| Transit talk Mubin S Khan and Musfequr Rahman delve into the arguments in favour of and against allowing India transit and look at the relationship of the two neighbours over the years
In the second week of July when the news broke that the Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, had sent a communiqu̩ to the foreign ministry, saying India would press once again for transit of Indian passenger and cargo vehicles through Bangladesh's road and rail network at the foreign secretary-level talks in New Delhi, it stirred a stormy debate as before. India has been seeking transit so that Indian vehicles can enter Bangladesh through the Benapole border and enter and leave the Indian states Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram through Tamabil, Bibirbazar and Khagrachari in Bangladesh. To reach these north-eastern states, vehicles have to travel between 1,400 and 1,650 kilometres from West Bengal and, if Bangladesh allowed them transit, the distance would come down to just over 700 kilometres. In August 20, 2007, New Delhi put forward a proposal to Bangladesh to allow Indian passenger and vehicular transit through a five year agreement allowing for one-year multiple entry visas with a seven-day stay in each entry, renewable for five years. This time around, India avoided the word transit in their proposal owing to its sensitivity and instead called for discussion on setting up a new port call at Ashuganj in Brahmanbaria, bus link between Agartala and Kolkata via Dhaka and goods train service between Akhaura and Agartala, according to foreign ministry officials. Whatever words it may have used, the foreign officials insisted, India was essentially seeking transit once again. The reaction was instant and intense. Khandakar Delwar Hossain, secretary general of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, urged the United Nations to intervene and called it a threat to the sovereignty of Bangladesh. Two hundred and fifty-one Dhaka University professors, mostly belonging to the BNP-backed white panel, signed an affidavit asking the current government not to allow India transit. Various experts writing in different national dailies came out with strong opinions, both in favour of and against transit. Some experts pointed out how it is economically beneficial for Bangladesh to allow transit while some others broke in harsh criticism not only describing it as a threat to sovereignty but pointing out that an interim government, which did not have the people's mandate, was in no position to decide on such an important deal. The foreign adviser, Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury, eventually came up with a statement to calm the jittery nerves. 'We will not sign any deal which goes against the interest and sovereignty of Bangladesh,' he said. Meanwhile, Pinak Ranjan sought to play down the issue and said transit is essentially an economic issue and not a political one. Poor timing With a military-backed interim government in power, a large group of intellectuals fear that foreign powers, be it countries or international bodies, will try and push their agenda during its tenure and push through many deals that serve their interest, be it privatisation of state-owned institutions, oil and gas exploration or, for that matter, transit, in the absence of an avenue for the people to express their opinion closed under a state of emergency. The recent talk over transit has inflamed those fears. 'It is outrageous to think that, when four people, two BDR personnel and two farmers, were killed in border skirmishes, when India has put up a barbed-wire fence along the border and is going ahead with their plans of river-linking project which will divert the water that flows through Bangladesh, they want transit from us,' says Farhad Mazhar, a political analyst and executive director of UBINIG. 'This government is non-representative and we are going through a transitional period. This is not the time for India to put forward such a proposal,' says Farooq Chowdhury, who was Bangladesh's high commissioner to India from 1986 to 1992. Farooq went on to criticise the media for paying too much attention to the isolated observation of diplomats and making an issue out of it. 'Transit is a huge issue and representatives from both countries should sit not only over transit but a range of bilateral issues and address them. Transit cannot be dealt in an isolated manner and definitely not at a secretary-level meeting,' Farooq adds. Imtiaz Ahmed, professor of international relations at Dhaka University, however, believes the hysteria surrounding the issue may be unwarranted at this point of time as the latest Indian proposal may not have been referring to transit at all. 'There is a bus service that comes to Dhaka from Agartala and another one that comes to Dhaka from Kolkata,' says Imtiaz. 'Many Indian passengers first come to Dhaka and then change bus to go to Kolkata which is kind of ridiculous. I think addressing this issue was what the Indian high commissioner was referring to.' Economic or political issue? As the debate over the transit issue raged on, the foreign secretary, Touhidul Islam, stated that it would be impossible for Bangladesh to consider giving transit at this point of time in the absence of an economic assessment and in the absence of necessary infrastructure. 