****Both the governments of Bangladesh and India should make available to the people relevant data and information in order to enable the public discourse a worthwhile exercise, helpful to both the governments to charter the course of future action that will be acceptable to all, including the opposition in Bangladesh.****

TIE agreement on sharing of water of the Ganges between Bangladesh and India was concluded in this month two years ago. The present government of Bangladesh claimed it to be a great achievement for themselves and called it a milestone in the process of improvement of bilateral relations between the two countries. The opposition political parties termed it to be an unequal treaty, which sacrificed national interests of Bangladesh. They went so far as to describe it as a sell-out to India.

The government emphasised the point that the successive governments since 1975 have not been able to conclude a long term agreement with India on this issue, which is vital to the national interests of the people of Bangladesh in as much as more than one-third of the territory of their land remains dependent on the availability and use of the water of the Ganges for Its best utilisation through irrigation. It represented a singular credit to them to achieve this feat.

The BNP contends that the only Treaty till two years ago on this issue had been concluded by the BNP government of Ziaur Rahman. Tni* was an interim agreement valid for five years from 1977 and provided enough waters for Bangladesh with a guaranteed formula on the quantum of water determined on the basis of average flow of waters since 1948. The subsequent govern-

ment of Ershad failed to recognise the dire need for the renewal of this agreement after It lapsed. The situation continued till the entire regime of Ershad for nine years.

During her rule, Khaleda Zia made some efforts to get a Just share of the waters, but witnessed too hardened an attitude of India to conclude an agreement. She raised the issue at the United Nations to keep It alive. The contention of the Awami League that she did not discuss the matter with Indian leaders on her visit to India was false, as was evident from the Joint comtnunique issued at the end of the visit which clearly indicated that the subject had been taken up wlth'the Indian government during the talks.

India appeared to have felt no compulsion to concede even the basic rights and minimum requirements of a lower riparian river, as she could do without it for so long without reprobation. All these years India could and did regulate and even close the tap at her whim, without having to consult Bangladesh on this bilateral matter. India then waited for a friendly government, which is a vassal government in the eyes of the BNP and other opposition parties, to be firmly saddled In power in Bangladesh in order to

settle this issue as a quid pro quo for getting an unannounced pledge for subsequent concessions by Bangladesh on various other Issues. According to the opposition, these Include granting of a corridor through Bangladesh to make easy access to India's troubled eastern states, obtaining of a wider and freer market in Bangladesh through the formation of a re-

gional group and securing terms favourable to India's Interests In bringing about a settlement of Chittagong Hill Tracts insur-

e Awami League claimed that they had obtained a larger share of water In 1975 while commissioning the Farakka barrage than what the BNP obtained subsequently in the interim agreement. Ilie BNP retorts that the Awami League had miserably failed in its duty without making even a gesture to conclude a treaty on those

favourable terms. It went on saying that India had to mutu-ally agree with Bangladesh to the quantum of water Bangladesh would get without which Farakka barrage would not be commissioned. This was incorporated in the Joint declaration issued following the summit meeting between Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujib in May 1974. A golden opportunity

was then lost for concluding a Just, equitable and permanent solution. The BNP lays the blame totally and squarely on the Awami League for this failure.

The objections of the BNP and other opposition parties to the water sharing treaty now in vogue are many. The principal one lies in the provision of the sharing of waters as these are available in Farakka. without making any restrictions on the consumptive uses of water in the upper reaches of the Ganges

in India. In other words. India would legally be able to divert as much of the Ganges waters as it chose to irrigate Indian terri-tdries and could literally leave zero cusecs at Farakka to share with Bangladesh. There is no Clause that would provide a formula to guarantee a minimum flow of waters for Bangladesh.

Secondly, the absence in the current treaty of a provision for arbitration in the event a dispute arises or an interpretation or clarification is warranted constitutes Achille's heels for Bangladesh. In the Greek mythology, the invincible hero. Achilles, had the only physical weakness that lay in his heels, which had been taken advantage of fully by his enemy. One Is given to understand that in its urge to sign a water treaty. Bangladesh gave up and sacrificed many of its legitimate rights, including the right of arbitration which has formed part of all such treaties on sharing of waters of international rivers in other regions of the world. Gross omission of such an imperative provision has rendered Bangladesh to a position of prostrate, remaining entirely at the mercy of India.

Thirdly, soon after the signing of the current treaty there was a huge shortfall in the

discharge of waters at Farakka. The cause and effect advanced by the government appear to be far from saUsfactory to many. It would be In the fitness of things that one has to examine this and various other aspects of the treaty that agitate minds of both the opposition and the ruling party.

Now that the stipulated time has come, as per treaty provisions. both Bangladesh and India should sit together and review the working of the treaty and. in the process, should recommend appropriate measures to rectify flaws and meet shortcomings not only in the implementation of the agreement but also to modify and add some provisions that may be found warranted. This should follow after eliciting public opinion on this issue of great national significance by way of making due study, organising seminars, holding discussions in public fora. etc. Both the governments of Bangladesh and India should make available to the people relevant data and information in order to enable this public discourse a worthwhile exercise. helpful to both the governments charter the course of future action that will be acceptable to all. including the opposition in Bangladesh. In this process, our government must not. however, by-pass the Parliament, as it had done during negotiations and signing of this treaty, and make full use also of tne Parliamentary committees for this purpose.