What's new

Transit Facilities to India, Nepal, Bhutan $2.3b net profit in 30 years projected

Judiciary did not ammend constitution but the process of ammending was declared unlawfull. The restored constitution is also produced by the parliament itself.
Did you hear of ammending constitution by some Martial law officer??

@ Whenever Martial Law comes it comes by its own way. Since its power base is by force so it is superior to constitutional law. Whatever a Martial Administrator promalgates is a law from the date of its promalgation. A Martial Law Officer does not amend the constitution.It is the Chief Martial Law Administrator can only promulgate some Martial Law regulations/ordinances since the parliament is not in session. Once the parliament is on session if it rafies than it is as good as law of the country. In our case since the parliament is dissolved so a new parliament is elected and ratified the Martial Law regulations or ordinances in case of President.

@ No provisions of the constitution can stop the coming of Martial Law. As because, once ML comes by its own way it can very well amend that particular provision. Their is saying," God creates a men, a tailer makes a men into gentlemen but the British Parliament can make a man into woman and woman into man. In Pakistan during Bhutto's regime such kind of provision was made. Could it stops Zia-ul Huq and Musharraf in coming to power. These are just to make afraid of military people a caution to them.

@ What is a constitution ? It is being created/written by an expert people and than passed in parliament. Side by side they have made a provision for its amendment i.e, 2/3 majority.

@ How AL govt banned all newspapers except 4 state owned ? How AL govt banned all political parties except one partry BAKSHAL ? Is is not a contradictory with the very provision of the constitution itself ?

@ Look Iajdani, you are a very learned man, I also have a background of political science and law, I have also gone through almost all the important contitution of the world, the way the 5th amendment is declared illegal by the court, in the long run the peaple will laugh. Yes, I agree each judge has its own discretionary power, does it mean that people will give his verdict out of his jurisdiction. Wait and see this is not the final !

@ Let's take an example of Russia, in 1917 a Bolshevek revolution took place so the Socialist Govt came to power by force. Was it not an unconstitutional ? But how the revolutionaries escaped ? In the forth coming constitution of USSR, it was clearly written that power was taken over for the greater interest of people so it was justified. In the name of revolution millions of people were killed and than ? Now, presently Russia is a democratic country, can the Tsar and their families sue against those revolutionaries ? I am sure no , as because after the revolution there were election and the Communist Party members(Parliament) ratified it and the point was killed.
 
Last edited:
Govt to finalise strategies on transit, port facilities to Nepal, Bhutan this month
Nazmul Ahsan

The government will finalise its strategies by the current month on how to provide Nepal and Bhutan with transit and port facilities, a senior official in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) said.

The strategies will also outline methodologies for closer cooperation in the areas of power and water with the two sub-regional countries.

A recent inter-ministerial meeting, held at the PMO decided to quicken the process of sub-regional cooperation in the areas of transit, transshipment, ports, water and power. The meeting was presided over by Moshiur Rahman, Economic Affairs Adviser to the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, sources said.

The PMO, to implement the decisions taken at the meeting, directed different ministries and agencies of the government on Thursday to carry out their tasks, specified in the directives, by this month to strike a number of deals with Nepal and Bhutan within the shortest possible time, official sources said.

According to the directives, the communication ministry has been asked to prepare the latest updates on transit agreements with Nepal and Bhutan on both road and waterways. Besides, the ministry will appraise the PMO on the draft agreement on the modalities of movement of transports between Dhaka and Katmandu, the directives added.

The Ministry of Commerce has been assigned with the responsibility to brief the PMO on international regulations of transit and examining the set criteria of World Trade Organisation (WTO) on transit and transshipment issues.

The directives of PMO asked shipping ministry to formulate modalities on using Chittagong and Mongla ports by Bhutan and Nepal. The ministry will outline every aspect of existing capacities of ports and possible pressure due to exporting and importing activities of goods to and from the countries concerned, an official said.

He said no question of taking policy decision arises as the commitment to provide Nepal and Bhutan with port facilities were given by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during her visit to India in January.