'The best we can do now is to commission a full-fledged study on the benefits and risks of giving transit to India,' he told journalists. Many experts believe transit is primarily an economic issue and promises a range of gains for Bangladesh. 'The way I see it, if Bangladesh is to become a middle-income country by 2020 and grow at a rate of nine to ten per cent annually then it will have to open its doors to not only India but also the rest of the world,' says Farooq Sobhan, president of the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute. 'We have to reach up to Singapore on the East and Iran and Europe in the West through land. Only then will our economic opportunities open up,' says Farooq, who was the Bangladeshi high commissioner to India from 1992 to 1995.. Other experts point out the case of Europe where free movement across countries has proven beneficial to all sides. 'Some people say we will lose all leverage in bargaining with India if we give up transit as that is the only thing they want from us,' AZM Abdul Ali, a former government official, writes in Prothom Alo, 'but the way I see it, if Indian vehicles become accustomed to using shorter routes through Bangladesh it is we who can dictate terms to them.' Farhad Mazhar, however, dismisses the idea that transit is merely an economic issue. 'Our intellectuals are confusing the people by giving such statements,' he says. 'We are talking of transit between countries that are essentially of unequal strength. There is a significant difference between transit here and in Europe.' He goes on to explain that there is a huge economic disparity between the two countries, there are unresolved issues over water and border and finally the 'war on terror', which increases the risk of political interference as India views Bangladesh as a hotbed of terrorist activity. 'The way I see it, India is raising the issue of transit as a part of their design to increase hegemonic control in the subcontinent,' he adds, citing the cases of Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan where Indian control is almost blatant. Professor Anu Mohammad, who teaches economics at Jahangirnagar University, says the so-called gains from providing transit have not been well thought-out. 'There is economic disparity between the two countries in question. Essentially, why will Bangladesh take part in a deal which is beneficial to the Indian economy by reducing its transport cost?' he asks. 'Also, there is a strong market for Bangladeshi goods in the north-eastern states of India. There is also a huge potential for new industries to grow here targeting the markets there. Why should we give that up to India?' 'Cargo movement of economic goods is fine. But what if there is movement of military cargo?' Anu asks. The political instability in the north-eastern states of India is indeed a concern for local experts. 'What if the ULFA decides to bomb us because we gave transit? Why should we take India's problem on our shoulders?' asks Mazhar. Professor Imtiaz believes all of these issues depend on what kind of deal we sign with India. 'Instead of being reactive, as in responding only when they start talking, we should be proactive,' he says. 'We should call India for a meeting and ask India for transit to Nepal and Bhutan and even Pakistan. We should ask them to reduce cross- border smuggling which is practically state-sponsored by India.' 'In return, we can offer them transit on terms that benefit us economically. We can even ask them to invest in Bangladesh to develop our infrastructure,' he adds. Imtiaz agrees that transit is right now unrealistic owing to the economic disparity. 'Right now what we can think of is transhipment Рwhere the good travelling from India are unloaded from Indian carriers at one point of the Bangladeshi border and carried to another point on Bangladeshi vehicles,' he says. The beef with India Before leaving the country for the talks, the foreign secretary pointed out that Bangladesh would flag the issues of implementing the Land Boundary Agreement, border demarcation of the remaining 6.5 kilometres, early convening of meeting of the Joint Boundary Working Group, unfettered access through Tin Bigha corridor, exchange of enclaves and adversely possessed territory and the killing of unarmed civilians by the Border Security Forces of India and early convening of the 37th session of the Joint Rivers Commission. Indeed, for many people, giving transit would not have been an issue if there had not been a pile of unresolved issues between Bangladesh and India which has pushed the relationship onto the borderline of mutual hatred where Bangladeshi politicians find it fruitful to play the 'India card' so to speak, piling pressure on the government and legislators to refrain from giving India any benefits. What began as brotherly relationship in 1971 with India's unfettered support to Bangladesh's independence war that was heightened with India taking in a million