Much to the dismay of all and the disbelief of many, India has turned the clock back — defaulting to strike the much hyped and hoped deals on the Teesta water sharing — leaving Bangladesh with little choice but to table the “transit deal” with India; instead both sides signed some broad-based agreements whose significance are dwarfed by breakdown of the much anticipated Teesta deal.
One significant and thorny issue — the lingering border disputes with enclaves and exclaves inhabited by 55,000 people — who were often targets of Indian BSF shooting may have been resolved — hopefully, diffusing border tensions between the two nations.
Another important deal Bangladesh is the duty free access for 46 garment products to Indian $27 billion market — estimated to slash some of the $3.5 billion annual trade deficit with India. India however denied duty-free entry of as many as 480 potential Bangladesh export items, which the business community had long been striving for.
While Bangladesh government was warming up to sign the Teesta deal, New Delhi postponed it at the last minute – making it contingent on its approval by Paschim Banga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Against this backdrop of information asymmetry some Awami League MPs have resented and blamed the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s advisers and her foreign minister for their dreary performance leading to the miscarriage of having the Teesta water sharing a done deal. Manmohan Singh has defended the fiasco saying that he was also taken aback by CM Banerjee’s last-minute disapproval. Can this be a norm in diplomacy?
One wonders if — by putting off the water sharing accord— India is poised to press for more concessions from Dhaka on transit or other pent up issues. Or it could be that India wants Bangladesh to begin constructing the necessary transit specific infrastructure before the Teesta deal is signed. How surreal it is that Manmohan Singh would take his historic visit without locking prior acquiesces about the Teesta water sharing from Mamata Banerjee?
This last minute aberrant and crass maneuvering by India will only reinforce the skeptics view about India’s ham-fisted attitude towards Bangladesh –let alone the uncalled for embarrassment it brought on the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
The two sides have signed memorandums of understanding (MoU) on some ancillary areas such as cooperation in the field of renewable energy, overland traffic between Bangladesh and Nepal through Indian territory, conservation of the Sundarbans and its endangered Bengal Tigers.
These MoUs are non-binding and so are all negotiated agreements unless ratified by parliaments of the respective countries. How can we forget the historic Mujib-Indira 1974 Land Boundary Agreement — demarcating the borders between the two countries? Dhaka immediately ratified the agreement by amending the constitution while Delhi reneged, leaving the dispute protracted only to inflict dreadful deaths and miseries to many innocent civilians, mostly Bangladeshis, by the trigger-happy Indian BSF.
Signing no deals is indubitably preferable to bad deals. Efficacious international agreements and treaties between nations is largely a function of the degree of their interdependence and the size of the benefits to be enjoyed by each. Obviously, the countries involved would weigh the pros and cons of the deals; recalibrate their negotiating strategies at various stages until an optimal solution is stuck.
A big country like India can easily afford to give in a little and avoid pressing hard for an optimal solution with its much smaller neighbour. Over the years India has been grouching about illegal migrant workers from Bangladesh taking away jobs and in some cases, creating security issues. India must recognise that joblessness and lower wages in Bangladesh are the precursors to such illegal flow of migrant workers across the borders.
For some time now, India has also shown concerns over possible escalation of religious extremism in Bangladesh threatening adverse spillover effects in India. By delaying and depriving Bangladesh of its rightful claim over waters and trade balance, India will only depress Bangladesh economically with contagion effects in politics while at the same time letting, rightly or wrongly, the prevailing distrust and anti-India sentiment escalate.
By resolving all outstanding water sharing issues, allowing duty-free market access, and removal of other market frictions, India will not only create good will and a bigger market for its own goods in Bangladesh, it will also help the Bangladesh economy grow faster creating jobs and higher income which will deter illegal migrant workers. Higher income in Bangladesh will not only foster political and social stability, it will subdue all forms of potential extremism also.
Notwithstanding the ongoing pessimism and fear from many quarters, I am encouraged somewhat to India is negotiating for transit facilities for its landlocked north-eastern states through Bangladesh territory using Chittagong and Mongla ports. My rationale for positive fallout is guided by economics for Bangladesh, revenue earnings from transit fees and future increased access to Indian market for India, transit time and cost savings plus increase access to Bangladesh market and goodwill. This will make the two countries friendlier and interdependent both economically and culturally, benefitting the citizens of both nations.
