Awami govt proved again - they are indian stooges

[idune]

Indian prescription delivered last month by Shivshankar Menon, India's Foreign Secretary pushing Awami stooges not to submit Bangladesh her rightful claim. And according to that prescription Awami stooge ministers are campaigning for indian interest everyday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Govt. inert over claim on Continental Shelf

Moinuddin Naser in New York

Though little time is left, the Government is still in slumber and lamentably lagging behind its next-door neighbours in acting on the crucial matter of placing Dhaka's claim to the appropriate authority on her right over the economic zone in the Bay of Bengal. For Dhaka to do this, only about two months are left. Shouldn't the Foreign Office have been up and doing by now regarding this vital matter and held a grand national conference of major political leaders, eminent economists, scholars, geographers and so on?
Although Bangladesh will have to submit its claim on continental shelf by July 27, 2011, but prior to that she will have to dispute the claims of India and Myanmar before the 24th session of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf this year.
Already India, Myanmar and Sri Lanka have submitted their claim on the Continental Shelf to extend their economic sovereignty on the Bay of Bengal as per Article 76, Part VI of the Law of the Sea Convention. India and Myanmar both have submitted their claim beyond 200 nautical miles (NM) as per provisions.
Myanmar updated the claim on April 30, 2009, while India submitted the claim on May 12, 2009 and Sri Lanka submitted the claim on May 8, 2009. Bangladesh will have to submit its claim or dispute, if any, by August before the beginning of the 24th session of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to be held in New York from August 10 to September 11, 2009.

India, Myanmar against Bangladesh
It is gathered that India and Myanmar have articulated a joint strategy to claim their extended continental shelf over Bay of Bengal so that they can preempt Bangladesh's right over the Bay of Bengal. In fact the Indian institutes helped Myanmar to prepare its claim.
Surprisingly, Myanmar did not seek help from any Chinese institute to prepare the claim this time! Knowledgeable source said Myanmar and India both have got together to establish their extended rights over the Bay of Bengal, while both the countries opposed Bangladesh's move to lease out the blocks in Bay of Bengal for exploration of oil to the foreign companies.

No paper yet from Dhaka
Bangladesh will have to submit its claim on continental shelf by July 27, 2011. But it will have to dispute the claims of India and Myanmar before the 24th session of the commission this year.
According to the diplomatic circle in New York, Bangladesh is yet to prepare any paper or report disputing the claimed Continental Shelf by India or Myanmar encroaching the vital economic zone of Bangladesh.
Myanmar has made its claim ahead of deadline until May 21, 2009 for submission of its claim, but it submitted ahead of the date. Again, India had time up to June 29, but she has already submitted its claim.

Myanmar claimed in 2008
Myanmar had submitted its claim first on December 16, 2008, which was later updated on April 30, 2009 and now waiting for discussioin the claim in the provisional agenda of the 24th session of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
In the introduction to its submission Myanmar stated that this claim is made "to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) pursuant to Article 76, paragraph 8 of the Convention in respect of the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (M) from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of Myanmar is measured."

200 nautical miles
It clearly said: "Myanmar is making its submission for extension of its continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal, off Rakhine, and referred to as Rakhine Continental Shelf, beyond 200 nautical miles." The country has collected geophysical data from large area for preparation of the submission.
Beyond 200 nautical miles, Yangon will claim at least 60 more nautical miles to satisfy its acquired morphological, geological and tectonic aspects of the data collected from the Bay.
The Goa-based National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) of India which led the Indian side for preparation of the claim, was also engaged for quality control purpose of the Myanmar claim, while National Geophysical research Institute (NGRI) of India helped Myanmar for seismic Data processing and interpretation. Dr N.K Thakur, another consultant, who was former member of the Commission, interpreted acquired geophysical data. Besides, many other institutes of Myanmar were involved.

