Piecemeal deals vs comprehensive agreement on transit

As the hype generated by the visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi dwindles down, it is not unlikely that some of the issues on the bilateral agenda will be out of focus for some time. However, one issue that will remain in the limelight is connectivity, and India is sure to be unrelenting on it in the days ahead. Understandably, the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on using Mongla and Chittagong ports and the deal on the credit line for improving road infrastructure in Bangladesh have provided India a powerful tool to track the path more vigorously than before.
What is important here to note is that most of the major activities placed under connectivity are, by their very nature and scope, exclusively transit operations.  The expression connectivity is wide ranging and also includes activities such as transit. However, given that transit is a specifically defined mechanism recognised globally for the technicalities and obligations it involves, there is no reason why it should be shrouded under the garb of connectivity. One indeed finds it curious that the term connectivity - vague in some ways - has come to be applied as a good proxy for transit.
As is well known, Bangladesh and India are signatories to a bilateral protocol on inland water transit (IWT) for quite a long time. Although this is the only recognised transit operation meant to facilitate movement of Indian cargo through the Bangladesh territories, it has not been a transit mechanism per se in conformity with standard international practices. Given the small volume of cargo movement through the designated river routes under the IWT protocol, Bangladesh did not consider it an important source of revenue and was content with the yearly conservancy charges realised from India. Lately, the protocol was amended to include more ports of call and also to allow transshipment and overland movement of transit cargo from Ashuganj to Agartala. The amendments have rendered the protocol far more handy in facilitating the movement of Indian transit cargo between Tripura and the other the northeastern states. With increased activities, the conservancy charges were raised. But what still continues to be lacking is a proper framework under which the transit operation should have been conducted.
Now that India is keen on getting transit facilities through other modes as well (roads and railways, including access to Chittagong and Mongla ports), it is only natural that both counties should ink a comprehensive transit agreement to cater to all the requirements in line with standard global practices. It may be recalled that the matter was flagged in the Joint Communiqué released during the visit of the Bangladesh Prime Minister to New Delhi in January 2010. Interestingly, although the Joint Communiqué did not spell out the term transit, given perhaps its alleged sensitivity, it did incorporate by way of a set of cooperation initiatives all issues that would facilitate India's transit operations through Bangladesh by all modes of transport.
There were extensive debates at that time in Bangladesh -- some quite naïve based mostly on tittle-tattle, some too stringent to allow any move forward. However, in anticipation of future negotiations on transit following the Joint Communiqué, the government of Bangladesh had set up a Core Committee comprising communication experts, economists, transport specialists and all relevant stakeholders to prepare an analytical report on how to go about the transit issue. The Core Committee's report, not made public as yet, has reportedly dealt with the subject at length, suggesting, among others, the routes under various modes of transport, fees and charges to be levied in the light of standard international practices, and the cost of infrastructure building that Bangladesh as the transit-offering country will have to bear. The report, it has been learnt, also mentioned the protocols that will have to be in place to sustain the transit operation.
The report, as experts involved in its preparation mentioned, should form the basic premise for exhaustive negotiations between Bangladesh and India. So far, this has not happened and sadly, this is far from happening. Bangladesh has not asked India to sit for negotiations. India, in its turn, has resorted to what under the circumstances it considered appropriate- signing piecemeal deals with Bangladesh on transshipment facilities at Akhaura, overland carrying of transit goods without handling charges, arrangement for regulation of passenger and cargo vehicular traffic, etc. Concerned authorities in Bangladesh are yet to question the rationale behind the manner in which these are being done - in isolation, and under different garbs.
Transit operation, one need not emphasise, is not only a gigantic activity involving massive investment on the part of the country offering transit, but is also  integrally related to a host of economic, political, security and management issues. Standard international practices confirm that a sustainable transit operation is essentially about taking into account all such issues with as much accuracy and precision as possible in order that it is rendered win-win for the contracting parties. Hence, an ad-hoc or piecemeal approach or treating one mode of transit in isolation from another may lead to misleading propositions.
A comprehensive transit agreement involving roads, waterways and railways calls for extensive negotiations. Since Bangladesh is the transit giving country, the onus is understandably on it to propose how it wants the transit mechanism to work. There are recognised international practices to follow, and asking India to sit for negotiation is the only choice whereby a deal could be struck. However, given the extensive nature of the subject, chances that such negotiations would take time are quite likely. Experts and economists alike are of the opinion that as a starter both countries can agree to sign a framework agreement - a broad outline of the key features and obligations of the respective sides. Once such a framework is agreed upon, both sides should be prepared for the key task - a continuous process of negotiations to decide on matters such as routes, charges, transportation modalities and all other relevant issues that constitute standard parameters of a transit agreement.
wasiahmed.bd@hotmail.com