A new twist in transit talk
The adviser's comment is confusing because none of the five articles of the Mujib-Indira treaty of 1974 is even remotely related to the transit issue.
By Dr Manjur A Chowdhury
The people of Bangladesh are not instinctively against granting transit to India. What they want that transit should be given only when most, if not all, bilateral disputes with India are settled based on the principle of fairness and justice… Transit is our most powerful—perhaps the last bargaining chip. In diplomatic bargaining game with India, transit is actually our trump card.
FOR the last few months, 'transit' has been the buzzword in our media. It is widely discussed that a transit protocol will be signed with India during Manmohan Singh's visit to Bangladesh. But a few days ago, the prime minister's adviser, Gowher Rizvi, told a news briefing that 'there is no need for fresh agreement on transit since it has been in the 1974 Indira-Mujib treaty. We need to work out the modalities and operational details of the [transit] routes' (bdnews24.com, August 27). The adviser's comment is confusing because none of the five articles of the Mujib-Indira treaty of 1974 is even remotely related to the transit issue. The Mujib-Indira treaty was signed mainly to solve boundary problems. Bangladesh ratified the treaty, amended the constitution accordingly, and gave Berubari to India. But, India never ratified the treaty. India's reluctance to ratify the Mujib-Indira treaty of 1974 is an affront to Bangladesh and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Now, the prime minister's adviser, Gowher Rizvi, is suggesting that transit should be granted to India on the basis of that non-operative treaty.
Gowher Rizvi was probably referring to the Indo-Bangladesh Bilateral Trade Agreement of 1972. Article V of this agreement says that 'The two governments agree to make mutually beneficial arrangements for the use of their waterways, railways and roadways for commerce between the two countries and for passage of goods between two places in one country through the territory of the other.' It is unclear how Bangladesh can possibly give transit to India on the basis of the above agreement without ensuring access for Bangladeshi transports inside the Indian territory. The agreement does not mention, explicitly or implicitly, about the possible use of Chittagong or Mongla ports by India. However, there are newspaper reports that Bangladesh will permit business people from any Indian states to use these two ports. Opening of our national infrastructure unilaterally is not magnanimity—it is naivety at its extreme.
Some of our policymakers are telling the media that Mujib's government wanted to give transit to India. But the reality is that even three years after the signing of the trade agreement of 1972, India could not use our ports or roads because of the lack of reciprocity from the Indian side. India not only ignored the Mujib-India treaty but also did not accept the Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974. The scope of current transit scheme is far removed from Mujib's vision about the use of roads, railways and rivers of both countries for mutual benefit. This is evident from the wording of article V of the trade agreement of 1972. The present transit plan basically is an asymmetric connectivity scheme for the benefit of India. And, to implement this transit scheme, a few policymakers are creating confusion about the Indo-Bangladesh trade treaty and invoking the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
At the risk of diverging from the main topic, it may be mentioned that this is not the first time Gowher Rizvi erred on interpreting an Indo-Bangladesh treaty. He misconstrued the Indo-Bangladesh Friendship Treaty of 1972 while describing reasons for the killing of Tajuddin Ahmed and three other national leaders inside the jail in 1975. In a scholarly paper (The Killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, New Zealand International Review, 1976. pp 18-22), Gowher Rizvi wrote that the majors decided to kill Tajuddin Ahmed and others inside jail because they were afraid that 'He (Tajuddin Ahmad) might have invoked Indo-Bangladesh treaty of 1972, which enables either country to call upon the other for armed assistance in the event of a threat of its security.' Out of the 12 articles in that treaty, none states or implies such an option of 'armed assistance' from India. In fact, the treaty Mujib signed with India in 1972 was a non-aggression pact or entente—not a defence pact. This is not the only error in that paper. Gowher Rizvi wrote that 'He (Mujib) lacked any sophisticated knowledge of running a modern government' and further added that 'He (Mujib) ruled the country like a medieval despot.' Despot is a term generally associated with such despicable words as dictator, tyrant, autocrat, oppressor, etc. Mujib was none of them.
At the same press briefing, journalists raised the concern expressed by Bangladeshi business community about the risk of losing business with seven sister states once the transit routes open. Gowher Rizvi curtly commented: 'Don't tell me what the traders say.' It is unfortunate that opinion of the people of this country was brushed aside with such nonchalance by a non-resident, unelected official. These frequent-flying overlords treat the citizens of Bangladesh as a bunch of no-good natives. The caretaker government system was scrapped because people did not want to be ruled by unelected persons. But what we are witnessing now is unelected persons ruling us as well as making policies that have far-reaching implications on our economy and ecology. This is a gross deviation from our parliamentary system of government.