Continental Shelf
India took nine years to finalize its claim on continental shelf, while the Goa-based national Centre for Antarctica and Ocean Research led eight organizations to collect data and process them to prepare the report. The Indian report has extended its sovereignty beyond 200 nautical miles and within 350 nautical from the baseline. In fact India completed its preparation for this submission at list six months ago and that was passed through different stakeholder ministries to obtain their consent.
According to sources, different studies have so far been collected over seven to eight terabytes of data after surveying the Indian marine area divided into lines totalling 30,000 km. The demarcation of the continental shelf was based on Article 76 of the Part VI of the "Law of the Sea Convention" which also includes determination of water depth, sedimentary rock thickness and precise mapping of the foot of the continental slope.

Serious Indo-Bangla dispute
India shares maritime boundaries with Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, Maldives and Sri Lanka. Among them Myanmar, Bangladesh and Srilanka have water territory in the Bay of Bengal.
India has already negotiated a deal with Myanamar and Sri Lanka, while it has got serious dispute with Bangladesh.
Claiming the continental shelf 'baseline' of the coast is very important. That means from which point the 200 nautical miles will be measured.
Bangladesh coastline is very unstable. So Bangladesh demarcated its baseline from a distance of 10 fathom from the shore, which was disputed by both India and Myanmar.

Delhi claims up to 350 NM
Now India is claiming up to 350 nautical miles (NM) from its baseline invoking Article 76 clause V, VI, VII and VIII as continental shelf. This is beyond 200 NM, of the normal territory. If Myanmar extends 60 NM beyond 200 nautical miles and India extends up to 350 nautical miles, the curved coast line may stop Bangladesh to get her outlet.
Sri Lanka also has submitted its claim on the southern part of the Bay of Bengal beyond 200 nautical miles, while the Indian line has passed with short distance of less than 24 nautical miles and as such India has already proposed a 'separate agreement' on this issue with Sri Lanka. In fact in terms of establishing claim on the Bay of Bengal Bangladesh has become isolated.
Bangladesh has to resolve the issue on priority basis.

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#01

 

[idune]

Here is prominent indian stooge and Awami minister Faruq Khan campaigning for indian propaganda ploy. Same propaganda indian hc used few days ago to dupe people of Bangladesh.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Opposition to Tipaimukh dam speculative: Faruq

Dhaka, May 26 (bdnews24.com)—Too much is being said on the Tipaimukh dam construction by India without having knowledge on the issue, the commerce minister has said.

He slammed those environmentalists, experts, and political parties for opposing the dam at Tipaimukh.

"Those who are talking about what is happening there is talking with no knowledge (what was really going on)," Faruq Khan told reporters after a seminar on 'Regional Connectivity: Potential for Infrastructure Development and Energy in South Asia' at Hotel Sonargaon on Tuesday.

The SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industry and FBCCI co-hosted the seminar in the city.

The government will send an expert and parliamentary team within some days to visit the dam at Tipaimukh. They will report what was happening there and how much benefit Bangladesh stand to gain from the project, Khan added.

It will only support the construction of the dam at Tipaimukh if Bangladesh benefitted, Khan added.

The minister e said it was possible to generate thousands megawatts of power if hydro power could be by erecting dam.

He stressed regional cooperation in communications and energy sector, including ports and said the government wanted development of people of South Asia region and its people through enhancement of communications systems.

"We want to make our ports regional and Asian. We want to bring development to our people through enhancement of communications system in this region," he told the seminar.

The many resources in the region could not be utilised in the past because of political reasons, Khan observed.

"The blame mostly goes to lack of political will in our region. We could not develop our region together politically."

It was also possible to develop agriculture in the region through better irrigation system, he told the seminar.

The regional connections can be an effective way to face the current economic crisis in the country. There needs firm political and economic goodwill to realise it.

SCCI president Tarique Syed said the issue of road connections with India under the proposed Asian Highway network has to be seen from global point of view.

FBCCI president Annisul Huq stressed on enhancement of road connections.

"Politicians need to have solutions to Farakka and Kashmir. But , businesses need connections."

Despite having shared history, civilisation and proximity of border, a free trade area could not be created on the lack of realisation.