"It's a political decision. We as bureaucrats will outline how the country might be benefited in the best possible way in providing Nepal and Bhutan with port facilities," a shipping ministry official said.

"We will suggest the PMO to increase capacities and efficiency of Chittagong port before striking any deal with India, Nepal and Bhutan for using our ports," he added

The directives asked Power Division to prepare two Memorandums of Articles of Associations to import power from Nepal and Bhutan to address the country's nagging power situation.

Besides, the directive asked water resources ministry to prepare a brief on increasing cooperation in water sector with Nepal and Bhutan.

"Issues like transit, port and power will be finalized soon between Bangladesh-Nepal and Bhutan," an official in the PMO said.

"We have to come out from bureaucratic tangle and inertia in striking deals on port and transit as the highest political commitment remains in this connection."

Officials in the ministries of communication and commerce said draft agreements on transit and transport modalities are almost final. The government now may go forward with the agreements after approving those.

"After approving the draft agreements from the highest authority, negotiations will take place with signatory countries before striking the deals," a top trade official told the FE.
 
The neighbour you can't trust

Mohammed K. Rahman

India can not be a trusted neighbour of Bangladesh. The pre-history of the sub-continent proves that India by virtue of her Hindu religious country is a threat to the peaceful co-existence of her small neighbours. The present atrocities in Sri Lanka are the result of espionage policy of India. Kashmir, the muslim majority state, is occupied by India followed by an adultary concession between Mountbatten and Nehru while Mountbatten left the Muslim administered princely states plus Muslim majority Kashmir as disputed territory without settlement. Since Delhi was the headquarter of British local administration, India won most of the military equipment after partition, made them stronger to occupy the disputed territories mentioned above and established her brutal administration and that continued.

India managed the present government in Bangladesh to sign most of the treaties detrimental to the sovereignity of Bangladesh. The Chittagong Hilltracts treaty between Santu Larma and Sheikh Hasina brokered by India is a loss of one tenth of the land of Bangladesh to India. The 30 years Farakka agreement between Hasina and India without gurantee clause and arbitration presence is a permanent loss of the share of the Ganges water resources.

India, due to her nacked neighbouring policy shamelessly occupied the newly emerged Talpatti land of Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal; is a great threat to the existence of Bangladesh and not opening the Tin Bigha corridor to Bangladesh nationals while Sheikh Mujib handed over Berubari in 1974 to satisfy the Indians. The present political termoil and disburbance in the economic development of Bangladesh is an organised plan of Indian diplomacy. India cannot be trusted.


Nation-Online.com, October 14, 1999
Has PM Vajpayee a new Agenda for Bangladesh?

Shamsuddin Ahmed

The BJP-led Hindu nationalist front, the National Democratic Alliance, has won a convincing victory in the Indian general elections. The BJP leader, Atal Behari Vajpayee, returns to power at the head of a prospective stable government. The Indian Congress and its allies, who stood for secularism, had the worst beating in the election in Indian history. It is clear that buoyed by the strong winds of Hindu nationalism sweeping across the country and the victory in Kargil war against the Kashmiri Mujaheedins backed by Pakistan have given BJP the massive election victory.

During the election campaign Vajpayee had promised to establish peace in the region and bring about prosperity for millions of impoverished people living in his country. The Harvard economists have predicted that India would emerge as the fourth largest economy in the world. This will, indeed, require stability and peace in India as well as in the region.

When the BJP leader Vajpayee first came to power in 1996, a sizeable section of intellectuals in Dhaka had expressed uneasiness. They voiced skepticism about the future of the subcontinent and the region as well. A western diplomat at a small gathering at that time, however, ruled out the prospect of anything worse. He rated Vajpayee as a moderate force in the BJP who will be able to keep control over the Hindu fanatics in RSS, a militant organ of the party. The diplomat also referred to his role as Foreign Minster during the Morarji Desai government in late 70s which is considered as the happiest chapter of Indo-Bangladesh relationship and peaceful co-existence of South-east Asian countries.