Gowher Rizvi also mentioned in the briefing that 'the extension of transit facilities to India will see Bangladesh's economy growing by another four to six per cent.' It is simply unbelievable that transit alone would double our economic growth rate. As of now, there is no detailed economic analysis available to support this outrageous claim. This razzle-dazzle rosy economic scenario they are popping up every now and then is just to hoodwink the general public. Transit is being highlighted as the panacea for all of our economic problems. A few years ago, a similar group launched a propaganda blitz to export our natural gas to India. At that time Sheikh Hasina took a strong stand against gas export to India. That was a courageous decision which saved Bangladesh from a long-term energy crisis. There is no trace of those gas export promoters these days. Perhaps, those same people have re-surfaced again as 'transit traders'.
The people of Bangladesh are not instinctively against granting transit to India. What they want that transit should be given only when most, if not all, bilateral disputes with India are settled based on the principle of fairness and justice. We have a number of bilateral disputes with India ranging from water-sharing of common rivers to maritime delimitation of the Bay of Bengal. To settle these issues, we will need to negotiate with India. Transit is our most powerful—perhaps the last bargaining chip. In diplomatic bargaining game with India, transit is actually our trump card.
What Bangladesh should do now is to postpone the transit talk and launch a diplomatic drive for a comprehensive 'package deal' with India in return for transit. We should convince the Indian leadership that in return for transit, they are expected to withdraw their unjust claim over our Bay of Bengal. We should let them know that we will facilitate transit, in return they should agree on equitable sharing of water of our common rivers. In return for transit, India should be requested to stop killing, maiming, abducting our citizens in our border area. Living with security inside one's own country is a universally recognized basic human right. Unfortunately, millions of our citizens are deprived of that fundamental right because of routine killing by the murderous Border Security Force in our border. It is sad, and ironic, too, that we have to offer transit facility to our 'friendly' neighbour so that they would stop killing our citizens. The transit issue has brought a historic opportunity for Bangladesh to define its bilateral relationship with India on the principle of equality, justice and fairness. If we fail to seize this unique opportunity, future generations will not judge us kindly.
Dr Manjur A. Chowdhury is an entomologist and occasional column writer. safeway@agni.com.
http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/32109.htmlFOR the last few months, 'transit' has been the buzzword in our media. It is widely discussed that a transit protocol will be signed with India during Manmohan Singh's visit to Bangladesh. But a few days ago, the prime minister's adviser, Gowher Rizvi, told a news briefing that 'there is no need for fresh agreement on transit since it has been in the 1974 Indira-Mujib treaty. We need to work out the modalities and operational details of the [transit] routes' (bdnews24.com, August 27). The adviser's comment is confusing because none of the five articles of the Mujib-Indira treaty of 1974 is even remotely related to the transit issue. The Mujib-Indira treaty was signed mainly to solve boundary problems. Bangladesh ratified the treaty, amended the constitution accordingly, and gave Berubari to India. But, India never ratified the treaty. India's reluctance to ratify the Mujib-Indira treaty of 1974 is an affront to Bangladesh and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Now, the prime minister's adviser, Gowher Rizvi, is suggesting that transit should be granted to India on the basis of that non-operative treaty.
Gowher Rizvi was probably referring to the Indo-Bangladesh Bilateral Trade Agreement of 1972. Article V of this agreement says that 'The two governments agree to make mutually beneficial arrangements for the use of their waterways, railways and roadways for commerce between the two countries and for passage of goods between two places in one country through the territory of the other.' It is unclear how Bangladesh can possibly give transit to India on the basis of the above agreement without ensuring access for Bangladeshi transports inside the Indian territory. The agreement does not mention, explicitly or implicitly, about the possible use of Chittagong or Mongla ports by India. However, there are newspaper reports that Bangladesh will permit business people from any Indian states to use these two ports. Opening of our national infrastructure unilaterally is not magnanimity—it is naivety at its extreme.