Opposition to Tipaimukh dam speculative: Faruq :: Bangladesh :: bdnews24.com ::

 

[iman_ali]

FBCCI president Annisul Huq stressed on enhancement of road connections.

"Politicians need to have solutions to Farakka and Kashmir. But , businesses need connections."

you had made me think ,
could you please explain how Farakka and Kashmir are interconnected.
brother , you seem to me a pakistani /kashmiri only.
anyway , carry on with your good work.

 

[murshid]

you had made me think ,
could you please explain how Farakka and Kashmir are interconnected.
brother , you seem to me a pakistani /kashmiri only.
anyway , carry on with your good work.

janey bhi do Iman bhai . ..apney hi bachey hai..

 

[TopCat]

you had made me think ,
could you please explain how Farakka and Kashmir are interconnected.
brother , you seem to me a pakistani /kashmiri only.
anyway , carry on with your good work.

Kahsmir still call for some sympathy from ordinary bangladeshis and politicians. We shred our blood in 1965 for that piece of land, even though its no more our war.

 

[iman_ali]

janey bhi do Iman bhai . ..apney hi bachey hai..

hmmmmm
i got , are they the same childrens of our armymen , 1971 products , the seeds that our armymen putin before leaving BD .

 

[TopCat]

hmmmmm
i got , are they the same childrens of our armymen , 1971 products , the seeds that our armymen putin before leaving BD .

Yes that is possible. Did you see the daughter of Mc Cain (US presidential candidate). She is a adopt of Bangladeshi origin. She almost made it to the white house. That is called Allah's justice.
The sinners uncalled daughter made that far, but their own lawfull daughters are whipped by Talibans in open street. You want to see the video???

 

[Stumper]

iDune, The venom apart, i think the politicians should seriously reconsider this Dam. Instead of painting this red, you could have highlighted the social and seismic dangers of this Dam, in this forum.

Iajdani: The idiots have listed Tourism as one of the benefits of this Dam. It was conceived to only contain flood water . .and now electricity sharing, rehabilitation has been added.


As usual, vote appeasement at the cost of the natives!!

 

[idune]

Tipaimukh dam, Fulertal barrage spell 'disaster' for Sylhet, say experts

Dhaka, May 28 (bdnews24.com)—Farm output will fall and poverty will rise, spelling 'disaster' for the Sylhet region if India's proposed Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage are built, maintain experts.

"The dam will cause water flow to slow down while the barrage will ensure their full control of water resources," former director general and chief engineer of Water Resources Planning Organisation,engineer Inamul Haque told bdnews24.com Thursday.

"The cultivation of early variety of boro in the northeast would be hampered," he said.

"So far as I know the Tipaimukh dam will be built 200 kms from the Amolshid border, at Zakingong, to construct a vast water reservoir for hydro-power generation."

"The water from three rivers—the Barak, Tipai and Irang—would be required to feed the water reservoir to cover an immense area," said Inamul.

"Besides, another barrage is to be built 100 kms off our border at Fulertal in India for irrigation purposes which would feed the waters through canals," Haq said.

Haq said downstream regions will experience two major impacts: firstly, with the decrease of water in December, the people who now grow early varieties of boro on the land which used to arise in the haor areas would no longer have this resource.

Secondly, the water flow of the river Surma will decrease significantly, he said.

IUCN resident director Dr.Ainun Nishat told bdnews24.com that the construction of Tipaimukh dam will reduce the the natural monsoon flood patterns of the area on which cultivation depends.

He said the construction of barrage at Fulertal on top of the Tipaimukh dam could seriously reduce the water flow during the dry season.

"The extent of drop in water flow depends on the volume of water withdrawn through the irrigation canals," he said.

"We could see the Surma and Kushiara rivers dry up completely during the dry season, he said

Anu Muhammad, professor of economics at Jahangirnagar University, told bdnews24.com the Tipaimukh dam and Fulertal barrage would spell "a great disaster."

"Arable land will decline and production of crops fall, leading to a rise in poverty," he said.

