Dhaka should pursue joint basin management of Teesta River
Former interim government adviser Akbar Ali Khan tells New Age
by Shahidul Islam Chowdhury
BANGLADESH should push for complete implementation of the 1974 land boundary agreement and the protocol to the agreement signed during the September 6-7 visit of the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, says Akbar Ali Khan, a former adviser to the interim government.
'Bangladesh should demand complete implementation of the agreement and the protocol,' he said in an exclusive interview with New Age on Monday.
Akbar Ali believes the government should press for the formation of a Teesta River Commission a la the Mekong River Commission (in Southeast Asia) for total basis management in light of the framework agreement signed during the Indian prime minister's visit.
'Agreement on water sharing is a small part of the solution to a huge problem. The larger issue is solution to river basin management,' he said. 'It would help us sharing power in addition to sharing water.'
Akbar Ali, also a former cabinet secretary, said he was 'disappointed' with Manmohan Singh's statement on the Tipaimukh project.
In the paragraph 22 of the joint statement, India has made it clear that it has 'assumed the responsibilities to decide what is good or bad for Bangladesh, especially in the case of Tipaimukh,' he said.
'This means that India would decide whether Tipaimukh would be good or bad for Bangladesh,' he added.
Excerpts:
What is, in your view, the outcome of the state visit of the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh?
The relations between Bangladesh and India are very complex. It is not very easy to unfreeze the situation.
It is unfortunate that no meaningful dialogue took place in the last decade at the highest level of the two countries.
I think there should be more consultations between the two governments.
Another problem is that too much expectation were raised by the government and the media that all the problems between the two countries would be solved at one go during Manmohan Singh's visit to Dhaka.
It was an unrealistic dream.
I think we should not be disappointed about the outcome of the visit. We must understand that the road is very long. So, in the larger interests of the two countries, we should try to find ways to continue the journey together.
Some ministers have given the impression that the government bracketed the exchange of letters expressing intent to provide India transit with the signing of an agreement on the sharing of Teesta water? Is it a correct approach to deal with bilateral issues?
This is a myth.
I saw a television interview of Gowher Rizvi who categorically stated that there is no relation between transit and Teesta.
If we read the joint communiqué carefully than we find that Mr Rizvi is right.
In the joint communiqué it is mentioned that Bangladesh has already given transit for transporting oversized containers (over-dimensional cargos) for power station in the Indian state of Tripura through Ashuganj inland port (in Bangladesh) and the road linking Ashugranj and Agartala (in India).
There was a commitment in the paragraph 36 of the joint communiqué that says 'the port could be used for movement of bulk cargo immediately as far as practicable'. It was clearly a case of transit which was given before (signing of) any agreement and it will continue.
Bangladesh has made a very unequivocal commitment to transit and legally it is not essential that there has to be an agreement. It is clear from what has happened in Ashuganj.
Some experts say that the government has in fact provided a 'corridor' to India by allowing transfer of goods between two points of the country through Bangladesh territory. What do you think?
Transit and corridor carry separate connotations. Corridor is a dangerous expression.
Those who were talking about corridor unknowingly do it. It is a dangerous concept. So far the Indians have never claimed a corridor through Bangladesh. We have not given it either. We shall not talk about it.
Transit is a matter of discretion of the Bangladesh government. There is no right involved (for the country which is given transit). Any sovereign country can give transit facility to any country any time. Transit is not a matter of right for India. Transit is a favour given by the Bangladesh government.
What is your view about the discussion on allowing use of Chittagong and Mongla seaports for transfer of goods to and from India for third country trade?
In fact, the government has given transit facility through Ashuganj. Any other form of transit would require time—five to ten years. It would obviously take time to build infrastructure and India need not hurry.
The two countries signed a protocol to the 1974 land boundary agreement for transferring enclaves, exchanging of adversely possessed lands and demarcating 6.5 kilometres of border although India is yet to ratify the agreement. Do you believe the agreement and the protocol would be implemented?
The 1974 land boundary agreement was accepted by all the governments in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has implemented all the commitments that could be implemented from her side alone.
It is the Indians who have thus far not implemented the 1974 land boundary agreement on the plea of agitations and court cases.
However, I have seen in television that some politicians here are raising question about the land boundary agreement. I think there is no use of raising question about the agreement. It is not a matter of some small five or ten acres of land. It is a settled fact done on the basis of some principles agreed in 1974. If you raise questions at that level, the problem will never be solved.
I think Bangladesh should demand complete implementation of the agreement and the protocol.
