| BORDER SHOOTOUT LINKED TO 'TRANSIT' ISSUE? Time to bring 'boundary violation'before UN M. Shahidul Islam The Indian adventurism is climaxing to an unacceptable height and there seems hatred for innocent lives. The killing of two BDR personnel by the BSF on July 17 inside 1.5 km of Bangladesh territory is a grisly act of provocation and an intentional violation of Bangladesh's territorial integrity and national sovereignty.
Three other deaths and two more injuries sustained by innocent Bangladeshis ever since is indicative of the unfolding of a new type of pressure tactic that India wants to employ to squeeze the government in Dhaka to comply with some of Delhi's longstanding demands before the Caretaker Government quits power.
Never since April 16, 2001, when a heavily armed BSF battalion conducted a sneaky night operation to retake 6.5 km of Bangladesh territory in Padua, there had been an incursion of this nature inside Bangladesh territory. The BDR soldiers defended their motherland at that time with utmost valour and compelled the enemy to flee after having lost 16 of their soldiers and dozens of injuries.
According to a reliable source, the intrusion by BSF 1.5 km inside Bangladesh territory in Raghunathpur under Chapai-Nawabganj district coincided with a 'non-conclusive' bilateral meeting of the two foreign secretaries in which the transit and the trans-shipment issues were not given as receptive an attention by Bangladesh as India would have liked, and sought.
The source says the proposition made hours before the incident by Bangladesh foreign secretary, Towhid Hossain, to defer the matter of any discussion on transit and trans-shipment until the election of a new government in Bangladesh was viewed by India as a sign of non-compliance by a weak neighbour.
Even if that is true, should that have sparked such inhuman a reaction from India?
Some observers say the timing for the escalation in border tension was intentionally chosen by Delhi to deflate public attention from the ongoing crisis that has plagued the Indian government since a motley alliance of leftist parties decided to withdraw from the UPA coalition, prompting a confidence vote in the parliament. That seems unlikely.
What looks certain now is: As things unfolded since the July 17 incursion inside Bangladesh, the Indian ploy has proved to be as much a short-sighted brinkmanship as it was a wrong gambit diced at a wrong time. Months away from a general election, the voters in Bangladesh are likely to take such external aggressions as unprovoked threats to their national security and may vote into power a party that may chose not to be in accord with many of India's 'sensitive demands'.
The long-term consequence of these ongoing incidents, hence, will be too detrimental for Delhi as the people in Bangladesh have already begun to rally behind the government and the armed forces to forestall the recurrence of similar incidents.
Sources say, prior to the ongoing Deputy Director General (DDG)-level meeting between the two border forces in Kolkata, both sides have reinforced military capabilities at strategic bordering areas and the BDR is learnt to have requested for deployment of strong Fire Support Units (FSU) along vulnerable and easily accessible spots of the borders in anticipation of further Indian incursions.
Why such an escalation? One of the reasons could be that, the matter was made worse by the uncoordinated statements and spinning by the Indian government and the media. Since July 17, India has been cooking up stories to absolve itself from the crime of territorial violation of another sovereign nation and the commission of an act of manslaughter that resulted in deaths of two uniformed soldiers of another country 1.5 km deep inside the defenders' territory.
In a statement on July 18, the Indian High Commission in Dhaka narrated the story in the most incredulous and unconvincing manner. The statement blamed Bangladesh media of inaccurate reporting and said, "On the basis of a specific input on cattle smuggling along river Ganga (Padma), on the night of July 17-18, 2008, the 108th Battalion of the BSF noted movement of cattle and their smugglers in the area of border outpost Nimtita (Malda Sector of West Bengal). The BSF river-wing pursued the cattle smugglers who were travelling in boats in Indian territory. These smugglers fired at the BSF upon which BSF retaliated. During this exchange of fire, one BSF constable sustained serious bullet injuries."
The press release makes heroes out of cattle smugglers and overlooks an incident of hot pursuit and perplexingly it also remains totally oblivious to the unwarranted killing of BDR personnel and of BSF's intrusion into another sovereign country.