According to some reports, the proposed Tipaimukh dam across the river Barak in the Indian state Monipur will 162.5 metres high and 390metres long to create a reservoir by permanently submerging some 2.75 square kilometers of land.

India expects to generate around 1500 megawatt of hydropower from the project.

Tipaimukh dam, Fulertal barrage spell 'disaster' for Sylhet, say experts :: Bangladesh :: bdnews24.com ::

 

[idune]

Awami stooges ploy to give indian corridor in the name of Asian highway have once again exposed in great extent in following article. Article pointed out how india do not want to provide access through its territory ( to Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan) but using indian installed Awami stooges for corridor plan. These Awami stooges claimed to be elected by people of Bangladesh but sure working for indian agenda than interest of bangladesh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIRTUAL CORRIDOR TO INDIA

Deadly game with nation's fate

M. Shahidul Islam


It�s like watching a movie already seen twice. Or, it could be the recurrence of a hellish nightmare? The reasons that had compelled the last BNP-led Government not to approve the proposed Asian Highway in December 2005 remain alive, but the AL-led regime has agreed in principle to approve the three different routes, only to turn the entire country into a virtual corridor of India.
The Communication Ministry on May 21 made the decision following a meeting in which roads and railway secretary ASM Ali Kabir and senior officials from the foreign, defence, home and finance ministries, ERD, roads and highways and railway departments were present. Following the meeting, Communication Minister Abul Hossain, as well as a spokesperson of the ministry, confirmed that the Government had approved the scheme in principle. It�s a deadly game with nation�s fate.

Whither Asian Highway from Japan to Turkey?
The decision is dangerous both on counts of its historicity and the cost and benefit calculations. Since the proposal for the Asian Highway was mooted first in 1959, some 15 countries, including Pakistan, became founding members by signing the agreement. Bangladesh too is considered a founding member by virtue of its integration with Pakistan until 1971. Then, following decades of vacillation and bargaining, the United Nations Economic and Social Council for Asia Pacific (UNESCAP) managed to draft an Intergovernmental Agreement for the 1,41,000 kilometers-long roadways that would crisscross many Asian countries from Japan to Turkey, to reach the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and the continent of Europe.

Connectivity with India
As the move intensified with the tempest of globalization whipping the world in the last decade, a total of 27 nations ratified their participation (32 had signed so far) by 2004 while the deadline for Bangladesh expired in December 2005 following the BNP-led alliance Government�s negation to accept the proposed route on ground that it would compromise country�s national security by turning Bangladesh a virtual transit and corridor of India.
The economic and infrastructural viabilities too did not favour a positive decision from Dhaka. For, of the three routes proposed by the UNSECAP for Bangladesh - AH1, AH2 and AH 41 � two of them serve solely Indian interests at the cost of harming economic and geopolitical interests of Bangladesh.
Being surrounded by India from all sides excepting the Sea to the south and the limited outlet with the Myanmar, the BNP-led alliance regime decided instead to pursue aggressively to linking Bangladesh with Myanmar in order to reach the Far Eastern countries as part of a comprehensive Look East policy.
Sources say that decision was based on three major factors: First, various bilateral deals have already made connectivity with India easier over the preceding decades, without yielding better economic opportunities for Bangladesh. Secondly: Dhaka�s main concern was how to connect landlocked Nepal, Bhutan and the Indian North East with Chittagong and Mongla ports to integrate those economies with the regional mainstream. Third: Bangladesh could reach the Asian mainland only via Myanmar, not via India.