refugees and entering the war directly against Pakistan would soon boil down to mutual distrust. Firstly, both India and Bangladesh have enclaves amounting to a total 225 that fall into each other's territory. In May 1974, the two countries signed an agreement to exchange the people in these enclaves and accordingly, Bangladesh enacted a legislation in November that year to honour the agreement. Five days before the deadline for the signing of relevant maps in December 31 that year, India pulled out citing that they wanted a change in the May agreement and 34 years on, the situation remains unresolved. In 1976, India built the Farakka Dam which diverted the waters that flow naturally into Bangladeshi rivers leaving hundreds of thousands of people displaced, causing spells of drought and flood because of the irregular flow of water, also increasing the salinity in water in Bangladeshi rivers as seawater pushed inland. India had promised then that they were only doing this experimentally. The 1996 Farakka Agreement raised hopes that the water dispute would finally be resolved; however, India has instead gone ahead with plans to build the Tipaimukh dam on the Barak River in Manipur, and there is now a creeping fear that all the 54 rivers Bangladesh shares with India will dry up because of India's expansive plans. Add to this the river-linking project where India has plans to build canals to divert water from the north to the south. In 2007 India went ahead with plans of fencing the entire border with Bangladesh in a project worth Rs 1,134 crore with barbed wire. According to Indian officials, the fence was built to stop illegal migration from Bangladesh. Interestingly, it has left no effect on the cross-border smuggling of over $2 billion into Bangladesh. 'I once told a senior Indian diplomat that we find the fence to be very insulting and said it would never work,' says Imtiaz. 'The diplomat then replied, "But it has worked in Pakistan".' '"So, that is who you view us as?" I said,' says Imtiaz. Bangladesh has further concerns over the trade deficit between the two countries. Bangladesh currently has a trade deficit of over $1.8 billion and has asked India to remove non-tariff trade barriers to close the gap between the two countries. One of the most important issues, however, is the border skirmishes. Every year, according to different statistics, nearly 100 incidents take place at the border causing in the loss of lives on both sides, but at least four to five times more on the Bangladeshi side. According to studies, border skirmishes have increased in the post-1971 period as opposed to the period of 1947 to 1971. Furthermore, Bangladesh and India share a border of over 4,000kms of which 6.5kms is still to be demarcated despite numerous meetings on the issue. According to the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement, Bangladesh gave up the Berubari enclave and India had pledged to return in exchange a land corridor measuring 178 by 85 metres to reach the Dahagram-Angorpata enclave. However, India did not open the corridor until 1996 when it agreed to keep it open every alternate hour during daytime. Since 2001, it is open 12 hours during daytime. 'There are many dual citizens in the border because of the corridor,' says Imtiaz. 'During the day they are Bangladeshi and at night they are Indian. It is ridiculous.' Alongside these persistent issues there are more issues that raise their heads now and then including the stay of wanted Bangladeshi criminals in India, the promised sale of grain to meet Bangladesh's food crisis, demarcation of maritime boundary which has been left unresolved for over 20 years. But, most importantly, the greatest concern for some Bangladeshi intellectuals is that the Indian government through its Research and Analysis Wing carries out many subversive activities within the Bangladesh territory to undermine the image of the country. 'From the pattern that has emerged over the years we can safely say India follows a policy of "contained disturbance" within Bangladesh territory,' says Mazhar. Many intellectuals accuse Indian intelligence of being behind many of the bomb blasts that took place in Bangladesh since 1999. They further allege that India has maintained a policy of cultural hegemony by dictating the cultural direction of the country and trying to assimilate it to West Bengal. 'In 1971 it was not only the two-nation theory that died. Along with it died the idea of a united subcontinent as Bangladesh showed that a small country can survive within the subcontinent. India has since worked to disprove this nation as a successful Bangladesh would prove fatal to their fight against the separatists movements in many places of India including Kashmir and Assam,' says Mazhar. Indian concerns The Indian high commissioner, while talking to the Bangladeshi press, recently on the secretary level meet pointed out that alongside transit, security would be one of the major concerns. When asked whether he was sure that Bangladesh harboured Indian criminals, Pinak responded, 'Of course, we even some of their telephone numbers.' India has maintained for years that insurgents from northeast India use Bangladesh as a sanctuary to launch terrorist campaigns in Indian territory. Added to this is India's concern over the growing Islamic fundamental organisations and their terrorist activities. On many occasions, Indian officials have wasted no time in blaming Bangladesh for terrorist campaigns in India like the Ahmedabad blasts. Indian officials further believe the Inter Service Intelligence uses Bangladesh as a launching pad for subversive activities inside India. 