The statement from the Indian High Commission concludes by saying, "A flag meeting between local BSF and BDR commanders held on July 18 decided to refer the matter to higher authorities after detailed investigation, the results of which would be shared between the two sides."
An investigation does not necessarily get translated into justice, which alone can ensure the non-recurrence of such incidents in future. India must realise that acts of these kinds relegate its international stature into a bundle of paradox in so far as its aspiration to become a permanent member of the UN is concerned. Responsible UN members - let alone permanent members - do not encourage and enjoy shooting of innocent people across their borders.
Besides, while the Indian High Commission pinned the blame on Bangladesh media for inaccurate reporting, the Indian media had resorted to outright lies to offer a fig leaf of some sort to the crime of its border forces.
A Press Trust of India (PTI) report claimed on July 19, "The local official in Murshidabad district said the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) men opened fire when guards of the Border Security Force (BSF) were chasing cattle smugglers at Nimtita area, forcing them to retaliate."
An Indian citizen now in custody inside Bangladesh, who was privy to the incident, claimed such a version as false and explained how and when the BSF started shooting first.
Yet, the PTI - which is the official Indian news agency - quoted the BSF's DIG as having said to the district magistrate of Murshidabad, Subir Kumar Bhadra, "The report I have received from the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), BSF, is that there was some trespass from the international border from the Bangladesh side. There were two to three causalities of BDR and some soldiers have been injured. I have asked the DIG, BSF, to give me detailed report for onward transmission to the government."
Outraged by these diversionary and deceitful official reactions from India and Delhi's insensitive efforts to cover up wanton murders inside another sovereign nation, the Foreign Office in Dhaka lodged a strong protest the same day with the Indian government, reiterating that, "Bangladesh underscores the fact that it views the action of the BSF as totally unacceptable". The protest note of the foreign office expressed hope that the "Indian authorities will take appropriate action against those responsible and ensure that such incident will not recur."
That the incident is recoiling badly on India can be gleaned from the statement made by Touhid Hossain, the foreign secretary, who had just returned from Delhi at the conclusion of the two-day-long annual talks held to improve bilateral ties between the two neighbours.
Hossain said upon his return to Dhaka on July 20, "It is unacceptable that 73 Bangladeshi civilians have been killed this year by Indian border guards. I told my counterpart (External Affairs Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon) that India is our friendly neighbour. Such huge number of the civilians' killing is unacceptable."????
Touhid Hossain is a suave diplomat of militarily weaker nation and his limitations are unlimited. That is why his discreet outcry did little to put an end to Indian BSF's barbarity, and two more Bangladeshi civilians were seriously injured along the Lalmonirhat and Mymensingh borders on the night of July 20 as the BDR's DDG boarded onto a flight for Kolkata to eke out a negotiation with his Indian counterpart.
Given that such negotiations do not make India stop killing, and the numbers of deaths in BSF's hands have crossed the mark of 500 in the last five years alone, some members of the citizenry want the government to raise the issues of frequent violation of Bangladesh's territorial integrity by Indian forces - and of unprovoked killings - with the UN.
SECURITY VULNERABILITY OF CORRIDOR Politics & economics of Indiantransit demand Sadeq Khan Between His Excellency Pinak Ranjan Charkabarty, the Indian High Commissioner in Bangladesh talking to the press on July 10, and the 108 BSF battalion of Nimtita border post of India crossing into Bangladesh avowedly in hot pursuit of smugglers but actually killing two members of BDR patrol on July 17, the Indian demand for land route transit facility through Bangladesh to connect its north-eastern parts has been struck dumb. "We are interested in transit and we will remain so," H.E. Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty said after meeting foreign adviser Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury on July 10.
Vernacular newspapers in Dhaka reported, as also did some Indian newspapers, that India wanted the issue of transit to be settled in July 17-18 meeting in Delhi between Indian and Bangladesh delegations at the Foreign Secretaries level. H.E. Pinak R. Charkabarty rebuked the politicians and the press for politicisation of the issue over the years: "This is not a political issue at all. It is an economic issue. I don't see any reason why it should be politicised to this extent."
Transit and security are the two issues India will put at the top of the agenda at the Foreign Secretaries level bilateral talks, he said.
