Evaluating the Prime Minister's India trip
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
THE government and the ruling Awami League on the one side and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), on the other, appear to be engaged in a mud-slinging match. Ruling party bigwigs have made big claims about the Prime Minister's trip to India as a one hundred per cent success story. The opposition BNP, on the other hand, dismisses the outcome of the visit as one hundred per cent failure that would cause this country's permanent servitude to India.
A dispassionate observer looking at what had transpired during the visit, what were signed as treaties and the broad areas of agreement stated in the joint communiqué, should have no difficulty in impartially assessing the outcome of the visit as a mixed, with some very positives, some not so positives and the others leaving a great deal to be desired. But, at any rate, it should be unfair and unrealistic to write off the results of the visit as of no use for Bangladesh or marking very risky compromises with its best interests.
First of all, it needs underlining that the Prime Minister's visit to the Indian capital led to a psychological rehabilitation of sorts of the relationship of the top leadership of the two countries. This is not without value in inter-state relations. For a long time, Bangladesh's relations with India had been marked by misgivings from the Indian side about Bangladesh not playing its part to help the security interests of India. On coming to power, the government of Sheikh Hasina has adopted a policy of zero-tolerance to extremism and terrorism and of denying anyone any scope of using Bangladesh territory for activities inimical to any other country. India's appreciation of this policy was reflected in India awarding Hasina, during the visit, the Indira Gandhi peace prize as recognition for her input towards establishing peaceful conditions in South Asia. Three security-related agreements were signed between India and Bangladesh during the visit that should bring the two countries into a collaborative relationship to stamp out terrorism and related activities in both countries. Not only India's physical security interests would be directly served by these treaties, the same would also substantially aid Bangladesh from not becoming the next Afghanistan as was prophesied by the former US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. There is no need to explain how Bangladesh would stand to gain from the receipt of accelerated foreign and domestic investments with the conception removed that it is about to become like Afghanistan.
Top ranking leaders of the ruling Indian Congress were all in praise of Sheikh Hasina's leadership. Significant overtures were made by the Indians in different areas such as the offer of a US$ 1.0 billion credit line for the development of infrastructures. They also noted Bangladesh's "intention to give Nepal and Bhutan access to Mongla and Chittagong ports".
It is possible that from the continuation or maintenance of the good feelings between the leadership of Bangladesh and India, more positive developments could occur leading to beneficial economic and trade benefits for both countries. The same could then be credited to Sheikh Hasina's visit that opened a new era of bilateral cooperation. However, all this would depend vitally on how the main opposition party in Bangladesh behaves. If it sets out on a path of dogged anti-Indianism, then, of course, whatever hopeful developments have been signalled from the PM's trip will be hazarded in the future to the detriment of both countries.
Bangladesh consented to allow India to use Chittagong and Mongla ports. This is not seen as simply enabling India's trade. This is conceptualised under a framework to give a boost to regional trade as a whole with the Bangladeshi ports facilitating the same from which all countries would stand to gain. The trading opportunities for all countries within the region and outside may increase from the accesses and connectivities. Bangladesh would receive substantial investments for road-building, expansion of capacities of its ports etc., leading to job creation and many forms of earnings for it. It would get regular lucrative fees from the international users of the ports that would help its foreign currency reserve and the balance of payment. The same would also likely narrow down its adverse trade gap with India. All of these scenarios were well known by the policy planners of the two countries for a long time. However, progress towards these goals have been given a strong and concrete boost after the PM's visit to India and formally consenting to what were only proposals in the past.
The above are to be counted as the direct or tangible positive outcomes from the visit. But major areas of concern for Bangladesh, namely, water sharing, demarcation of the maritime boundary and greater trading opportunities, seem not to have been well addressed. It was hoped that at least it would be stated in the joint communiqué that the two countries are very near to signing a treaty on the Teesta river that Bangladesh so badly needs. It was learnt from the media that the positions of the two sides on sharing Teesta's waters had come close. If every effort was made before the trip, then a treaty on the Teesta could have been signed during the PM's visit. But the Indian authorities did not deem it fit to make a stronger effort to this end. If they had done so, then the trip would have been seen in Bangladesh as a major sign of Indian sincerity to progress fruitfully in negotiations related to all the common rivers.
Bangladesh wanted at least 252 items taken off the negative list for export to India. But out of this number, India agreed to only 47 products. But it is suspected that Bangladesh may not have an exportable surplus of even these 47 products. Besides, there was no indication from India either that they would ease or waive para tariffs, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and other hindrances in relation to many Bangladeshi products seeking markets in India.
The undemarcated sea boundary between the two countries is a very major source of concern for Bangladesh. The Indian leaders could make a gesture during the PM's trip that they are willing to see reason in this sphere and would come forward to create a situation where an accord becomes possible from bilateral negotiations. But this gesture was not made. Even Myanmar has sought to progress on the same issue by jointly accepting Bangladesh's principle on sea boundary demarcation.
However, Bangladesh ought not to be too disappointed from not getting concrete results in these areas of great importance to it. Relations between two countries with win-win situations for both can gradually further evolve based on faithful implementation of accords already reached.
As for the canard that India wants to devour or destroy Bangladesh and nothing else, one only has to remember the role India played in Bangladesh's war of independence. Forty years have since passed and during all this time India did nothing to suggest that it is bent on conquering or subjugating Bangladesh. It has more or less dealt with Bangladesh as a sovereign equal as per international laws and conventions.