Economic interdependence is known to lessen frictions or even war between nations? The Post-Cold War era shows trade levels and cooperation in various fronts between the US and Russia and emerging powers such as Japan, China, and Western Europe elevated to new heights.
Dale Copeland argues, “When expectations for trade are positive, leaders expect to realise the benefits of trade into the future and therefore have less reason for wars. If, however, leaders are pessimistic about future trade, fearing to be cut off from vital goods or believing that current restrictions will not be relaxed, then the negative expected value of peace may make war the rational strategic choice,” (Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations (spring 1996).
The Post-Cold War experience also underscores evidence in favour of the view that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of conflicts between nations by increasing the gains from trading over the alternative of aggression: “interdependent states would rather trade than invade”.
Interdependence thus fosters peace and more so when nations expect trade levels to grow to a higher level into the future. Even if the current trade volume is low, expectations of higher future trade will act as an inducement for sustained cooperation on friendly terms.
In the 1850s, Richard Cobden asserted that free trade “unites” nations, “making each equally anxious for the prosperity and happiness of both”. This view was restated in The Great Illusion by Norman Angell prior to World War I and again in 1933.
I believe allowing transit facilities to India on good terms will make India dependent on Bangladesh, however weak that may be, benefiting both nations while giving Bangladesh some leverage over issues of trade and commerce with India.
I do not subscribe to the view that granting transit facilities to India will open Indian domination of Bangladesh politically or economically. If wisdom is an asset of a nation, India has no dearth of it. My point is why India would resort to undesirable activities risking an unstable Bangladesh to emerge along its border like that of Pakistan; that does not necessarily mean India would not like to see a friendly and secular political government in Bangladesh. Which country would not?
Cynics in both countries must recognise that democracies do not exploit democracies or wage war for economic gains. It is as much of interest for India to see Bangladesh flourish politically as a secular democracy and economically a developed progressive country as we Bangladeshis wish it to be, and that is the kind of wisdom I believe India would nurture looking at Bangladesh.
The writer, formerly a Physicist and Nuclear Engineer, is a Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University, USA.
Much to the dismay of all and the disbelief of many, India has turned the clock back — defaulting to strike the much hyped and hoped deals on the Teesta water sharing — leaving Bangladesh with little choice but to table the “transit deal” with India; instead both sides signed some broad-based agreements whose significance are dwarfed by breakdown of the much anticipated Teesta deal.
One significant and thorny issue — the lingering border disputes with enclaves and exclaves inhabited by 55,000 people — who were often targets of Indian BSF shooting may have been resolved — hopefully, diffusing border tensions between the two nations.
Another important deal Bangladesh is the duty free access for 46 garment products to Indian $27 billion market — estimated to slash some of the $3.5 billion annual trade deficit with India. India however denied duty-free entry of as many as 480 potential Bangladesh export items, which the business community had long been striving for.
While Bangladesh government was warming up to sign the Teesta deal, New Delhi postponed it at the last minute – making it contingent on its approval by Paschim Banga Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Against this backdrop of information asymmetry some Awami League MPs have resented and blamed the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s advisers and her foreign minister for their dreary performance leading to the miscarriage of having the Teesta water sharing a done deal. Manmohan Singh has defended the fiasco saying that he was also taken aback by CM Banerjee’s last-minute disapproval. Can this be a norm in diplomacy?
One wonders if — by putting off the water sharing accord— India is poised to press for more concessions from Dhaka on transit or other pent up issues. Or it could be that India wants Bangladesh to begin constructing the necessary transit specific infrastructure before the Teesta deal is signed. How surreal it is that Manmohan Singh would take his historic visit without locking prior acquiesces about the Teesta water sharing from Mamata Banerjee?
This last minute aberrant and crass maneuvering by India will only reinforce the skeptics view about India’s ham-fisted attitude towards Bangladesh –let alone the uncalled for embarrassment it brought on the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
The two sides have signed memorandums of understanding (MoU) on some ancillary areas such as cooperation in the field of renewable energy, overland traffic between Bangladesh and Nepal through Indian territory, conservation of the Sundarbans and its endangered Bengal Tigers.