'It is curious how Bangladesh would back the United Liberation Front of Assam when the movement essentially stems from a fight against Bengalis and Bangladeshi immigrants in Assam,' says Imtiaz. 'What may have happened is that through these porous borders a number of terrorists slip through for shelter and it is difficult for Bangladeshi officials to identify them since we mostly look alike.' India also has further concerns over the growing number of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that enter India which was the justification behind the barbed wire fences. In 1998, the West Bengal government came up with a figure that 10 lakh Bangladeshis live in India while the Bharatiya Janata Party came up with an astounding figure of one crore. However, recent studies by Indian experts, including Samir Guha Roy of the Indian Statistical Institute, term such estimates 'motivatedly exaggerated'. After cross-checking population growth and decline rates Guha concluded that West Bengal's population problem was caused by the influx of migrants from neighbouring Indian states. The exaggerated number was also created by communal elements to perpetrate the myth that most of the illegal immigrants were Hindus being forced out of Bangladesh by the majority Muslim community, say experts. Final math Despite the recent controversies over transit, border skirmishes and barbed-wire fences, most experts agree that India-Bangladesh relations have improved somewhat in recent years. However, transit is not something that can be done immediately, they say. 'I would not say that our relationship has declined over the years,' says Farooq Chowdhury. 'It is natural for neighbouring countries to go through highs and lows. We just have to ensure we have more highs than lows.' Many experts believe most of the failures in the India-Bangladesh relationship have been caused by inefficiency and immaturity on the part of bureaucrats and politicians on both sides, India's hegemonic designs and, in some parts, a hangover from the 1947 days where the scars of partition still raises its ugly head to induce mutual distrust between two modern states. 'For years, the relationship between us has been neglected,' says Farooq Sobhan. 'Our heads of government should meet at least two to three times in a year to take up the various unresolved issues. We should have a state minister for foreign affairs who specifically deals with Indian affairs. We should take the opportunity of the good relations at present and build on it permanently.' On the transit issue, Farooq believes that there are enormous gains Bangladesh can secure. 'Bangladesh will very much be the loser if we do not allow transit. We have already wasted too much time on this,' he says. Farooq, however, agrees that we need to go for massive infrastructural development before we can allow India transit. 'The people of India and Bangladesh share a mutual history in many parts and there are so many cultural and ethnic connections that there is no reason why the movement and relationship between Bangladesh should not go further,' says Mazhar. 'It is the rulers of India based in New Delhi whose hegemonic designs worry us.' 'We could have achieved a lot from this relationship but we have not because of an amateurish attitude from both sides,' says Farooq Chowdhury. 'Transit has many implications and we have to take into account the condition of our roads and effect on our environment and security.' Imtiaz believes Bangladesh must play a very proactive role in its relationship with India rather than dealing with them issue by issue. 'We should have a separate Indian cell in our ministry, the universities should have a special course and departments on Indian studies, Bangladesh should try and set up Bangladesh centres all across India. We should develop a special relationship with our neighbouring states such as Assam,' says Imtiaz. 'We should develop intelligence in dealing with a country that is crucial to our existence.' Nearly 90 per cent of Bangladesh, as is evident from maps, is surrounded by India. Bangladesh shares ethnicity, culture and history with many parts of India. Many of the Indians, especially in West Bengal, have migrated from what is now Bangladesh and vice versa. A former chief of the BSF once described the India-Bangladesh border as the most unnatural in the world. And yet, over the years, politicians and bureaucrats, in many ways, have created disharmony between the two nations to address their own selfish needs. 'Logically, there is no reason for Bangladesh and India not have an excellent relationship,' says Imtiaz. |
__._,_.___
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___