The communique is a long wish-list
Saad Hammadi asks Abul Hasan Chowdhury, former state minister for foreign affairs, how much of a success the recent Bangladesh-India summitry has been in light of a number of longstanding, unresolved bilateral issues between the countries
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has claimed the latest Bangladesh-India summit to be a 100 per cent success, while the opposition leader Khaleda Zia has termed it a complete failure. What is your take on the bilateral meeting?
We as a nation feel deeply indebted for the shelter and security which was offered to us by India during our worst times. As a citizen of Bangladesh, I am assailed by a degree of regret that we find a completely different surge of sentiments prevalent in both these two countries to the extent, that the visit of the prime minister was aimed at retrieving a measure of that spirit. I welcome it. I expect that this summitry would lead to a realisation of the benefits of rational and positive cooperation between the two countries.
On many occasions in the past, such cooperation had been promised and yet, most of the pressing issues remain unresolved.
It is a matter of deep regret that whilst Bangladesh on every occasion has tried to implement its part of the bargain with great sincerity, the Indian attitude has unfortunately been one of procrastination and ambivalence.
Let us start with the land boundary agreement of 1974. Under the visionary leadership of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh amended its constitution to implement our obligation in handing over the enclaves which India sought from Bangladesh. On the other hand, the enclave issue as well as the undemarcated land boundary issue, in accordance with the 1974 agreement, remains unresolved from the Indian end.
It is deeply regrettable that 6.5 kilometres of land boundary is not yet demarcated. We have consistently talked about our trade imbalance and we have seen how, through tariff and non-tariff barriers, our goods have been denied entry into the Indian market. Our deep concern over water-sharing, which is an environmental, economic and indeed an existential problem for us, to date has not been adequately addressed.
Unresolved issues like Berubari, water-sharing arrangements, trade imbalance etc. impedes the scope of an alignment in a myriad of ventures which would create an ethos of economic advancement for both our countries.
If at least this environment could have been created by the recent, much-discussed visit, I would hope for a new beginning to be made.
One of the agreements Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina signed includes combating international terrorism. In recent years, India has been aligned with the US-Israeli block in international politics, who subscribe to a particular definition of 'terrorism'. By signing this accord are we not endorsing the often criticised US-Israeli perspective on the matter, without any scepticism?
On the question of terrorism, I can understand the importance of sharing information and on some occasions, technical expertise. We would not like our neighbours to harbour anti-Bangladeshi people on their soil. Likewise, India would also be justified to expect reciprocity from our side. But any joint operation would be tantamount to a challenge on our sovereignty.
A responsible government also needs to take care of state-to-state relationship in the larger context of multidimensional needs.
Considering India's role in neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka and Nepal, or for that matter, during our troubles in Parbatya Chattagram, how can we be sure that hegemonic ambitions are not being disguised in the form of cooperation?
This is to an extent a valid apprehension but we cannot be paralysed by such bitter experiences from the past. I would hope that, given the prestige Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina very obviously enjoys in India, she would be able to convince the government of India that it is immensely in their interest to have a relationship based on understanding and enlightenment. We would like to see the spirit of the Gujral doctrine revived.
The communiqué is a long wish-list, many of which are matters of vital concern to Bangladesh. It is therefore imperative that the government pursues with vigour, an arrangement for the sharing of water from the 54 rivers, including Teesta and a binding agreement on Tipaimukh or some other water related structure such as Fulertala that may be constructed by India. An agreement binds a successor government while a communiqué is a bias declaration of good intent.
The communiqué mentions that the talks on water-sharing will be continued as it has done in the past. So how does this talk change what has been happening in the past?
I would clearly expect that we pursue the communiqué, as far as our interests are concerned, within an agreed timeframe and not leave it to wither away like a rotten autumn leaf.
There is huge economic disparity between Bangladesh and India. Much of Bangladesh's market in India is hindered by both legal framework and implicit obstruction. What has the government done to resolve the trade inequality?
Even if all the barriers are removed in letter and spirit, there would still be a trade disparity between Bangladesh and India, given the size of the Indian economy. Whilst we unilaterally removed all tariff and non-tariff barriers, India has been most recalcitrant on these points. I would expect the latest declaration of removing tariff and non-tariff barriers on 47 items to not be subjected to any other hindrances.
If the economy suffers in Bangladesh, no amount of fencing will stop our people from going to India.
As the Mexicans famously said, either you allow us to export tomatoes or you find a place for our tomato growers.
I would also mention that the killing of innocent Bangladeshis, which has become an everyday affair, does very little to usher trust between the two countries.
Giving India access to Chittagong and Mongla ports and rail, road communication within Bangladesh, has been termed a potential security threat by many security analysts in the country. In doing so, do you not think the government has delivered India's long desired corridor through Bangladesh?
This is essentially a trade and investment related matter. We would like to see foolproof security arrangements to be ensured in order to get the benefit of the use of the ports. This matter, as indeed other issues, creates a feeling of unease that continues to bedevil our relationship.
Even if India is allowed to use the ports, providing for greater utilisation of its full potential, a transparent discussion is required to assure us that our concerns on security will not be compromised.
It is equally important to ensure that the use of land or port is the inalienable right of the people of Bangladesh and the odious claims of corridor have no grounds to exist.
Apart from allowing India the access to ports and the agreements associated with prisoner exchange and international terrorism that serves India's interest more, has there been any substantive gains on our side?
The most important thing is to understand that both the countries have problems which can be turned into possibilities. In the long run, if there is any hegemonic attitude on the part of our big neighbour, it is going to be not just unfortunate for Bangladesh, but will also adversely affect India's standing in the region and the world.
If we study India's foreign policy doctrine through the writings of pro-establishment Indian scholars, take precedents in history and their take on the partition of the subcontinent, as well as their alignment with USA, who also follow a policy of hegemonic control over smaller neighbours, how can you be so sure of India's ambitions?
We are an independent country and we have to shape our foreign policy with our own ingenuity, craft and skill. Taking the concern that you raise, Bangladesh, which made history in 1971 and is applauded for its moderation and resilience, must interact with the global order, relying on its own strengths. We are uniquely placed geographically to play a vital role in bridging south and south-eastern Asia. Let us confidently unite on national issues and thereby meet challenges which are both real and unreal.
Both the prime ministers have shared their concerns over the killing of Bangladeshis in the border areas by the Indian Border Security Force and they have also put it in the communiqué that they will prevent the loss of lives. But within a few hours of signing the communiqué, another Bangladeshi had been shot dead by the BSF. So how does that reflect on India's commitments?
India boasts, and quite rightly so, of its pre-eminent position in the IT sector. Obviously some of the commands, it would seem, are too feeble to be carried over to the BSF personnel in the Bangladesh border. But I hope that the message would get across soon and this totally unacceptable killing of our innocent citizens will be stopped.
__._,_.___