But it is during Vajpayee's rule that triggered tension in the region by nuclear tests in May 1998 provoking Pakistan to take counter action. The Indian government launched a programme to annihilate Muslim population in Kashmir where the death toll mounted to more than 60,000 in less than a decade.

Barry Beark writing in New Times in August said that India maintains about 200,000 regular troops, 125,000 paramilitary and police. Besides, 80,000 Hindu villagers, called defence committees, were given arms. Narrating the horrendous situation Beark said; "It is not difficult to locate men with convincing tales of recent torture, ugly engravings on their skin, a palette of black and blue on their limbs. Parents wait by the gates of army camps and police stations, holding photos of their sons who have been taken into custody and never seen again."

This came in the backdrop of tirade launched by BJP's front organisation RSS. Weekly Panchakamua, the mouthpiece of RSS, in its editorial on June 20 demanded of the Vajpayee government to use nuclear weapon against the 'Muslims' as the final solution to centuries old aggression from Mohammad Bin Kasim (in 872 AD) and Mian Nawaz Sharif (of Pakistan). Indian columnist Praful Bidwai writing from New Delhi in July said RSS mouthpiece demands India use nuclear weapons against Pakistan. This is because "all the Muslims are barbarians by their very nature. Nuclear weapons will finally settle scores with them."

This has alarmed the world leaders who have expressed concern at the prospect of renewed clash between India and Pakistan that might escalate into limited but deadly nuclear war. Former US defence secretary William Perry predicted on October 2 that another war between India and Pakistan could escalate into a nuclear exchange. Indeed, the losing side would be tempted to use nuclear weapons in a desperate attempt to save the day.

Reports form Ayodhya said that emboldened by the BJP's victory in the election, the Hindu zealots are preparing to construct Ram Mandir at the site of the 400-year-old Babri Mosque, which was demolished in 1990. The determined action of the fanatic Hindus may lead to another round of communal riot and hurting the religious sentiment of the Muslims within and outside India. More than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were butchered in the first round following demolition of the mosque with the tacit support of the Indian rulers. It was the congress then in power in Delhi.

The prospect of Bangladesh's friendly relationship with the BJP government in the days to come is a matter of guess. The mandarins in the foreign office do not seem over enthusiastic. Some of the politicians in their private discussions feel that there may be more pronounced manifestation of India's principled policy towards its smaller neighbours. The policy woven by New Delhi's South Block was disclosed by Ashok Roy, an Indian scholar. In his lengthy article Roy said the policy towards Bangladesh is to pursue activities to destabilise the situation. This would retard democratic and economic process. Bangladesh with high rate of illiteracy and unemployment provide a soft ground for carrying out such activities to destabilise the situation and weaken the administration. A weak government in Bangladesh can be easily pedaled to follow New Delhi's brief on national and international issues.

The recent incidents of border incursion and explosion in many a part of the country are not isolated affairs. The border security force of India (BSF) have killed half a dozen Bangladeshi citizens, kidnapped some others and taken an aggressive posture all along the northern border. Their unprovoked actions have created panic among the villagers close to the border and many of them fled home in fear. The deadly explosion in a mosque in Khulna killing six during the Jumma prayers has shaken the administration. Planting of bombs was unearthed in some other places. The enture national now suffers from bomb scare.

The Inspector General of Police was reported to have said that the explosion in Khulna mosque is part of a conspiracy to destabilise the situation in the country. He has not, however, disclosed the people or forces behind the conspiracy. But we believe that our intelligence force is intelligent enough to find them out. In todays' world a country can win another without the firepower. It needs innovating methods of financial manipulation, cyber war, drug trafficking, terrorism, environmental attack, etc. Financial manipulation allegedly by George Sorrows of USA had nearly collapsed Malaysia two years ago. Export of drugs and terrorism to Bangladesh from India are enough to cripple the nation.