It was not what the Indian High Commissioner said, but the way he said it, along with the tone of transit demand as reported in the Indian media, that was found inappropriate by many in Bangladesh who raised a hue and cry. The essence of dissent to transit in Bangladesh boiled down to four major points. (i) If India considered its security vulnerable to free passage through an 18-mile land corridor between Nepal and Bangladesh, how could Bangladesh grant free land transit to India over the full breadth of Bangladesh territory to reach insurgency-infected Indian North-East, Traffic on such transit route would become targets of covert attack by Indian insurgents endangering national security. (ii) Economically, providing a second land corridor for Indian North-East through Bangladesh to Calcutta port, which is already well-connected through India's own Shiliguri corridor, does not make sense to land-starved Bangladesh. The road-infrastructure of Bangladesh is already overloaded with internal traffic, and there is no room to sell to heavy foreign traffic. Cost of maintenance of such a corridor and social cost of agricultural land loss for necessary expansion of such heavily used corridor will not be commensurate with optimum service charges that Bangladesh may gain from Indian transit traffic. (iii) There will be loss of potential exports to Northeast India from Bangladesh and hardly any trade gains. On the other hand, transit facility will facilitate open-country smuggling and dumping of cheap Indian products deep in Bangladesh territory whereas access of Bangladesh products to Indian markets would be shackled by para-tariff and non-tariff barriers. Only SAARC connectivity and Asian Railway connectivity could help Bangladesh trade for destinations in and beyond India on the one hand and Myanmar on the other. (iv) After thirty four years of signing of the Indira-Mujib agreement, we are still awaiting completion of land border delineation and the transfer of only a tiny tin-bigha corridor to connect with our India-locked enclaves in Angarpota-Dahagram. Our South Talpatty island is held by India. Our frontier inhabitants are being randomly fired on and killed by Indian border-guards. Upstream river diversions by India are depriving us of surface water supply in the lean season and causing salinity spread inland destroying our ecological balance. How could we give priority to Indian unilateral demand for transit putting aside such vital issues deserve to be addressed first?
It is the last reasoning that was picked up by the Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh Touhid Hossain before he flew to New Delhi for the scheduled bilateral talks. He told the press that decisions on important bilateral issues are not usually taken at his level, and no decision would be taken at the Foreign Secretaries level meeting. Bangladesh would discuss the Indian demand for transit in the overall context of pending bilateral issues and problems between the two countries. For reducing the huge trade deficit with the bigger economic neighbour that currently stands at more than $1.9 billion, Bangladesh would urge India to take unilateral measures that include removal of non-tariff barriers to Bangladeshi exports, duty-free access of Bangladeshi products to Indian market and mutual recognition of standard. There were also the issues of implementing the Land Boundary Agreement, border demarcation of the remaining 6.5 km, early convening of meeting of the Joint Boundary Working Group, unfettered access through Tinbigha corridor, exchange of enclaves and adversely possessed territories, the killing of unarmed civilians by the Indian BSF, early convening of the 37th session of the Joint Rivers Commission.
The week of July 10 to July 17 was filled with public debate in meetings and in the media over the swagger of Indian demand for land corridor in the name of transit. It is unfortunate that the tenor of Indian High Commissioner's comments was found offensive by many in Bangladesh. That offended feeling was heightened by a reported comment by US Ambassador James F. Moriarty in Dhaka, in his tea party for various political party leaders in private, that it would be fair for Bangladesh to extend transit facility to India. Some saw dark clouds in the horizon and quoted MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat, who in a dissertation on Asia Times Online observed that India's strategic community hold a belief that it is time India began to flex its muscles in its region. Indeed, he observed, US think-tankers routinely encourage their counterparts to believe that India is far too shy and reticent for a serious regional power in the exercise of its muscle power.
As if in fulfilment of their foreboding, the border skirnish occurred in July 17, in which instead of responding as per rules to a challenge by a BDR patrol within Bangladesh borders along the Padma in Chapainawabganj, an intruding BSF battalion opened fire and killed two BDR men. Within a gap of two days thereafter, two Bangladeshi farmers were killed by BSF fire from the other side of the Indian fence at Panchpirtala land border in Jessore district of Bangladesh. The government had meanwhile lodged a 'strong protest' with the Indian government against BSF's encroachment into Bangladeshi territorial waters and the killing of two BDR personnel at Raghunathpur in Chapainawabganj. Several political parties and non-government organisations strongly condemned the killing of two BDR men by India's BSF, about 1.5 kilometres inside Bangladesh territory.
