Abstract
Domestic, regional and extra-regional pressures have combined to shape Bangladesh’s foreign policy and its relations with the two most powerful and influential states in the South Asian region, India and Pakistan.1 Studies of Bangladesh’s foreign relations since 1975 have been minimal, tending to be descriptive, biased accounts. The most common themes of those studies are ones which point either to Bangladesh’s turbulent political life and economic woes or to India’s desire for regional dominance as being the principal influence on regional international relations. This study, by contrast, emphasises and illustrates the way in which both domestic and external pressures have impinged on Bangladesh’s foreign relations. A range of perspectives is applied in order to give depth to the study and to minimise bias as much as possible. These perspectives take into account what is taking place within and outside the region generally; as well as what is happening within Bangladesh. A study of Bangladeshi foreign policy shows that the regional perspective requires greater emphasis than it has been given hitherto. For this reason, the regional viewpoint precedes the domestic in subsequent chapters dealing with Bangladesh’s most critical relationship: that with India.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
For an analysis of east-wing subordination see W.H. Morris-Jones, ‘Pakistan Post Mortem and the Roots of Bangladesh’, in M.M. Khan and H.M. Zafarullah, Politics and Bureaucracy in a New Nation: Bangladesh, Dacca, 1980, pp. 26–34.
Gupta, Regional Cooperation and Development in South Asia, Vol. 1, New Delhi, 1986, p. 19.
Ainslee Embree points out that this partial borrowing also can be coloured with admiration for the values and attitudes of the former rulers. A.T. Embree, Imagining India, Delhi, 1989, p. 188.
In pre-British times, Bengal enjoyed relative autonomy. Although Bengal became part of the Mughal empire in 1576, it was ruled independently of the central government virtually until the death of Aurangzeb (1707), the last significant Mughal ruler. See D.A. Wright, Bangladesh: Origins and Indian Ocean Relations (1971–1975), New Delhi, 1988, p. 17.
P. Ghosh applies to the South Asian states the notion that differing stages of political development lead to conflicting strategic and diplomatic positions. P.S. Ghosh, Cooperation and Conflict in South Asia, New Delhi, 1989, pp. 3, 14 and 229.
C. Clapham, and W. Wallace (eds), Foreign Policy Making in Developing States, Westmead, 1977, p. 174.
B. Buzan, ‘Peace, Power and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 21, no. 2, 1984, p. 121.
H.A. Kissinger, ‘Domestic Structure and Foreign Policy’, in J.N. Rosenau, International Politics and Foreign Policy: A Reader in Research and Theory, New York, 1969, pp. 261–2.
T. Maniruzzaman, The Security of Small States in the Third World, Canberra, ANU, 1982, p. 15.
C. Thomas, In Search of Security: The Third World in International Relations, Boulder, 1987, p. 7. Thomas particularly points to the United States for its lack of understanding in dealing with ‘third world’ states.
For examples of proponents of this view, see: H. Wiberg, ‘The Security of Small Nations: Challenges and Defences’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 24, no. 4, 1987, p. 340. However, Wiberg does stress that the military dimension is not the only one. [See p. 354.]
See also R.G.C. Thomas (ed.), The Great Power Triangle and Asian Security, 1983, p. 71
and B. Buzan (et al.), South Asian Insecurity and the Great Powers, New York, 1986, pp. 8–30.
See M. Rahman Shelley, Emergence of a New Nation in a Multi-Polar World: Bangladesh, Washington, D.C., 1978, p. 19
and K. Subrahmanyam, ‘India and Its Neighbours: A Conceptual Framework of Peaceful Co-existence’, in U.S. Bajpai (ed.), India and Its Neighbourhood, New Delhi, 1986, p. 109.
The ‘primordialist/instrumentalist’ debate became prominent particularly due to the writings of two South Asia specialists, Paul Brass and Francis Robinson. See P.R. Brass, Language, Religion and Politics in North India, London, 1974
and F. Robinson, Separatism among Indian Muslims: The Politics of the United Provinces’ Muslims, 1860–1923, London, 1974.
For a discussion specifically related to the pre-Pakistan period, see A. Roy,‘The Bengal Muslim “Cultural Mediators” and the Bengal Muslim Identity in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 1987, pp. 11–34.
See D.A. Wright, ‘Islam and Bangladeshi Polity’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, 1987, p. 15.
P.R. Brass, Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, New Delhi, 1991, p. 74.
Financial loans and a vastly unequal trading relationship have made Bangladesh a major debtor to India. See C. Baxter, ‘Bangladesh at Ten: An Appraisal of a Decade of Political Development’, The World Today, vol. 38, no. 2, February 1982, p. 78.
M. Franda, Bangladesh: The First Decade, New Delhi, 1982, p. 281.
T.A. Keenleyside, ‘Nationalist Indian Attitudes Towards Asia: A Troublesome Legacy For Post-Independence Indian Foreign Policy’, Pacific Affairs, vol. 55, no. 2, 1982, p. 210–1.
R. Tagore, Towards Universal Man, London, 1961, p. 57.
Keenleyside, ‘Nationalist Indian Attitudes’, p. 214–15. For some of Nehru’s comments on Asian unity and India’s role, presented at the Inter-Asian Conference, New Delhi in March 1947, see: S. Gopal (ed.), Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Second Series, vol. 2, New Delhi, pp. 501–9.
L. Ziring (ed.), The Subcontinent in World Politics: India, Its Neighbors, and the Great Powers, New York, 1978, p. 85.
M.A. Bhatty, ‘Strategic Balance In South Asia Including the Adjacent Ocean’, World Review, vol. 31, no. 1, 1992, p. 26.
