Mamata Banerjee came, saw, but did not quite conquer the Bangladeshi heart. But then, the last may not have been her plan. The trip was mainly a political play on her part – to have a makeover of her not-too-friendly image in Bangladesh, and to assure opponents in her own state that she is not really a friend to the fundamentalist forces in her state that are opposed to the regime in Bangladesh. But most important of all, her purpose was to bridge her own relationship with Bangladesh that was shrouded in some doubts because of her stance on Teesta water sharing, and settlement of land border issues. 

The visit was all sweet, warm, and full of bonhomie on both sides, but it yielded precious little because of misplaced reliance by Bangladeshis on a single person who has little control over settling issues between the two sovereign countries. The hype in Bangladesh media was all about the two long-standing thorny issues of water sharing and swapping of enclaves. It was as though the visit of Mamata Banerjee, who was seen as an obfuscating factor in the settlement of the disputes, would cement the agreements between Bangladesh and India; such a simplistic portrayal ignores the fact that Mamata Banerjee represents only a component state of Indian federation. She has as much authority to seal an international deal with Bangladesh as, say, the Governor of California signing a nuclear agreement on behalf of USA with India. Many of our people including our media (with some notable exceptions) treated the visit with such significance that gave people a false impression that the Chief Minister of West Bengal held the key to settling of our bi-national problems in her hands. But the shrewd and seasoned politician that she is, Mamata dealt with the topics adroitly, neither denying the problems nor accepting the burden to resolve them herself. 

The visit was a tour of goodwill at heart; Mamata knows that solving bilateral issues between the two countries is beyond her. Yet she is fully aware that an agreement on water sharing and land border between the two countries requires her state's cooperation and support. She played her role negatively on these issues with the previous government of India for political goals. But now she does not want to play the same role with the new government, and hence this attempt at an image makeover.

Unfortunately, the image makeover trip had one serious flaw. If the makeover was to revise her image in Bangladesh on the two central issues of Teesta and enclaves, the composition of her delegation did not give any indication of her concerns over these. Instead of a delegation of experts on the two subjects, she loaded it with cultural and business personalities who have little to do the bilateral problems that affect the two countries. Indeed West Bengal as a state cannot sign treaties with another sovereign country; but if the intent of the Chief Minister was to show her change in mind over Teesta waters, least she could have done is to bring some experts from her state and send them to a trip to the areas watered by the river. The visit therefore yielded results that any visit of goodwill would; mutual expressions of friendship, love, and more cultural exchanges. 

An abiding misconception in Bangladesh is confusion of India as a country with West Bengal, one of twenty-nine states and territories of that country. In some sense this is a reality, because nearly three fourths of our land borders are shared with West Bengal; and much of our traffic and trade with India takes place with that state. To many people, West Bengal represents India, and the government there represents Indian government. In a country with no states and a unitary government, sometimes it is hard for an average person in Bangladesh to think what West Bengal as a state can and cannot do internationally. For example, West Bengal cannot unilaterally enter into a cultural or trade agreement with Bangladesh however much the Bengalis on two sides of the border want without the involvement of the Indian government in framing and approving such agreement. The same way water sharing agreement or transfer of territories between the two countries cannot happen without the Indian government's involvement and initiative. 

Fortunately, on the current issues between Bangladesh and India, much work has already been done. An agreement on Teesta did not finally happen last year because of West Bengal's reluctance. The transfer of border enclaves between the two countries is pending an approval from the Indian legislature. Mamata Banerjee herself may not have the signing authority of the agreements, but her support would be a key element in their final implementation. The West Bengal Chief Minister could not have pleased our hyped up expectations about these in her last visit, but she did try to cheer up our people by vocalising her support. But most importantly she tried to put up a friendly face and I think she succeeded in that.

The writer is a political analyst and commentator.