Unfortunately for Bangladesh, US business interest has combined with that of India. US oil companies have been persistently lobbying for sale of gas to India. The situation has come to such a pass that either you give the transit and gas to India or face the trouble. To overcome the trouble, the nation needs to be united like a rock.
 
Transit to India: Is Bangladesh
inviting troubles?


CAF Dowlah

In this age of globalization, when nations, economies, governments and businesses are becoming ever more interdependent and interlinked, and when numerous regional economic blocs connect almost every country in the world, there should be nothing outlandish or extraordinary in Bangladesh government's readiness to grant land-transit facilities through its territory to neighbouring India. Why then, so many people in Bangladesh seem to be troubled so much with the way the transit-cookie is being crumbled? Why then, so many of them apprehend that driven to the short end of the stick Bangladesh is digging canal to invite crocodiles? Why then so many of them are raising concerns that the proposed transit facility may cause havoc to their economy and wreck their sovereignty? Obviously, there is more to the story than what ordinary eyes can catch.

India's help in '71
There can be no question that India's role in Bangladesh liberation war was extremely crucial-not only India gave shelter to about ten million refugees, it also trained and armed Bangladesh freedom fighters and allowed its own territory to launch attack on the Pakistani forces. Although Bangladeshi people, by all means, were ready for freedom, India's all-out assistance expedited the day of sunshine. Still the penultimate question hovers on any inquisitive mind: Why did India-being a huge conglomerate of numerous religions, tribes and nationalities, and being itself an incredibly insurgency-ridden country-decide to rub elbows of a separatist movement in a neighbouring country?
Obviously no single answer will satisfy all. Some, however, see it as an act of "Indian Giving"-meaning India did it for a return, that India's support was predicated upon killing several birds with one stone. First of all, India sought to land a crippling blow on its archrival Pakistan by causing it to disintegrate. Indira Gandhi's statement before Indian parliament, immediately after Bangladesh liberation war, lent credence to this view: "The war with Pakistan and the emergence of Bangla Desh had falsified the two-nation theory and vindicated our principles of secularism" (Indian and Foreign Review, February 1972). But a top commander of India, General Jacob, in his 1997 book Surrender at Dhaka: Birth of a Nation made it crystal clear by asserting that India's assistance to Mujibnagar government was conditioned by: "Guarantee for the Hindu minority, rationalization of enclaves, and transit rights by rail and inland waterways through Bangladesh with use of facilities at Chittagong port."
For the last four decades, however, Indian dream (or condition) of transit facility through Bangladesh territory never materialized. Neither Sheikh Mujib nor Ziaur Rahman, nor H. M. Ershad or Khaleda Zia, not even Sheikh Hasina last time around, at least in public, responded positively to a transit demand. But if the pronouncements of foreign minister Dipu Moni, in the aftermath of Indian finance minister Pranab Mukherjee's Dhaka visit in August, are to be taken seriously, India will certainly get access to its landlocked Northeast States through Bangladesh territory, and soon "unfettered movement of people and goods will be taking place." Such "unfettered access," according to Dipu Moni, will bring the entire region "under connectivity" suiting the needs of the age of globalization, and it will transform Bangladesh into "a regional hub."

Dipu Moni's globalisation
Dipu Moni seems to be using buzzwords of globalization to grant transit rights to India. There is no doubt that the contemporary phase of globalization entails unprecedented momentum towards connectivity and interdependence around the world. Especially economic globalization has opened up floodgates of opportunities for many countries with small population and small domestic customer base. Countries like Britain and France, for example, make more than 50 percent of their GDPs from international sector, and the share exceeds 70 percent for countries like Germany and Canada. Greater openness-greater access to foreign economies and foreign customers-has thus emerged as the mainstay for many small economies.
But what will Bangladesh export to India? In terms of net-foreign exchange earnings, manpower is the number one export item of Bangladesh. Will India hire Bangladeshi workers? Isn't India a formidable competitor to Bangladesh in international manpower market? The second biggest export item of Bangladesh is readymade garments-will India buy Bangladeshi garments? Then other export commodities of Bangladesh-will India buy Bangladeshi tea, leather or handicrafts?
It has also been argued that with greater connectivity, Bangladeshi manufacturers will have greater access to vast Indian market. But how can small-scale infant industries of Bangladesh compete with well-established and large-scale Indian manufacturers? If they are capable of competing with their Indian counterparts, how come Bangladesh has already been turned into a huge market for Indian consumer products? Isn't it a fact that Bangladesh's annual trade deficit with India is now running into billions of dollars?
So, where is the economic benefit of trade with India? Reportedly certain think-tank has come up with estimates of substantial economic gains for Bangladesh from the transit facility-that must be a **** and bull story. Which country in the world has ever achieved economic prosperity by collecting transit fees?

