'Transit' involves multi-dimensional issues
Abul Kalam | Wednesday, 25 February 2009
THE people at large are yet to see how transit for India is going to create additional trade for Bangladesh, other than a fixed 'royalty' annually. Instead, Bangladesh, according to some circles, will furthermore lose its own opportunity of creating additional trade by moving goods/merchandise, either originating in or destined for India, through Bangladesh territory and through Chittagong port. Instead of granting transit, the country's tariff duty regime, as the same circles do suggest, can be changed in order to enable it to move Indian merchandise between western India and the "seven sisters", meaning the seven north eastern Indian states. Bangladeshi traders will also be able to move goods/merchandise, originating in or destined for the "seven sisters," through Chittagong port.
We are yet not certain about the real purpose of transit. If India wants to move goods between the north-eastern India and western India and between north-eastern India and the rest of the world through Chittagong port, then can such movement of goods not take place through trade also? What is the modus-operandi of such trade?
If we have understood it properly, it is not complex. The Bangladeshi traders will import goods from north-eastern India and export them to western India/outside world. Similarly, they will import goods from western India/outside world and export them to north-eastern India.
Thus, India gets movement of goods originating in India or destined for India through Bangladesh territory and through Chittagong port. And all this happens through the normal course of international trade.
We do not understand why such trade does not take place now. Is it because of the existing tariff-duty regimes of both India and Bangladesh? Simple modifications in the present tariff practices of the two countries will then result in normal international trade flow between western India, Bangladesh, north-eastern India and the rest of the world.
However, it would sell well if India considered this facility of transit for moving only legally traded goods. If it wants to move unspecified goods in sealed containers, there will be reasons, rightly or wrongly, to be suspicious of the real intent of transit. There is already a fear about the movement of goods in sealed containers through Bangladesh territory. That is likely to invite attention from terrorists operating in north-eastern India, and make Bangladesh vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This is the perception among some sections of people in this country.
The question that comes to everybody's mind is what Bangladesh will gain from giving transit. Is it only an annual payment of, let us say, Tk. 5.0 billion. Is it a big deal? What will Bangladesh have to invest in infrastructure development? Will the amount of such investment at this stage, when there are other pressing priorities for the country to meet, be justified under the given circumstances? A detailed cost-benefit analysis covering all interrelated aspects is necessary for the purpose.
Furthermore, many people consider that the price for transit, if it is at all allowed, should include similar transit provisions for Bangladesh to and from Nepal and Bhutan; uninterrupted and perpetual corridors for Bangladeshi enclaves in India for linking them with the mainland; ensuring fair share of the Ganges water for Bangladesh; settlement of maritime boundary disputes to the satisfaction of Bangladesh.
This may be a "big" price for a "small" facility, but transit is the only "commodity" we have that India wants from Bangladesh. India should have fulfilled these demands a long time back, not as quid pro quo but as a gesture from a good and great neighbour. But, unfortunately, India has not cared to do so. So, Bangladesh is left with no other option but to make a list of reasonable claims and ensure their fulfillment in lieu of transit facility wanted by India.
Besides, confusion should not be created about MOUs and protocols. These are signed by the state or government heads to underscore the agreements in principle. It is the signing of agreements containing the details of implementing the principles that really matters (because devils live in the details). For some countries, even signing of an agreement is not enough - it must be ratified by their national parliaments.
So, the government does need to keep in mind the genuine and rightful national demands while granting transit facility to India. The people will then take a positive view of developments in areas of Indo-Bangladesh bilateral relations. We need to have all-round cooperation with a big neighbour like India. This cooperation must ensure a win-win situation for both the countries in the larger interests of the two peoples.
We are yet not certain about the real purpose of transit. If India wants to move goods between the north-eastern India and western India and between north-eastern India and the rest of the world through Chittagong port, then can such movement of goods not take place through trade also? What is the modus-operandi of such trade?
If we have understood it properly, it is not complex. The Bangladeshi traders will import goods from north-eastern India and export them to western India/outside world. Similarly, they will import goods from western India/outside world and export them to north-eastern India.
Thus, India gets movement of goods originating in India or destined for India through Bangladesh territory and through Chittagong port. And all this happens through the normal course of international trade.
We do not understand why such trade does not take place now. Is it because of the existing tariff-duty regimes of both India and Bangladesh? Simple modifications in the present tariff practices of the two countries will then result in normal international trade flow between western India, Bangladesh, north-eastern India and the rest of the world.
However, it would sell well if India considered this facility of transit for moving only legally traded goods. If it wants to move unspecified goods in sealed containers, there will be reasons, rightly or wrongly, to be suspicious of the real intent of transit. There is already a fear about the movement of goods in sealed containers through Bangladesh territory. That is likely to invite attention from terrorists operating in north-eastern India, and make Bangladesh vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This is the perception among some sections of people in this country.
The question that comes to everybody's mind is what Bangladesh will gain from giving transit. Is it only an annual payment of, let us say, Tk. 5.0 billion. Is it a big deal? What will Bangladesh have to invest in infrastructure development? Will the amount of such investment at this stage, when there are other pressing priorities for the country to meet, be justified under the given circumstances? A detailed cost-benefit analysis covering all interrelated aspects is necessary for the purpose.
Furthermore, many people consider that the price for transit, if it is at all allowed, should include similar transit provisions for Bangladesh to and from Nepal and Bhutan; uninterrupted and perpetual corridors for Bangladeshi enclaves in India for linking them with the mainland; ensuring fair share of the Ganges water for Bangladesh; settlement of maritime boundary disputes to the satisfaction of Bangladesh.
This may be a "big" price for a "small" facility, but transit is the only "commodity" we have that India wants from Bangladesh. India should have fulfilled these demands a long time back, not as quid pro quo but as a gesture from a good and great neighbour. But, unfortunately, India has not cared to do so. So, Bangladesh is left with no other option but to make a list of reasonable claims and ensure their fulfillment in lieu of transit facility wanted by India.
Besides, confusion should not be created about MOUs and protocols. These are signed by the state or government heads to underscore the agreements in principle. It is the signing of agreements containing the details of implementing the principles that really matters (because devils live in the details). For some countries, even signing of an agreement is not enough - it must be ratified by their national parliaments.
So, the government does need to keep in mind the genuine and rightful national demands while granting transit facility to India. The people will then take a positive view of developments in areas of Indo-Bangladesh bilateral relations. We need to have all-round cooperation with a big neighbour like India. This cooperation must ensure a win-win situation for both the countries in the larger interests of the two peoples.