However, we are not yet sure whether India would implement it at all. We are afraid that they may not be interested to implement the land boundary agreement.
Bangladesh has signed a framework agreement covering almost all aspects of bilateral and multilateral relations without specifying a timeframe.
There is no binding for implementation of the provisions of the framework agreement.
One important thing is some of the provisions reflected India's shift from its previous stands on certain issues.
Article 2 of the agreement says, 'to enhance cooperation in sharing of the waters of common rivers, both parties (countries) will explore the possibilities of common basin management of common rivers for mutual benefit.'
This is for the first time India has formally agreed for 'common basin management of common rivers'.
Now we need to work to develop separate basin management plan for each of the common rivers.
Basin management requires involvement of all co-riparian countries. How can a bilateral agreement be applicable for management of rivers flowing through more than two countries, for example Brahmaputra is originated in China. Some other rivers flowing through Bangladesh and India originated in Nepal and Bhutan.
The agreement would cover most of the common rivers flowing in Bangladesh from India. It is not for all rivers.
There should be wider management for some rivers like Brahmaputra.
However, this is a progressive achievement.
There is no time limit for the framework agreement.
There is a provision (in Article 12 of the agreement) to establish a Joint consultative commission, which will meet annually, for effective and smooth implementation of the agreement.
So no time limit is required when there is a commitment for annual meeting.
If any side does not join the annual meeting then implementation of the agreement would be automatically disrupted.
Ministers here say that the two countries would sign an agreement on sharing waters of Teesta within three months. Is it realistic when the sides have been in discussion on the issue for several decades?
I do not consider it realistic.
Another important thing is I do not believe that signing an agreement for only sharing water would bring much benefit for Bangladesh.
In fact, in summer we see no water in Teesta. There are also serious problem of flood in the region.
India is planning production of 15,000 megawatts electricity by establishing several storages on Teesta.
How this would be administered and what would be share have not been spelt out so far.
Moreover, because of construction of a number of large embankments, there is possibility of more earthquakes in the region.
So for Teesta, according to the framework agreement, we should push for formation of a Teesta river commission like the Mekong River Commission (in Southeast Asia) for total basin management.
It would help us to share power in addition to sharing water.
So agreement for sharing of water is a small part of solution to a huge problem. The larger issue is solution to river basin management.
What is your view about Manmohan Singh's assurance about the Tipaimukh project?
I am very disappointed with paragraph 21 of the joint statement that said Dr Manmohan Singh assured that 'India would not take steps on the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh'.
This paragraph made it clear that India has assumed the responsibilities to decide what is good or bad for Bangladesh, especially in the case of Tipaimukh.
This means that India would decide whether Tipaimukh would be good or bad for Bangladesh.
I think there should be a discussion between the two countries. It should not be a one-sided decision.
What do you think about India's decision to allow duty free access of 46 textile products from Bangladesh?
The most important thing in this case is whether necessary conditions are there in favour of Bangladesh. These provisions do not ensure that Bangladesh would be able to export these products.
The Indian companies need to buy our products for implementation of duty free access to Indian market. If they do not buy showing different reasons what would we do?
In the past we have seen there were a lot of problems in the form of anti-dumping duties on products, for example battery, exported from Bangladesh. There are other non-tariff barriers.
So I am not very confident that there would be any significant increase in bilateral trade. But we should continue to try to find out solutions to all the problems.
That is why I have said that there are complex problems in trade between the two countries.
How about the memorandum of understanding on exchanges of programmes between the BTV and Doordarshan?
The number of viewers of the BTV is decreasing. If the government thought that the BTV programmes would be shown on Indian national television, I do not know to what extent the BTV would be successful.
If the BTV produces programmes only for Bangladesh audience, it would fail to attract audience in India.
And connectivity?
Paragraph 42 of the joint statement says 'the establishment of physical infrastructure would promote exchange of goods and traffic, and lead to the connectivity of services, information, ideas, culture and people'.
Here we need to observe that they have kept 'people' after 'services, information and ideas'.
I think connectivity among people is much more important for connectivity of services, information and ideas. There will be no benefit of connectivity unless the people are not connected.
But in real life we see a lot of obstacles to connectivity among the people. Barbed wire was erected along the border. We are firing on innocent people on the border. We have a complex visa system. We have unresolved problems at enclaves for couple of decades that hindered movement of people across the region.
These are the barriers on ways of building trust which is essential for connectivity among people.
What I must say is that we should move fast to restore confidence.
I believe when there will be a climate of goodwill in both sides, only than people will build connectivity for them across the region.
http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/33195.html__._,_.___