Connectivity factor
Then Dipu Moni is also saying that the "connectivity" is aimed at transforming Bangladesh into a "regional hub." But what region exactly the minister has in mind-is it the whole Indian subcontinent or some makeshift regions? If the ESCAP-sponsored Trans-Asian Railway materializes as planned, then, the proposed railway will link Bangladesh with India through the Indian state of Assam, and then it will move to Myanmar, instead of linking Bangladesh with Myanmar directly through Chittagong-Cox's Bazar-Myanmar route. This detour alone will add extra 900 kilometers to the distance between Bangladesh and Myanmar-would it be cost-effective for boosting trade in the region?
Also, reportedly Bangladesh has already accepted the Asian Highway (AH) in the dotted lines as proposed by India. Under the plan, two of the highways-AH1 and AH2-will enter Bangladesh from India through Benapole (Jessore) and Banglabandha (Dinajpur) respectively, both will converge on Dhaka, and then move on to Tamabil (Sylhet). A third route (AH41), originating at Mongla port will join AH1 around Benapole and AH2 at Hatikamrul (Kushia), and then together with AH1 and AH2 will travel to Dhaka. From Dhaka it will separately move on to Chittagong, Cox's Bazar and Teknaf.
The network thus will allow North Indian traffic access into Bangladesh, and then, at the other end, out to the Northeast States of India. No wonder some experts are saying it will turn Bangladesh into a grazing land for Indian traffic. Moreover, apparently ESCAP requires a route originating in a country to connect the capital city of the next country of entry, and this will require Nepal and Bhutan to travel through New Delhi before entering Bangladesh. This extra distance and transportation costs will take tools on Nepal and Bhutan for engaging in trading with Bangladesh. Therefore, the only country that stands to benefit from the Asian Highway is surely India-others will be onlookers.

Political dimension
The political dimension of the issue is even more troublesome for Bangladesh-how to give a broad-based land-transit facilities to a chauvinistic neighbour who surrounds the country from three sides, but whose security forces shoot Bangladeshi citizens like dogs along its porous borders? Reportedly 700 Bangladeshi people were killed by Indian border security forces during 2000-2007. Even if one assumes that these people are guilty-as-charged, do they deserve to be killed just because they might have thought the other side of the river greener? Thousands of people are trying to cross American borders illegally, how many of them are being killed?
Then, India is seeking access to Chittagong Port as well. Past performance does not guarantee future performance, but India reportedly had rebuffed Bangladesh leader Sheikh Mujib when he requested access to Calcutta port in the immediate aftermath of liberation war when both major ports of Bangladesh were non-functional. Report suggests that India also rejected Zia's request for just 16 miles of land transit through India for direct trade-link with Nepal.
India also played hardball with Pakistan when it came to land or air transit facilities through its territory. The united Pakistan obviously was an absurd creation-its two wings were separated by 1100 miles of Indian land. But at that time, given objective realities of the day, it did make sense to the people of East Bengal to join Pakistan. Calcutta Port was so crucial for Bengal at that time that even Jinnah was sceptical of the future of East Bengal without it. Just a year before the partition of India, he remarked, "What is the use of Bengal without Calcutta: They (east and west Bengal) should remain united and independent." After the Partition, when Pakistan reportedly requested access to Calcutta Port for just six months for the sake of East Pakistan, India turned it down.
India's chauvinistic attitude was no less evident in its dealings with water sharing of common rivers, insurgency problem in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), and disputed enclaves. Who doesn't know how India used Farrakka Barrage as bargaining chip for manoeuvring political events and developments in Bangladesh? Even at the best of times, India behaved like a fair-weather friend-overtly manipulated water flow during lean seasons suiting its conceited interests. Also, although Mujib ratified the constitution following handing over of Berubari, India dragged its feet when it came to returning Tin Bihga and ratifying its constitution. More recently, India's refusal to resolve maritime boundary on the basis of the principle of equity has forced Bangladesh to seek UN mediation.

