& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Transit: A sub-regional issue

M.Abdul Hafiz
***The geopolitical imperatives of the region call for the kind of cooperation implicit in the granting of such facility. The request for facilities like transit or use of port should usually be entertained among the regional countries if they are in mutual interest of the countries concerned.***
IT has been a bizarre experience to witness the furore over the question of transit during the recent months.
The importance and urgency accorded to it have indeed a tinge of mystery. The question of transit was never a major item on our foreign policy agenda -- let alone a national issue -- although it could have existed in the peripheries of numerous policy discourses in the foreign office with regard to our bilateral relationship with India. From the hints dropped in recent years by several Indians of prominence, it could be established that India is interested in transit through Bangladesh.
Transit was proposed first as part of a package in which Nepal and Bhutan also would be included and, second, as a solution for the imbalance in Bangladesh- India trade. But Bangladesh, embroiled in more pressing issues both on the domestic and the external fronts, put those proposals on the back-burner. Former finance minister Manmohon Singh and former external affairs minister l.K. Gujral of India, during their visits to Bangladesh during 1994 and 1990 respectively, spoke of trainsit and Chittagong port facilities. Sensing correctly the priorities in Bangladesh, l.K. Gujral categorically mentioned that his government did not intend to link the question of transit with the issue of water sharing, which has emerged as the key issue in Bangladesh-India relations.
Gujral wanted to placate Bangladeshi sentiments on such linkage, yet there is animated discussion on the subject of transit -- as if all the nation's problems and prospects hinged on it. Myriad arguments have been put forth by the pro-transit lobby and its critics. The promoters of transit point to Europe and North America to uphold the virtue of trans-national movements of commodities and personnel, seen as an economic boom, and argue that the
country's sovereignty and security lay in an interdependent sub-region. Ignoring the geo-political implication of the issue, they tend to consider its geo-econornic advantages.
They are fascinated by Gujral's estimate ofTk.2,000 crore of revenue annu ally for Bangladesh only from opening up of Chittagong port. They also estimate a few hundred core to a few thousand crore taka of annual revenue earning if transit is granted* to India. According to them, Sapta also envisages such transit, and the proposed Asian Highway is going to link up the countries and continents, providing trade network with similar facilitiesto evryone. On the other hand, the detractors of the notion, mostly from the opposition camp, seem determined to gain some political mileage.
Most of the problems arising out of the debate have, however, been due to our lack of information as to what kind of transit is in question. It is all the more intriguing because some kind of transit protocol is already in place between Bangladesh and India, and it was there during the Pakistan period. It was, however. suspended following the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war. Limited water/rail transit facilities were restored after our independence, and continue till date. What additional facilities need to be considered now? And what are their implications on our politics, economy and security?
Our people do not know if such facilities have at all been officially asked for? Therefore, any debate on the subject has so for been speculative and irrational. A section of the media, academia and intelligentsia has marshaled interesting arguments in favour of transit, but most of which has unfortunately been hyperbole. and Jittie..relation with the
ground realities in South Asia.
The pro-transit lobby talks of European liberalism and cooperation, puts up a romantic vision of the positive changes taking place around the world,
and asks if we should be lagging behind. But Europe traversed a long way since its custom union days to the signing of Maastricht treaty. That, too, was preceded by several centuries of civilisational transformation. Only now has the European model gained universal acceptability. And about the great changes around world? Nothing has fundamentally changed as far as the vital interests of nations are concerned.
As regards the projected economic boom from the grant of transit and port facility, one can ask what a nation does when it has no option of granting some kind of transit on port facility. A nation has to move entirely on its own steam. If only the bungling that exists in various sectors of our economy can be straightened and streamlined the prospect of transit revenue may weigh less with us.
It is not so much a question of geoeconomy now, but a matter of good governance. For instance, if the pervasive smuggling that takes place across our border can be stopped even partially, loan recovery can be effected in the nationalised banks, or tax evasion can be curbed to some extent, our revenue would shoot up manifold.
Gujral's gesture was appreciated when he did not want to mix transit with other bilateral issues. But, in a subtle manner, he did so when he counselled us to consider the possibility of earning from opening up Chittagong port to compensate for our loss in bilateral trade. But the trade imbalance is by
itself an issue and ought not be mixed up with port or any other issue.
There have been talks in the past about the removal of tariff and nontariff barriers, joint ventures in Bangladesh with buyback guarantee, as well as the application of import liberalisation policy from infant industry perspective. There has, however, been no headway. Each one of these issues holds enormous prospect for reducing trade imbalance.
Nevertheless, blind opposition to transit to a neighbouring country is indeed foolhardy. Any such request from another country merits attention and due consideration. The geopolitical imperatives of the region call for the kind of cooperation implicit in the granting of such facility. The request for facilities like transit or use of port should usually be entertained among the regional countries if they are in mutual interest of the countries concerned.
However, the case of India asking for transit through Bangladesh is somewhat extraordinary because it is not one of those land-locked countries which need, transit. For India, it more is a case of convenience and strategic advantage. The issue should, however, be debated in public forum. Once the people are adequately educated on the issue, they should be left with the authority to decide.
Bog (retd) Hafiz 6 former DG of BUSS