THE government and the ruling Awami League on the one side and the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), on the other, appear to be engaged in a mud-slinging match. Ruling party bigwigs have made big claims about the Prime Minister's trip to India as a one hundred per cent success story. The opposition BNP, on the other hand, dismisses the outcome of the visit as one hundred per cent failure that would cause this country's permanent servitude to India.
A dispassionate observer looking at what had transpired during the visit, what were signed as treaties and the broad areas of agreement stated in the joint communiqué, should have no difficulty in impartially assessing the outcome of the visit as a mixed, with some very positives, some not so positives and the others leaving a great deal to be desired. But, at any rate, it should be unfair and unrealistic to write off the results of the visit as of no use for Bangladesh or marking very risky compromises with its best interests.
First of all, it needs underlining that the Prime Minister's visit to the Indian capital led to a psychological rehabilitation of sorts of the relationship of the top leadership of the two countries. This is not without value in inter-state relations. For a long time, Bangladesh's relations with India had been marked by misgivings from the Indian side about Bangladesh not playing its part to help the security interests of India. On coming to power, the government of Sheikh Hasina has adopted a policy of zero-tolerance to extremism and terrorism and of denying anyone any scope of using Bangladesh territory for activities inimical to any other country. India's appreciation of this policy was reflected in India awarding Hasina, during the visit, the Indira Gandhi peace prize as recognition for her input towards establishing peaceful conditions in South Asia. Three security-related agreements were signed between India and Bangladesh during the visit that should bring the two countries into a collaborative relationship to stamp out terrorism and related activities in both countries. Not only India's physical security interests would be directly served by these treaties, the same would also substantially aid Bangladesh from not becoming the next Afghanistan as was prophesied by the former US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. There is no need to explain how Bangladesh would stand to gain from the receipt of accelerated foreign and domestic investments with the conception removed that it is about to become like Afghanistan.
Top ranking leaders of the ruling Indian Congress were all in praise of Sheikh Hasina's leadership. Significant overtures were made by the Indians in different areas such as the offer of a US$ 1.0 billion credit line for the development of infrastructures. They also noted Bangladesh's "intention to give Nepal and Bhutan access to Mongla and Chittagong ports".
It is possible that from the continuation or maintenance of the good feelings between the leadership of Bangladesh and India, more positive developments could occur leading to beneficial economic and trade benefits for both countries. The same could then be credited to Sheikh Hasina's visit that opened a new era of bilateral cooperation. However, all this would depend vitally on how the main opposition party in Bangladesh behaves. If it sets out on a path of dogged anti-Indianism, then, of course, whatever hopeful developments have been signalled from the PM's trip will be hazarded in the future to the detriment of both countries.
Bangladesh consented to allow India to use Chittagong and Mongla ports. This is not seen as simply enabling India's trade. This is conceptualised under a framework to give a boost to regional trade as a whole with the Bangladeshi ports facilitating the same from which all countries would stand to gain. The trading opportunities for all countries within the region and outside may increase from the accesses and connectivities. Bangladesh would receive substantial investments for road-building, expansion of capacities of its ports etc., leading to job creation and many forms of earnings for it. It would get regular lucrative fees from the international users of the ports that would help its foreign currency reserve and the balance of payment. The same would also likely narrow down its adverse trade gap with India. All of these scenarios were well known by the policy planners of the two countries for a long time. However, progress towards these goals have been given a strong and concrete boost after the PM's visit to India and formally consenting to what were only proposals in the past.
The above are to be counted as the direct or tangible positive outcomes from the visit. But major areas of concern for Bangladesh, namely, water sharing, demarcation of the maritime boundary and greater trading opportunities, seem not to have been well addressed. It was hoped that at least it would be stated in the joint communiqué that the two countries are very near to signing a treaty on the Teesta river that Bangladesh so badly needs. It was learnt from the media that the positions of the two sides on sharing Teesta's waters had come close. If every effort was made before the trip, then a treaty on the Teesta could have been signed during the PM's visit. But the Indian authorities did not deem it fit to make a stronger effort to this end. If they had done so, then the trip would have been seen in Bangladesh as a major sign of Indian sincerity to progress fruitfully in negotiations related to all the common rivers.
Bangladesh wanted at least 252 items taken off the negative list for export to India. But out of this number, India agreed to only 47 products. But it is suspected that Bangladesh may not have an exportable surplus of even these 47 products. Besides, there was no indication from India either that they would ease or waive para tariffs, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and other hindrances in relation to many Bangladeshi products seeking markets in India.
The undemarcated sea boundary between the two countries is a very major source of concern for Bangladesh. The Indian leaders could make a gesture during the PM's trip that they are willing to see reason in this sphere and would come forward to create a situation where an accord becomes possible from bilateral negotiations. But this gesture was not made. Even Myanmar has sought to progress on the same issue by jointly accepting Bangladesh's principle on sea boundary demarcation.
However, Bangladesh ought not to be too disappointed from not getting concrete results in these areas of great importance to it. Relations between two countries with win-win situations for both can gradually further evolve based on faithful implementation of accords already reached.
As for the canard that India wants to devour or destroy Bangladesh and nothing else, one only has to remember the role India played in Bangladesh's war of independence. Forty years have since passed and during all this time India did nothing to suggest that it is bent on conquering or subjugating Bangladesh. It has more or less dealt with Bangladesh as a sovereign equal as per international laws and conventions.