Some of our policymakers are telling the media that Mujib's government wanted to give transit to India. But the reality is that even three years after the signing of the trade agreement of 1972, India could not use our ports or roads because of the lack of reciprocity from the Indian side. India not only ignored the Mujib-India treaty but also did not accept the Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974. The scope of current transit scheme is far removed from Mujib's vision about the use of roads, railways and rivers of both countries for mutual benefit. This is evident from the wording of article V of the trade agreement of 1972. The present transit plan basically is an asymmetric connectivity scheme for the benefit of India. And, to implement this transit scheme, a few policymakers are creating confusion about the Indo-Bangladesh trade treaty and invoking the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
At the risk of diverging from the main topic, it may be mentioned that this is not the first time Gowher Rizvi erred on interpreting an Indo-Bangladesh treaty. He misconstrued the Indo-Bangladesh Friendship Treaty of 1972 while describing reasons for the killing of Tajuddin Ahmed and three other national leaders inside the jail in 1975. In a scholarly paper (The Killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, New Zealand International Review, 1976. pp 18-22), Gowher Rizvi wrote that the majors decided to kill Tajuddin Ahmed and others inside jail because they were afraid that 'He (Tajuddin Ahmad) might have invoked Indo-Bangladesh treaty of 1972, which enables either country to call upon the other for armed assistance in the event of a threat of its security.' Out of the 12 articles in that treaty, none states or implies such an option of 'armed assistance' from India. In fact, the treaty Mujib signed with India in 1972 was a non-aggression pact or entente—not a defence pact. This is not the only error in that paper. Gowher Rizvi wrote that 'He (Mujib) lacked any sophisticated knowledge of running a modern government' and further added that 'He (Mujib) ruled the country like a medieval despot.' Despot is a term generally associated with such despicable words as dictator, tyrant, autocrat, oppressor, etc. Mujib was none of them.
At the same press briefing, journalists raised the concern expressed by Bangladeshi business community about the risk of losing business with seven sister states once the transit routes open. Gowher Rizvi curtly commented: 'Don't tell me what the traders say.' It is unfortunate that opinion of the people of this country was brushed aside with such nonchalance by a non-resident, unelected official. These frequent-flying overlords treat the citizens of Bangladesh as a bunch of no-good natives. The caretaker government system was scrapped because people did not want to be ruled by unelected persons. But what we are witnessing now is unelected persons ruling us as well as making policies that have far-reaching implications on our economy and ecology. This is a gross deviation from our parliamentary system of government.
Gowher Rizvi also mentioned in the briefing that 'the extension of transit facilities to India will see Bangladesh's economy growing by another four to six per cent.' It is simply unbelievable that transit alone would double our economic growth rate. As of now, there is no detailed economic analysis available to support this outrageous claim. This razzle-dazzle rosy economic scenario they are popping up every now and then is just to hoodwink the general public. Transit is being highlighted as the panacea for all of our economic problems. A few years ago, a similar group launched a propaganda blitz to export our natural gas to India. At that time Sheikh Hasina took a strong stand against gas export to India. That was a courageous decision which saved Bangladesh from a long-term energy crisis. There is no trace of those gas export promoters these days. Perhaps, those same people have re-surfaced again as 'transit traders'.
The people of Bangladesh are not instinctively against granting transit to India. What they want that transit should be given only when most, if not all, bilateral disputes with India are settled based on the principle of fairness and justice. We have a number of bilateral disputes with India ranging from water-sharing of common rivers to maritime delimitation of the Bay of Bengal. To settle these issues, we will need to negotiate with India. Transit is our most powerful—perhaps the last bargaining chip. In diplomatic bargaining game with India, transit is actually our trump card.
What Bangladesh should do now is to postpone the transit talk and launch a diplomatic drive for a comprehensive 'package deal' with India in return for transit. We should convince the Indian leadership that in return for transit, they are expected to withdraw their unjust claim over our Bay of Bengal. We should let them know that we will facilitate transit, in return they should agree on equitable sharing of water of our common rivers. In return for transit, India should be requested to stop killing, maiming, abducting our citizens in our border area. Living with security inside one's own country is a universally recognized basic human right. Unfortunately, millions of our citizens are deprived of that fundamental right because of routine killing by the murderous Border Security Force in our border. It is sad, and ironic, too, that we have to offer transit facility to our 'friendly' neighbour so that they would stop killing our citizens. The transit issue has brought a historic opportunity for Bangladesh to define its bilateral relationship with India on the principle of equality, justice and fairness. If we fail to seize this unique opportunity, future generations will not judge us kindly.
Dr Manjur A. Chowdhury is an entomologist and occasional column writer. safeway@agni.com.
__._,_.___