DISCUSSIONS on sovereignty in Bangladesh are almost all about how India is threatening us. India is a very large state next to Bangladesh whose power is the highest in the region. It is not just an issue of Bangladesh but it is an issue for all the countries in South Asia.

It is also significant that India is unpopular in every country in the region. This is what happens when a regional power exerts itself as it usually does and the smaller/weaker powers react to what is seen as transgressing their ‘sovereignty’. It is a feeling similar to what Cambodia feels in relation to China. Size matters.

External sovereignty

HOWEVER, the nature of sovereignty in the 21st century in a maturing digital era has evolved beyond borders — a common indicator. Borders and boundaries are not the only primary elements when money travels internationally like coins across the counter and every form of digital exchanges is constantly happening across borders. In fact, physical boundaries and borders are largely for those who cannot communicate digitally nowadays.

While armed border conflicts are very much here and borders are a physical reality, they are only one of the several kinds of conflict. External sovereignty pressure points are now largely about the globalisation of exchange and goods which is no longer a local matter. Western government could exert pressure on Bangladesh without any headache about physical borders but through a variety of means such as issuing travel bans or reducing apparel import. The peak issue — the halting hiring of peacekeepers by the United Nations — would have the most devastating consequences on political equations within; so, the simpler border guarding is not the only concept of defending sovereignty.

These issues were widely discussed during the last elections which showed that our politics was externalised significantly as the opposition waited for bans and the ruling party sought then confirmation of support from the same governments. The recent statement by Indian commentators that India was able to neutralise US pressure on the Bangladesh ruling regime by asserting itself as the ‘keeper’ of South Asian interest à la the US shows how the notion of external sovereignty has also been externalised.

Internal sovereignty issue

‘INTERNAL sovereignty refers to the power that a government has within its own territory and the ability to exercise control over its citizens. It is the supreme political authority of an independent state and includes the power to make decisions and enforce laws within its borders. This is different from external sovereignty, which is the power to deal with other national governments on behalf of the state. In simpler terms, internal sovereignty is the power a government has to govern its own people and make decisions for its own country.’

In both cases, it is about the state’s capacity to manage situations, exert power and install its presence. Various research — all western -sourced as the east is more polemical than analytical — shows that sovereignty has become limited to state institution performances. By that calculation, society may even emerge as a contestant of official sovereignty. The basic question could well be over which percentage of the people can the state exert its influence on and what are the sectors in which that can be done.

Internal political threats

THE case of ‘anti-state’ activities like that we see in the case of Islamist extremists and insurgency groups in the Chattogram Hill Tracts could be an example. However, the Islamists were violent and caught global attention but could not withstand the counter-0offensive by the ‘state’ agencies for more than a few months after the Holey Artisan incident. The Chattogram Hill Tracts, after the peace accord, has not been violent, particularly with India not offering support although the Bandarban area is restive but has already been ‘pacified’ for the moment. The political opposition is sometimes accused of being anti-state but such claims are not taken seriously by anyone including the accusers.

The main issue relating to internal sovereignty is if anyone needs the state and if so, how much and at what level and so on. How much does the state matter to them as a survival tool? Since discussions are mostly held at the Dhaka level where the state-government is most visible and assertive, it is natural that the assumption made in Dhaka is considered universal for Bangladesh. However, research on the nature and changes in villages at all aspects, whether economic or social, shows a declining status of power and influence of the formal power structure and the strengthening of social forces.

The most significant indicator is the nature of employment of the people. About 25 million people are working externally which makes it the largest single cluster of employment. These people are not dependent on Bangladesh’s economy and nor are their family members creating an unusual scenario where the state government’s capacity to assert itself is very limited in the sector that matters. In fact, the state needs this group to remain external as it sends home money through banks. A half, of course, comes through informal channels, making it as effective as the central bank.

This situation contrasts with the state employees who are the official state sovereignty exerting agents who live off significantly on payments made privately to them — corruption.

If the capacity of the courts, officials and law enforcers are inherently limited by the limited nature of the governance system, the need would be to test the internal sovereignty level and how that fares in relation to the state. While such issues are bypassed by academics, it is obvious that earlier notions of sovereignty need a rethink.