Economics and geopolitics
Added to those concerns were the perspectives of sovereignty, economics and geopolitics. As the three proposed routes are slated only to facilitate transportations of Indian goods from the Indian mainland to the Indian North East via Bangladesh - and impose unbearable pressure on the two ports of the country �- Chittagong and Mongla �- which can barely cope with our own needs at the present - the BNP-led regime insisted on choosing the third route (AH-41). The other two routes (AH-1 and AH-2) being both economically and geopolitically non-viable, and, having serious implications for the nation�s sovereignty, the deadline in December 2005 was quietly allowed to pass by.
How can such a decision be faulted �- and reversed without considering its implications�- when the 495 kilometers long AH -1 will connect Tamabil, Sylhet, Kachpur, Dhaka, Jessore with Benapole; only to render Bangladesh into an Indian corridor by facilitating connectivity between the Indian states of Tripura and Manipur on one side, with Assam and the West Bengal on the other, by using the territory of another sovereign nation? The same is true of the 805 kilometers long AH- 2 which will connect Banglabandha of Panchagarh, Hati-Kamrul of Sirajganj, Dhaka, Kachpur and reach Tamabil again, only to re-enter India across the Sylhet frontier.
Although the third route, 752-kilometer AH- 41, too will serve to carry goods for India from the Mongla port by connecting Bagerhat via Jessore (and thence to Benapole), it seemed comparatively harmless as it will traverse past Dhaka before proceeding toward Teknaf and Cox�s Bazar to eventually connect Myanmar.

An Indian Highway
That is how the connectivity scheme the Government decided to approve will allow construction of an Indian Highway, not an Asian one, given that none of those routes will connect Bangladesh with other Asian nations who are part of the scheme. Barring Myanmar, with which Bangladesh has already arranged bilateral land connectivity, the two other points of connectivity with India neither allow Bangladesh to reach the Tokyo to Ankara Highway (as the Asian Highway is meant to be) nor the other nations who are part of it (Japan, South Korea, (India excepted), Indonesia, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, China, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Bhutan, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos and Malaysia).
Besides, there are allegations of Indian influence- peddling in choosing and doggedly pursuing the implementation of the proposed routes. Sources say the AH-1 route will enter Bangladesh from India via the western Benapole frontier and will exit again to India through northeastern Tamabil of Sylhet. That seems to be an Indian Highway stretching from West Bengal to Tripura and Assam.
Likewise, the AH-2 will enter Bangladesh from northwestern Banglabandha frontier and will reach again Tamabil. The two routes entering from and exiting to India are meant to facilitate the huge volume of traffic to and from Indian North Eastern states. Only the third route being an internal (or sub-regional) link to connect southeastern Mongla port with Teknaf near the Myanmar frontier, the previous government wanted the third one to be the main route to bolster our �Look East Policy� that aimed at fostering economic cooperation with Myanmar, China, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Nepal, Bhutan left adrift
Who�s behind this highway game and why did it resurrect once again? Sources say India having enormous influence over the UN and its affiliated bodies, Delhi choose to intensify the �politics of highway� since 2004 after Bangladesh commissioned a land port at Banglabandha ( in Panchagargh district) to facilitate exports to Nepal, Bhutan and the Indian North East. The port was expected to increase trading with these nations via the 61 km corridor (between Bangladesh and Nepal) and the 68 km corridor (between Bangladesh and Bhutan).
Following this move from Dhaka, India choose to impose upon Bangladesh, via the UNESCAP, the proposed routes for Asian Highway; two of which (AH-1 and AH-2) were designed to enter Bangladesh only to re-enter India. Only the third route (then known as AH-3) was left to connect Myanmar to allow Bangladesh�s exit to the Far East.
Analysts say it was an Indian ploy to obtain corridor through other means. And, coming as it did following Dhaka�s negation to export gas to India, Delhi�s stance could be summarized as very stubborn: �my way or highway.�
However, the lack of Delhi�s empathy was too visible to ignore. After all, Dhaka�s decision to commission the Banglabandha port came amidst repeated Nepalese insistence to open the land port due to a Nepal-India bilateral agreement preventing Nepalese trucks from directly entering Bangladesh and vice a versa. Those inconveniences were compounded further by the necessity to off load everything from trucks inside India for custom and security inspections.
Not only that. Despite repeated requests to facilitate Nepal-Bangladesh, Bangladesh-Bhutan and Bangladesh � Indian North East connectivity via those corridors, India persistently pursued the UNESCAP to impose on Bangladesh the two routes to serve its own geopolitical and economic interests at the cost of disadvantaging Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan.
Reliable sources claim that the previous BNP-led regime�s negation to comply with the Indian demand for gas, transit, corridor, and, finally, the Asian Highway have had much to do with what followed in Bangladesh since October 2007.

