Hasina's India visit: an inequitable deal
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Dr. Iftikhar-ul-Awwal
We would have been glad to felicitate the Prime Minister for what the communiqué termed as opening "a new phase in their bilateral relations". But reason dictates us otherwise.
The usual treaties and Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) such as agreement on not harbouring each others criminals, insurgents and terrorists, controlling drug trafficking, treaty on cultural exchanges were signed. We welcome the above, in principle.
However, the Indian government did not categorically withdraw the plan to build Tipaimukhi dam. It merely halted its construction for the time being only. In any case, it would have been a Herculean task to implement the construction of it as a result of fierce opposition from within their own region/country. The whole purpose of whipping up the issue was, perhaps, to generate a wild outcry in Bangladesh and to create public phobia so as to derive maximum benefit at an appropriate time.
Hasina's visit opened the floodgate. She gave away all our trump cards and laid us bare before an avalanche. There was a lot of talk on the Teesta but nothing positive came out of it other than the usual Indian expression of promise. The situation is not dissimilar with other common rivers flowing across India into Bangladesh.
Frankly speaking, we want to see a comprehensive solution of the joint rivers and not piecemeal agreements basing upon the whims and caprices of our big neighbour.
The enlargement of the list of duty-free goods and commodities is definitely a good move but rigorous and sustained negotiation is needed to remove the non-tariff barriers as well. The whole matter needs speedy negotiation.
The long standing problems of enclaves remain a distant far cry. We have in this regard not yet forgotten the 1974 betrayal. The issue of killing Bangladeshi citizens on a regular basis in the border belt should have been earnestly taken up. How much difference do we have then from the brutish Pakistanis? They killed us in our hearths and homes, and Indians in the open fields' day in and day out.
As regards the loan facility, it is not only tied but details as to where the money is to be spent are missing. May be, the clause is merely incorporated to make the communiqué more acceptable and respectable.
Nor do we know the time frame within which the loan is to be disbursed and the interest that it will carry.
We have failed miserably to take up the maritime boundary issue -- the most important problem facing the nation today, and compromised our sovereignty by opening up gateways and highways (inland ports and sea ports) which India had for decades been eyeing to get through. It is more like the Eastern Question where Russia had been trying for centuries to get an outlet in the warm waters of the Mediterranean. By allowing India access to reach the north-eastern states which are in a state of armed rebellion against the established authority and aspiring to gain independence, we have jeopardised our internal peace and security as well.
India has shown its 'good neighbourliness' by supplying us 250 MW of electricity. Given the opportunity to our own expatriates, and also our own entrepreneurs at home, we can, no doubt, generate the same in two to three years time. Moreover, if the gateways and highways, as the communiqué profess, will subsequently include Nepal and Bhutan, why then countries have not been incorporated in a regional scheme to generate hydroelectricity from the waterfalls of the Himalayas so that the much needed power shortage can be obviated and there takes place an industrial and economic upsurge in eastern Indian subcontinent.
All the major proposals and deals mentioned in the communiqué should have been discussed with the major opposition party, and public opinion sought. The AL has not been authorised nor did it seek such a mandate in their electoral manifesto. How can such one-sided decisions be made by a government? Appeasement policies have never worked nor will it work here.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did not bring 'peace with honour' in 1938 after his discussion with Adolf Hitler but miseries and catastrophes for mankind. We must know how to protect our national self-interest first and not make the nation hostage for personal aggrandisement and glory.
The writer is Professor of History, University of Dhaka and a former Director General of Bangladesh National Museum. He can be reached at e-mail: azmiawwal@yahoo.com
We would have been glad to felicitate the Prime Minister for what the communiqué termed as opening "a new phase in their bilateral relations". But reason dictates us otherwise.
The usual treaties and Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) such as agreement on not harbouring each others criminals, insurgents and terrorists, controlling drug trafficking, treaty on cultural exchanges were signed. We welcome the above, in principle.
However, the Indian government did not categorically withdraw the plan to build Tipaimukhi dam. It merely halted its construction for the time being only. In any case, it would have been a Herculean task to implement the construction of it as a result of fierce opposition from within their own region/country. The whole purpose of whipping up the issue was, perhaps, to generate a wild outcry in Bangladesh and to create public phobia so as to derive maximum benefit at an appropriate time.
Hasina's visit opened the floodgate. She gave away all our trump cards and laid us bare before an avalanche. There was a lot of talk on the Teesta but nothing positive came out of it other than the usual Indian expression of promise. The situation is not dissimilar with other common rivers flowing across India into Bangladesh.
Frankly speaking, we want to see a comprehensive solution of the joint rivers and not piecemeal agreements basing upon the whims and caprices of our big neighbour.
The enlargement of the list of duty-free goods and commodities is definitely a good move but rigorous and sustained negotiation is needed to remove the non-tariff barriers as well. The whole matter needs speedy negotiation.
The long standing problems of enclaves remain a distant far cry. We have in this regard not yet forgotten the 1974 betrayal. The issue of killing Bangladeshi citizens on a regular basis in the border belt should have been earnestly taken up. How much difference do we have then from the brutish Pakistanis? They killed us in our hearths and homes, and Indians in the open fields' day in and day out.
As regards the loan facility, it is not only tied but details as to where the money is to be spent are missing. May be, the clause is merely incorporated to make the communiqué more acceptable and respectable.
Nor do we know the time frame within which the loan is to be disbursed and the interest that it will carry.
We have failed miserably to take up the maritime boundary issue -- the most important problem facing the nation today, and compromised our sovereignty by opening up gateways and highways (inland ports and sea ports) which India had for decades been eyeing to get through. It is more like the Eastern Question where Russia had been trying for centuries to get an outlet in the warm waters of the Mediterranean. By allowing India access to reach the north-eastern states which are in a state of armed rebellion against the established authority and aspiring to gain independence, we have jeopardised our internal peace and security as well.
India has shown its 'good neighbourliness' by supplying us 250 MW of electricity. Given the opportunity to our own expatriates, and also our own entrepreneurs at home, we can, no doubt, generate the same in two to three years time. Moreover, if the gateways and highways, as the communiqué profess, will subsequently include Nepal and Bhutan, why then countries have not been incorporated in a regional scheme to generate hydroelectricity from the waterfalls of the Himalayas so that the much needed power shortage can be obviated and there takes place an industrial and economic upsurge in eastern Indian subcontinent.
All the major proposals and deals mentioned in the communiqué should have been discussed with the major opposition party, and public opinion sought. The AL has not been authorised nor did it seek such a mandate in their electoral manifesto. How can such one-sided decisions be made by a government? Appeasement policies have never worked nor will it work here.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain did not bring 'peace with honour' in 1938 after his discussion with Adolf Hitler but miseries and catastrophes for mankind. We must know how to protect our national self-interest first and not make the nation hostage for personal aggrandisement and glory.
The writer is Professor of History, University of Dhaka and a former Director General of Bangladesh National Museum. He can be reached at e-mail: azmiawwal@yahoo.com