R. Kumar, ‘India’s Political Identity: Nation-State or Civilisation-State’, Indian Ocean Review, vol. 4, no. 4, 1991, pp. 23, 26. Ravinder Kumar is the Director of the Nehru Memorial Museum, New Delhi.
A.T. Embree, ‘Indian Civilization and Regional Cultures: The Two Realities’, in P. Wallace (ed.), Region and Nation in India, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 19–39.
C. Bateman points to Indian activities in Sri Lanka, Sikkim, Bhutan and Nepal as immediate examples of such meddling. See C. Bateman, ‘National Security and Nationalism in Bangladesh’, Asian Survey, vol. 19, no. 8, August 1979, p. 784. Even India’s assistance to Bangladesh in 1971 was, certainly from Pakistan’s point of view, a form of meddling. Much is said of India’s humble wish simply to preserve the status quo in South Asia, but such semantics do not negate, for example, the many repercussions of Indian assistance in Bangladesh’s war of independence.
S. Mansingh, India’s Search For Power: Indira Gandhi’s Foreign Policy 1966–1982, New Delhi, 1984, p. 263. See also n. 44.
Stephen Cohen interprets the militarisation of India as a corrosion of its ‘political soul’, as personified by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. S.P. Cohen, ‘Dimensions of Militarism in South Asia’, Defence Journal (Karachi), no. 7, July 1984, p. 9, cited in, Ghosh, Cooperation and Conflict, p. 221.
P.K. Mishra, South Asia in International Politics, Delhi, 1984, p.148. See also K. Subrahmanyam, ‘India and Its Neighbours: A Conceptual Framework of Peaceful Co-existence’, in Bajpai (ed.), India and its Neighborhood, pp. 123–4, where Subrahmanyam states: ‘A number of people in this country readily accept the apparently plausible thesis advanced in our neighbouring countries that a large and militarily powerful India constitutes a threat to them and is hegemonistic. Historically this thesis is untenable in terms of India’s pattern of behaviour in the last four decades.’ See also pp. 125–6.
East-wing feelings of insecurity were exacerbated particularly during the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, where East Pakistan was left defenceless against a possible Indian attack. For details, see D.A. Wright, India-Pakistan Relations: 1962–1969, New Delhi, 1989, pp. 99–100.
B. Prasad, India’s Foreign Policy: Studies in Continuity and Change, New Delhi, 1979, pp. 107–8.
W.H. Morris-Jones, ‘India — More Questions Than Answers’, Asian Survey, vol. 24, no. 8, 1984, p. 809.
P.V.N. Rao, Reflections on Non-Alignment, New Delhi [ 1992 ], p. 8.
N. Jetly, ‘India and the Domestic Turmoil in South Asia’, in U. Phadnis (ed.), Domestic Conflicts in South Asia, Vol. 1: Political Dimensions, New Delhi, 1986, p. 80.
‘As Mrs Gandhi Sees It’, interview with Indira Gandhi by Fatma Zakaria, Times of India (New Delhi), 14 August 1983.
T. George et al., Security in Southern Asia 2: India and the Great Powers, Aldershot, 1984, p. 204.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. The Europa World Year Book 1996, Volume 1, London, 1996, p. 502. See also Table 1.1.
For a history of the pro-aid/anti-aid debate, see Anisul Islam, ‘Foreign Aid and Economic Development’, in H. Zafarullah et al. (eds), Policy Issues in Bangladesh, New Delhi, 1994, pp. 107–8.
S. Rahman, ‘Bangladesh in 1989: Internationalization of Political and Economic Issues’, Asian Survey, vol. 30, no. 2, 1990, p. 155. The obvious response which could be made to this criticism is that the donors have not allowed for the real conditions in Bangladesh.
T.Maniruzzaman, ‘The Fall of the Military Dictator: 1991 Elections and the Prospect of Civilian Rule in Bangladesh’, Pacific Affairs, vol. 65, no. 2, 1992, p. 217.
R. Sobhan, ‘Bangladesh and the World Economic System: the Crisis of External Dependence’, in S.R. Chakravarty, and V. Narain (eds), Bangladesh, Vol. 3: Global Politics, New Delhi, 1988, p. 30.
B.N. Ghosh, Political Economy of Neocolonialism in Third World Countries, New Delhi, 1985, p. 21.
Ibid. For a similar viewpoint see M.M. Khan and S.A. Husain (eds), Bangladesh Studies: Politics, Administration, Rural Development and Foreign Policy, Dhaka, 1986, pp. 250–54.
E. Ahamed (ed.), Foreign Policy of Bangladesh: A Small State’s Imperative, Dhaka, 1984, p. 89.
C. Baxter, ‘Bangladesh in 1990: Another New Beginning?’, Asian Survey, vol. 31, no. 2, 1991, p. 151
C. Baxter, and The Europa World Year Book 1993, Volume 1, London, 1993, p. 453.
R. Sobhan, The Crisis of External Dependence: The Political Economy of Foreign Aid to Bangladesh, London, 1982, pp. 142, 240. The United States supplied US$577 million in aid during the same period. See also Islam, ‘Foreign Aid’, p. 104.
Franda, Bangladesh, p. 282 and Z.R. Khan, Leadership in the Least Developed Nation: Bangladesh, Syracuse, 1983, pp. 165–6. For details of one of Zia’s trips to obtain Islamic support and aid, see The Bangladesh Observer, 22 May 1976.
M. Franda and A. Rahman, ‘India, Bangladesh and the Superpowers’, in P. Wallace (ed.), Region and Nation in India, New Delhi, 1985, p. 263.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2000 Kathryn Jacques
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jacques, K. (2000). General Influences on Bangladesh’s Foreign Policy. In: Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333982488_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333982488_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-41125-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-333-98248-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)