The Foreign Secretary on return from New Delhi said, the killing of Bangladeshi nationals by BSF fire across the border at random was "unacceptable."
The Indian High Commissioner denied the incident and issued the following excuse: "On the basis of a specific input on cattle smuggling along river Ganga (Padma), on the night of July 17-18, 2008, the 108th Battalion of the BSF noted movement of cattle and their smugglers in the area of border outpost Nimtita (Malda Sector of West Bengal). The BSF river-wing pursued the cattle smugglers who were travelling in boats in Indian territory. These smugglers fired at the BSF upon which BSF retaliated. During this exchanges of fire, one BSF constable sustained serious bullet injuries."
The Indian High Commission's press release also acknowledged the need for better border cooperation: "Cross-border crimes like cattle smuggling are a menace for both countries that occasionally cause firing incidents, mostly in the night. These illegal activities and firing incidents, which sometimes lead to regrettable loss of lives on both sides along the border, need to be tackled through joint efforts and mechanisms."
But sentiments in Bangladesh have not been mollified. The outright denial of the killings further aggravated the sense of distrust and antipathy towards Indian "big brother". However, instead of harping on such negative factors, I quote below a positive multimodal alternative that Mr. Abu Reza, a Transport Economist of Bangladesh and a former World Bank economic advisor in Africa, has offered to be considered to satisfy the land transit demand of India: "In the area of transit transport, Bangladesh, after gaining independence in December 1971, restored the Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade in 1972, which was suspended by the Pakistan authorities after the Indo-Pak war of 1965. This protocol allows India to make full use of the most important and cost effective transit operation on as many as eight inland waterway routes. India is making the most successful use of the facility, as the phenomenal increase in India's transit traffic through Bangladesh since 1972 will bear out........
Within SAARC, cooperation between India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh, can be more easily enhanced. In fact, India, Nepal and Bhutan can particularly benefit from the low cost Bangladesh inland water transport facilities, as the Indian experience will confirm. There is urgent need for Indian consideration to allow Nepal-Bangladesh road transit to operate up to the river heads in Bangladesh, whereby these two countries can benefit from low cost Bangladesh inland water transport and sea ports. So, a combination of road and water-ways, through India and Bangladesh, would enormously benefit the two land-locked countries, thus lessening the burden on the Calcutta port.
Bangladesh has made enormous, disproportionate investment in highway construction to enhance inter-district connectivity by road, perhaps ignoring the full potential of inland water transport, which offered relatively low transportation cost on many of the comparable routes. Nonetheless, the standard of its highways remains poor and dangerous compared to the minimum standards adopted for any international highway. .....
Demand for transit through Bangladesh by India, Nepal and Bhutan, can be met for a much higher level of traffic if the depth of Bangladesh rivers can be increased with cooperation from India. There is a possibility that larger vessels can be used at lower unit cost through-out the year. The withdrawal of waters by erecting barrages across almost all rivers, including the Ganges, has been detrimental for everyone, including India's interest in terms of securing year-round transit facility from the low cost inland water transport system.. For Bangladesh, it (upstream withdrawal particularly at Farakka) has been an economic disaster......
Bangladesh highway system, as its very low standard of safety would confirm, is not fit for heavy road transit traffic. Besides, the high cost of fuel and steel, which are likely to go even higher, will make road transport operation increasingly more prohibitive for all the countries, apart from the environmental damage the heavy road traffic would inflict on the country.
Bangladesh has no aggregate. Thus, road building based on imported aggregates and bitumen, among other imported items, will make road transit haulage less viable economically. However, there are many other technical issues, which would need in-depth examination by the concerned experts. Thus, for everybody's interest, the Bangladesh inland water transport system should be urgently revived.
India can make the most important contribution by releasing not only the agreed upon quantity of water but also by augmenting its discharge."
