue of border control, India and Bangladesh must cooperate at the local level to catch militants as they are crossing the border. The US and UK (to say nothing of Australia) should provide reommendation and equipment to enable the border forces to effectively police their areas. Bangladesh must also rein in the rogue madrassas. While not all madrassas are harboring Islamist militants, it would be a mistake to think that none of them do.

Effective control of the country's education would not only cut-down on incidences of harboring but on improving the administration and overall educational quality of the madrassas. In an effort to rein them in the government will be attempting to enforce regulations to have madrassas hang potraits of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Earlier regulations also made it compulsory for madrassas to raise the national flag and sing the anthem (though some are still resisting).

In this regard, the government and the people should expect resistance to continue for some time, until all accept the necessity for the government to promote the idea of Bangladesh as democratic and secular. There is no problem with madrassa education (as evidenced by the fact that it is not outlawed) but there is a problem when a teacher espouses the removal of the democratic system of government. Hopefully the hanging of the picture of PM Hasina is meant to be the portrait of whoever is the sitting PM...

Finally, though this goes without saying it is worth repeating. Bangladesh (as well as the US, India, and UK) should be on watch for Habibullah's warning of an "armed-jihad." While this could simply bean attempt at disturbing the peace, LT (as well as HUJI, JMB or any other armed Islamist militant group) could easily find a foothold in the less governed, less patrolled, more locally corrupt, and less developed portions of the country. Regarding Obaidullah's remarks that LT and HUJI don't "work like" JMB, this is interesting and should be explored.

It may simply refer to the fact that LT and HUJI have not really done much in Bangladesh (aside from possible links to some high profile attacks a few years ago, British High Commissioner, Sheikh Hasina, NGOs), unlike JMB. Or it could be referring to JMB's alienating the local population, such as through displays of force, riding into Rajshahi aboard motorcycles and minibus (under police escort) and other more grotesque displays.

Networking: Bangladesh to Asia

Daily Star reported on June 16 that PM Hasina’s Cabinet supports signing the Asian Highway Network agreement (AHN) and its proposed routes.

According to the Daily Star the three proposed routes (to be depicted later) are:
A1: Benapole-Jessore-Dhaka-Kanchpur-Sylhet-Tamabil
A2: Banglabandha-Hatikamrul-Dhaka-Kanchpur-Sylhet-Tamabil
AH41: Mongla-Jessore-Dhaka-Kanchpur-Chittagong-Cox’s Bazar-Teknaf-Myanmar

PM Hasina has indicated that her support for the agreement is dependent on whether or not the Government can renegotiate the proposed routes, which it can if it becomes a member of the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP).

With this decision a bill will be drafted and submitted to Parliament.

As PM Hasina noted, Bangladesh can no longer “remain aloof in the age of globalization. We have to go forward with the network in the interest of socio-economic development.” Specifically, the third route will be a boon for Bangladesh. With the inclusion of Chittagong and Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh’s southeast will hopefully be able to enjoy some of the economic benefits that the western areas will enjoy. If done properly more equitable development should be achieved through the AHN.

Then there’s the point of governance. The AHN will not only provide a newly constructed and (hopefully) more effective means of supply and transportation for businesses but will also allow the government to extend its reach throughout the Khulna, Chittagong, and Cox’s Bazar divisions. Improving access to the road’s hinterlands will not only benefit all levels of government but the residents in the hinterland as well. A new roadway will serve to increase local residents’ access to markets, healthcare, education, employment, and security.

While the AHN will create these opportunities in the future, many are dependent on the successful implementation of the project. The biggest problems will be commitment and governance. Each level of government must commit not only to the route but to the idea of the AHN. This means committing to free trade and free markets, equitable economic development, and increased opportunities for all. This commitment will cost time as well as financial and political capital. The Government must be open and transparent with the route, the costs, and the actual timeline of the road. In another sense the AHN will be a test of the new government and the new democratic system since the Caretaker Government.

For governance, the project must remain grounded in the economic considerations of the country and the local areas. Corruption, mismanagement, and petty politics will need to be kept in check throughout this project, and with the amount of money involved in the construction of three national highways these vices will be all the more enticing.

In fact the AHN is no stranger to these plagues. As reported by the Daily Star on June 16, a former communications minister from the mid-1990s has been accused of manipulating the route for political reasons. In 1993 Bangladesh offered two entry/exit points in the country at Tamabil (the current) and Astagram (both in Sylhet division). However, when retired Col. Oli Ahmed assumed the minister position in 1995, he scrapped the latter.

An independent study by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UN-ESCAP) found that the Astagram route would have been more suitable. Allegedly, the reasoning behind this change was purely political; a former transportation director of UN-ESCAP recalled to the Daily Star “I heard some communications ministry top policy makers saying: since India had offered the route, it must have had some vested interest in it…, so we couldn’t go for it.”

Retired Col. Oli Ahmed denies any wrongdoing and blames the UN-ESCAP and World Bank for playing favorites with India.

This is simply a taste of the mismanagement and misappropriation that the project could experience if the government is not held accountable for its actions. Moreover, this article also exemplifies the sensitive relationship between the Bangladeshi and Indian governments. On the one hand, Bangladesh is aware that it is dwarfed economically, demographically, and is almost surrounded by India. For its part, India has not always treated Bangladesh (or its other neighbors) fairly and with respect to their situations.

There are many benefits that the Asian Highway Network would bring to Bangladesh. The successful management and implementation of the network would not only ensure these benefits to a larger constituency but may even bring India and Bangladesh closer together. It is for these reasons that the U.S. and India need to play a positive role by supporting Bangladesh with technical advisers (if requested) and financial commitments, if possible. A clear stipulation of this support would be transparency and accountability. If the U.S. and India are slow to realize this opportunity, China would be willing and able to provide the needed cash, expertise, and without commitments to transparency and equitable development.