CHT peace deal
And, India has been squarely behind the tribal insurgency in CHT. The tribes never enjoyed autonomous status during the British or Pakistani rule. After liberation they demanded autonomy, but Sheikh Mujib rejected the demand outright, and even told tribal leader Shantu Larma to forget ethnic differences and merge with Bangalee nationalism. All successive regimes maintained the same stance, and intensified military presence in CHT, until Sheikh Hasina came to power in 1996. In 1997, she signed a landmark "Peace Accord" with Shanti Bahini, bringing insurgents back from India and paving their way to autonomy. The tribes comprise about one percent of the nation's population but they occupy about ten percent of its territory. Can a tiny land with about 160 million people give up 10 percent of its precious land to less than one percent of its population? Yes, rights of indigenous people should be protected, but did America give up all land that Native Indians occupied before settlers came?
The naked truth is, lots of bad blood flowing between the two neighbours. How the transit, if eventually given to India, will play out is also largely unknown. Is there any guarantee that India will not use this transit facility for its national security and integrity objectives? If Indian goods and commodities are transported, without giving Bangladesh the right to inspect the shipment, how would Bangladesh ever know what is being transported through its territory? If India moves military and weapons to insurgency-ridden Northeast States using this transit, wouldn't Bangladesh be an accessory to potential manslaughters and massacres? And, how can Bangladeshi people, who suffered from colonial repression and were victims of planned mass slaughter, allow such atrocities?
Given the history of bad blood between the neighbours, question also arises about the wisdom of bilateral agreements. Is Bangladesh capable of standing up to big-brother-India if the transit agreement is breached, flouted, manipulated or misinterpreted? If India's objective is connectivity and economic welfare, why not pursue the matter under the umbrella of SAARC or SAPTA, involving all its members? There can be no doubt that gains from common water-resource management, energy and electricity generation, trans-border rail and road links, fighting against terrorism, crime and drugs, and poverty reduction through regional cooperation can be substantial for all members. Why then the transit issue is being pushed through opaque bilateral agreements, or under the so-called sub-regional agreements?

Geo political factor
The fact of the matter is that the nuclear power India is pushing its defence, strategic, political and economic goals through the throats of smaller, poorer, and feeble neighbours. Pakistan, the other nuclear power of the region, is completely sidetracked, and Bangladesh is being used as the epicentre of the whole scheme. India has been chasing this Rainbow since the 1960s, ever since Pakistan snapped away India's transit privileges through East Pakistan. By now, given prolonged rivalry with Pakistan and the rise of China to global prominence, a transit through Bangladesh territory emerged as an essential and urgent need for India to safeguard its national security and integrity interests.
For Bangladesh, on the other hand, there exists no urgent or essential need to allow transit to India-it should do so for the sake of globalization, but only if potential gains are well documented, the issue receives threadbare discussion in public forums and in the floors of parliament, and its sovereign right over the transit is well preserved under a more transparent regional or multilateral agreement.
[Dr. Dowlah is professor of Economics with the City University of New York. His latest book-The Bangladesh Political Economy: The Pathways to Nationhood and the Formative Years (2009) is available on Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more. He can be reached at Cafdowlah@msn.com.]
 
SECURITY VULNERABILITY OF CORRIDOR

Politics & economics of Indian
transit 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."
This is a possibility that needs to be addressed with vision.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom