No more guessing about Indo-Bangladesh relationship
Saturday, 15 December 2007
Syed Fattahul Alim
THE diplomatic relationship between Bangladesh and India has seen its vicissitudes. In the beginning, it was one of unmixed goodwill and camaraderie. That was because of the role India had played in the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation. But like all relationships, diplomatic relation between nations does not also stay put at a particular spot. As a human individual grows from childhood to adolescence and adolescence to adulthood, diplomatic bond, too, grows in a similar fashion.
With the passage of time the phase of dependency with its chief mentor that marked Bangladesh's early days of coming into being was over. Bangladesh was then testing the ground under its feet as well as looking for new friends in the international arena. This phase was a crucial one when there was ample scope for misunderstanding with the old friend. In spite of the uncertainties the bilateral relationship between the two neighbours had to go through in that phase of growth of the new nation, the experience was necessary.
For like any individual, a nation also must learn to go on its own and discover its unique status among the comity of nations. Naturally, Bangladesh was also learning to navigate in the troubled waters of international diplomacy. Though there were risks involved, that was still a necessary phase of growth. It was also a sign of maturity in handling various issues between two friendly neighbours. Meanwhile, more than three decades and a half have passed. Bangladesh should now be in the adulthood of its diplomatic existence. It should now be able to behave as a mature nation in the diplomatic sense of the term and sort out the issues of bilateral interest with its next door neighbour.
There is no denying the fact that Bangladesh has a history of deep emotional bond with its closest neighbour India. But that should not in any way prejudice the fact that like any two neighbours they must also solve their outstanding issues of bilateral interest in a businesslike fashion. Bilateral trade, sharing of water from the transboundary rivers, the problems of cross-border smuggling and so on are such issues. It is not that the two countries are not having meetings at the diplomatic level to resolve those issues. But in many cases, the progress so far is not very substantial. Sharing of water from common rivers between Bangladesh and India is one such issue. There are some 54 transboundary rivers flowing between the two countries with their origins in the Himalayas. Bangladesh has water-sharing agreement with only one of those river systems. Whatever is the status of water sharing from the river Padma according to the existing accord between the two countries, the fact remains that the region downstream of Farakka barrage has undergone irreversible changes. Drying up of the tributaries that once thrived on the supply of waters from the mighty Padma and closing down of water projects in the districts downstream in Bangladesh are a few of the indicators to demonstrate what a disastrous transformation the ecosystem of the lower riparian is going through as a result of the irregular supply of water through the barrage in question. What is the picture regarding sharing of water from all other rivers flowing between them?
India is going ahead with its own projects to use the waters of all the common rivers unilaterally. The projects involve building various types of control structures either to withdraw water to irrigate its fields or use the power of flowing water to produce electricity. Consider the Tipaimukh barrage or the massive river-linking project to change the courses of entire river systems to supply water to other parts of India. It simply numbs the senses to think what long-term consequences are awaiting the web of river-based ecosystems connecting this part of South Asia.
Against this backdrop, it sounds strange that Bangladesh since its birth had such a close and emotional relationship with its neighbour so much so that the very vital issue of water-sharing from the co-basin rivers could not be resolved during these long thirty-five years!
In this context it is interesting to note what the former Indian diplomat who had represented his country in Dhaka for some years in the past, said at a recent discussion titled 16th Bangladesh-India dialogue organised by a local think tank, the Centre for Policy Dialogue and the India International Centre.
Stressing the importance of settling the critical issue of water sharing, the Bangladesh's foreign adviser as usual raised his concern as a lower riparian especially about the construction of Tupaimukh barrage to divert flow of water and construction of dams and water reservoirs over the Saptakoshi river in India and Nepal. Ironically, the former Indian diplomat who also spoke on the occasion dismissed the water sharing issue out of hand. About Bangladesh's concern over the Tipaimukh barrage and the digging of reservoirs he said, "Personally I don't see any problem here in Bangladesh with regard to construction of dams or reservoirs in India and Nepal."
What does this signify? Does what the senior Indian diplomat said at the discussion have different connotation than what appears on the surface, or that he really meant what he said? Water is a long-standing issue between the two countries and an accord is also in existence so far as water from the river Ganges (known as the Padma in Bangladesh) is concerned. So, it is not conceivable that Mr. Dev Mukherjee is not aware of the issue. But then was this veteran Indian diplomat putting across some cryptic message keeping everyone guessing about some new developments on the horizon of bilateral relationship between these two close neighbours? However, there was reason to be reassured about the remark he made next, which appeared to be more positive and as such reassuring. Calling it a 'motto' to address the whole gamut of bilateral issues including trade, investment and connectivity, he said, 'what is good for Bangladesh is good for India.' Extending the logic of this 'motto' to the water issue, Bangladesh has reason to expect that India will also settle all the outstanding disputes regarding sharing and use of water from the common rivers flowing between Bangladesh and India. It can be assumed that the comments of the Indian diplomat were not lost on his Bangladesh counterpart Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury who was also present on the occasion.
But given the long history of relationship between the two countries, which is rooted in the birth of Bangladesh, one should not be guessing anymore about India's attitude towards its closest neighbour on the eastern border, especially regarding the outstanding issues lying between them such as sharing of water from common rivers. It is expected that the diplomats of Bangladesh should now be talking with their Indian counterparts from a closer range and a commoner ground than what has been the case thus far. That should be the spirit if one is to go by the 'motto' as expressed by the former Indian diplomat.
THE diplomatic relationship between Bangladesh and India has seen its vicissitudes. In the beginning, it was one of unmixed goodwill and camaraderie. That was because of the role India had played in the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation. But like all relationships, diplomatic relation between nations does not also stay put at a particular spot. As a human individual grows from childhood to adolescence and adolescence to adulthood, diplomatic bond, too, grows in a similar fashion.
With the passage of time the phase of dependency with its chief mentor that marked Bangladesh's early days of coming into being was over. Bangladesh was then testing the ground under its feet as well as looking for new friends in the international arena. This phase was a crucial one when there was ample scope for misunderstanding with the old friend. In spite of the uncertainties the bilateral relationship between the two neighbours had to go through in that phase of growth of the new nation, the experience was necessary.
For like any individual, a nation also must learn to go on its own and discover its unique status among the comity of nations. Naturally, Bangladesh was also learning to navigate in the troubled waters of international diplomacy. Though there were risks involved, that was still a necessary phase of growth. It was also a sign of maturity in handling various issues between two friendly neighbours. Meanwhile, more than three decades and a half have passed. Bangladesh should now be in the adulthood of its diplomatic existence. It should now be able to behave as a mature nation in the diplomatic sense of the term and sort out the issues of bilateral interest with its next door neighbour.
There is no denying the fact that Bangladesh has a history of deep emotional bond with its closest neighbour India. But that should not in any way prejudice the fact that like any two neighbours they must also solve their outstanding issues of bilateral interest in a businesslike fashion. Bilateral trade, sharing of water from the transboundary rivers, the problems of cross-border smuggling and so on are such issues. It is not that the two countries are not having meetings at the diplomatic level to resolve those issues. But in many cases, the progress so far is not very substantial. Sharing of water from common rivers between Bangladesh and India is one such issue. There are some 54 transboundary rivers flowing between the two countries with their origins in the Himalayas. Bangladesh has water-sharing agreement with only one of those river systems. Whatever is the status of water sharing from the river Padma according to the existing accord between the two countries, the fact remains that the region downstream of Farakka barrage has undergone irreversible changes. Drying up of the tributaries that once thrived on the supply of waters from the mighty Padma and closing down of water projects in the districts downstream in Bangladesh are a few of the indicators to demonstrate what a disastrous transformation the ecosystem of the lower riparian is going through as a result of the irregular supply of water through the barrage in question. What is the picture regarding sharing of water from all other rivers flowing between them?
India is going ahead with its own projects to use the waters of all the common rivers unilaterally. The projects involve building various types of control structures either to withdraw water to irrigate its fields or use the power of flowing water to produce electricity. Consider the Tipaimukh barrage or the massive river-linking project to change the courses of entire river systems to supply water to other parts of India. It simply numbs the senses to think what long-term consequences are awaiting the web of river-based ecosystems connecting this part of South Asia.
Against this backdrop, it sounds strange that Bangladesh since its birth had such a close and emotional relationship with its neighbour so much so that the very vital issue of water-sharing from the co-basin rivers could not be resolved during these long thirty-five years!
In this context it is interesting to note what the former Indian diplomat who had represented his country in Dhaka for some years in the past, said at a recent discussion titled 16th Bangladesh-India dialogue organised by a local think tank, the Centre for Policy Dialogue and the India International Centre.
Stressing the importance of settling the critical issue of water sharing, the Bangladesh's foreign adviser as usual raised his concern as a lower riparian especially about the construction of Tupaimukh barrage to divert flow of water and construction of dams and water reservoirs over the Saptakoshi river in India and Nepal. Ironically, the former Indian diplomat who also spoke on the occasion dismissed the water sharing issue out of hand. About Bangladesh's concern over the Tipaimukh barrage and the digging of reservoirs he said, "Personally I don't see any problem here in Bangladesh with regard to construction of dams or reservoirs in India and Nepal."
What does this signify? Does what the senior Indian diplomat said at the discussion have different connotation than what appears on the surface, or that he really meant what he said? Water is a long-standing issue between the two countries and an accord is also in existence so far as water from the river Ganges (known as the Padma in Bangladesh) is concerned. So, it is not conceivable that Mr. Dev Mukherjee is not aware of the issue. But then was this veteran Indian diplomat putting across some cryptic message keeping everyone guessing about some new developments on the horizon of bilateral relationship between these two close neighbours? However, there was reason to be reassured about the remark he made next, which appeared to be more positive and as such reassuring. Calling it a 'motto' to address the whole gamut of bilateral issues including trade, investment and connectivity, he said, 'what is good for Bangladesh is good for India.' Extending the logic of this 'motto' to the water issue, Bangladesh has reason to expect that India will also settle all the outstanding disputes regarding sharing and use of water from the common rivers flowing between Bangladesh and India. It can be assumed that the comments of the Indian diplomat were not lost on his Bangladesh counterpart Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury who was also present on the occasion.
But given the long history of relationship between the two countries, which is rooted in the birth of Bangladesh, one should not be guessing anymore about India's attitude towards its closest neighbour on the eastern border, especially regarding the outstanding issues lying between them such as sharing of water from common rivers. It is expected that the diplomats of Bangladesh should now be talking with their Indian counterparts from a closer range and a commoner ground than what has been the case thus far. That should be the spirit if one is to go by the 'motto' as expressed by the former Indian diplomat.