These MoUs are non-binding and so are all negotiated agreements unless ratified by parliaments of the respective countries. How can we forget the historic Mujib-Indira 1974 Land Boundary Agreement — demarcating the borders between the two countries? Dhaka immediately ratified the agreement by amending the constitution while Delhi reneged, leaving the dispute protracted only to inflict dreadful deaths and miseries to many innocent civilians, mostly Bangladeshis, by the trigger-happy Indian BSF.
Signing no deals is indubitably preferable to bad deals. Efficacious international agreements and treaties between nations is largely a function of the degree of their interdependence and the size of the benefits to be enjoyed by each. Obviously, the countries involved would weigh the pros and cons of the deals; recalibrate their negotiating strategies at various stages until an optimal solution is stuck.
A big country like India can easily afford to give in a little and avoid pressing hard for an optimal solution with its much smaller neighbour. Over the years India has been grouching about illegal migrant workers from Bangladesh taking away jobs and in some cases, creating security issues. India must recognise that joblessness and lower wages in Bangladesh are the precursors to such illegal flow of migrant workers across the borders.
For some time now, India has also shown concerns over possible escalation of religious extremism in Bangladesh threatening adverse spillover effects in India. By delaying and depriving Bangladesh of its rightful claim over waters and trade balance, India will only depress Bangladesh economically with contagion effects in politics while at the same time letting, rightly or wrongly, the prevailing distrust and anti-India sentiment escalate.
By resolving all outstanding water sharing issues, allowing duty-free market access, and removal of other market frictions, India will not only create good will and a bigger market for its own goods in Bangladesh, it will also help the Bangladesh economy grow faster creating jobs and higher income which will deter illegal migrant workers. Higher income in Bangladesh will not only foster political and social stability, it will subdue all forms of potential extremism also.
Notwithstanding the ongoing pessimism and fear from many quarters, I am encouraged somewhat to India is negotiating for transit facilities for its landlocked north-eastern states through Bangladesh territory using Chittagong and Mongla ports. My rationale for positive fallout is guided by economics for Bangladesh, revenue earnings from transit fees and future increased access to Indian market for India, transit time and cost savings plus increase access to Bangladesh market and goodwill. This will make the two countries friendlier and interdependent both economically and culturally, benefitting the citizens of both nations.
Economic interdependence is known to lessen frictions or even war between nations? The Post-Cold War era shows trade levels and cooperation in various fronts between the US and Russia and emerging powers such as Japan, China, and Western Europe elevated to new heights.
Dale Copeland argues, “When expectations for trade are positive, leaders expect to realise the benefits of trade into the future and therefore have less reason for wars. If, however, leaders are pessimistic about future trade, fearing to be cut off from vital goods or believing that current restrictions will not be relaxed, then the negative expected value of peace may make war the rational strategic choice,” (Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations (spring 1996).
The Post-Cold War experience also underscores evidence in favour of the view that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of conflicts between nations by increasing the gains from trading over the alternative of aggression: “interdependent states would rather trade than invade”.
Interdependence thus fosters peace and more so when nations expect trade levels to grow to a higher level into the future. Even if the current trade volume is low, expectations of higher future trade will act as an inducement for sustained cooperation on friendly terms.
In the 1850s, Richard Cobden asserted that free trade “unites” nations, “making each equally anxious for the prosperity and happiness of both”. This view was restated in The Great Illusion by Norman Angell prior to World War I and again in 1933.
I believe allowing transit facilities to India on good terms will make India dependent on Bangladesh, however weak that may be, benefiting both nations while giving Bangladesh some leverage over issues of trade and commerce with India.
I do not subscribe to the view that granting transit facilities to India will open Indian domination of Bangladesh politically or economically. If wisdom is an asset of a nation, India has no dearth of it. My point is why India would resort to undesirable activities risking an unstable Bangladesh to emerge along its border like that of Pakistan; that does not necessarily mean India would not like to see a friendly and secular political government in Bangladesh. Which country would not?
Cynics in both countries must recognise that democracies do not exploit democracies or wage war for economic gains. It is as much of interest for India to see Bangladesh flourish politically as a secular democracy and economically a developed progressive country as we Bangladeshis wish it to be, and that is the kind of wisdom I believe India would nurture looking at Bangladesh.
BY : Abdullah A Dewan.