The Reza plan thus combines India's transit requirements with our vital requirements for river-saving and water-sharing. Mr. Reza also drew attention to possible continental connectivity that might be obtained by pursing his proposed multimodal alternative, which I fully endorse: "There are relevant UN conventions to which all the concerned countries are parties. Conceivably, a SAARC version of a convention allowing for the TIR (Transport International Routier) Carnet and TIR Carnet du passage en Doune may be adopted in the inland waterway transit field, which could be undertaken under the auspices of SAARC and be applicable in the entire SAARC region, from Bangladesh up to Afghanistan....... In fact up to the whole of Central Asia. A scenario can be envisaged whereby India could be a potential transit and transport bridge between East Asia and Central Asia." BSF shootouts: Does Indiawant friendship? No sooner had the ink of our editorial [Transit issue vis-୶is the Constitution] urging for good sense and amity dried up than the rude shock came about the killing of two BDR soldiers by BSF men over a kilometre inside Bangladesh territory. This ghastly act was done on a day when Bangladesh foreign secretary sat in Delhi with his Indian counterpart to discus bilateral issues. What could be the motive of the Delhi policy makers? Was it to terrorise Dhaka again or to remind once more of India's overwhelming mighty presence? Is she not defying the UN Charter and international law that stipulate respect for territorial integrity and the inviolability of internationally recognised borders?
To look back, our big neighbour seldom bothered about diplomatic niceties, and hence Dhaka's relations -- which were more than warm for valid historical factors of 1971 ? began to be cool within four years of independence, during the Mujib regime. Emergence of Bangladesh as an independent entity could offer India two most significant gains: a grateful friend on the east with whom to build close, lasting bond of friendship on the basis of give and take; and weakening of Pakistan on the west ? thereby saving billions of Rupees from Delhi's defence budget.
The bereaved survivors of lance nayek Shri Krishna Pada Das, have cremated his body and havildar Hannan Sarker buried in a graveyard, but the bruise will remain until appropriate action is taken by the Indian authority. Bullying and big-brotherly jingoistic attitude of India has long been viewed by Bangladeshis as a tactic to induce fear. Is this called friendship? Among others 251 teachers of the Dhaka University in a joint press statement decried the dastardly act of India on a sovereign country to subdue Bangladesh ignoring bilateral agreement between the two countries and criticised Dhaka's submissive foreign policy.
But the nation is surprised and shocked to see that the former valiant sector commanders of the Liberation War, the great patriots, are quite mute over repeated horrid slaughters. It will be indeed saddening if the people here feel frustrated. We believe peoples of both the countries will abhor a repeat performance Indian brutality.
Not long after the emergence of Bangladesh a section of the Indian press began printing fabricated stories about Bangladesh which continues unabated. What is appalling is that even a very senior columnist of octogenarian Kamath's stature gave us a jarring dither when he wrote in the Organiser in 2005: "Bangladesh is rift-ridden country which, in the first place, has no right to exist." On rare occasions some unbiased journalists also revealed the truth. For instance, a few years ago Bangla literary magazine Desh headlined its cover-story thus: Protibeshider shathay Bharater dadagiri [India's domineering attitude towards its neighbours]
The Indian High Commission has categorically denied the involvement of India's BSF in the killing of two members of the BDR on Thursday night, and distorted the fact claiming that the incident occurred along the border and that it was a sequel to firing by smugglers on the BSF personnel. And the state-run Press Trust of India demonstrated, to say the least, the height of inaccuracy in journalism.
Territorial integrity and sovereignty are the corner stones of a nation; no independent country can allow any interference in these matters. Bagladesh has consistently pursued an independent, non-aligned foreign policy to promote friendship with all countries of the world on the basis of mutual respect for sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. We hope Indian policy makers will see reason and take decision to remove all irritants in the bilateral relations of the two closest neighbours.
As we observed previously, a good neighbour is a great blessing while the reverse of it is a misfortune. There is no doubt that as a neighbour Bangladesh certainly and definitely cherishes lasting friendly relations with India based on understanding and cooperation for mutual benefit. http://www.weeklyholiday.net/
. |