Policy of subservience
That being the backdrop and the reality, the AL-led Government�s decision to approve the routes is tantamount to �selling out� our vital national interests, as it testifies to the Government�s lack of independence and the magnitude of helplessness borne out of being beholden by something unknown to the public. Fact is: India wants to use Bangladesh territory to connect its mainland with its North East, and, to use Bangladesh�s ports for the economic wellbeing of the landlocked North Eastern states. Above everything, India wants to overcome its military handicap in the insurgency-infested North East by using this connectivity.
Hence, for Bangladesh, the decision making mechanism in allowing such a scheme shall be the one used in recent past by both nations. For example, after the devastation of hurricane Sidr, Indian High Commissioner said in response to Bangladesh�s demand for rice: �We can not sell rice to Bangladesh keeping our people starved. �Well said. Likewise, amidst unprecedented pressure - even by using senior US diplomats - to obtain gas from Bangladesh in 2003, Dhaka made a realistic assessment of its gas reserve and spare-able capacity and said no to India. That decision too was wise. Six years on, Bangladesh doesn�t have enough gas to keep its own industries and electricity generation facilities functional.

Structural inhibitions
Being aware that India's main intent is to serve the entire land-locked North Eastern region comprising seven large states (known as seven sisters) by using the proposed Highway, Bangladesh must calculate the premium involved with respect to traffic-related-logistics and infrastructural repairs, which, cumulatively, will outweigh any expected material gain it may hope for from the venture. Added to the danger to be posed by inadequate capacity of our ports, the future of this project could be suicidal.
Country's main port in Chittagong is overburdened and ageing. It also handles almost eighty-five percent of the country's sea-borne trade. Established in the 15th century, this moth-eaten establishment gained its full potential only after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. Of its 15 operational jetties, only 13 are equipped with shore cranes, each having a lifting capacity of only about 1.5 tons. Since 1991, its only floating crane (used for lifting heavier cargos) remained out of order, until recently.
Besides, the river-moorings have no shore cranes and ships berthed at the moorings still use their own derricks or cranes for unloading or loading cargoes. Despite the construction of - or conversion into - few container berths in recent years, the capacity of the port is as yet not sufficient enough to meet our national needs, let alone serve foreign nations. The sinking of a small ship on the entry to the jetty had left the port crippled for weeks over a month ago, further testifying its limitations.

Mongla is incapable
On the other hand, Mongla is not a full-fledged sea port as yet. Even last week the main dock of the port got submerged by the tidal waves caused by the latest hurricane in the Bay. The port is virtually an anchorage to allow ships load and unload their cargoes into barges and coastal ships moored in the middle of the Pussur River. And, the draft of the river being shallow, navigation of large ship remains unsafe as yet, although few new berths built over the years allow light draft vessels to berth at the jetties.
Coupled with the chronic instability caused by an unruly bunch of highly politicized labour force, Mongla port can hardly be trusted to serve foreign interests involving international commitments of a powerful, bellicose neighbour and the consequences of potentially reneging on any binding commitment could prove unmanageable. Besides, the limitations for further modification of the port are compounded by surrounding private properties and stationing of naval ships and naval activities all around.
Based on such realities, any decision by the Government to allow the proposed highways to enter from and exit to India via Bangladesh can lead to devastating consequences, involving serious national security implications. Such a decision may also impact adversely the existing relationships between the two close neighbours to the extent of provoking hostile moves by either side. Whether the Government agrees or not, this is certainly not the highway to heaven. Rather the very opposite of it.

HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE

 

[Cockpuncher]

Awami stooges ploy to give indian corridor in the name of Asian highway have once again exposed in great extent in following article. Article pointed out how india do not want to provide access through its territory ( to Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan) but using indian installed Awami stooges for corridor plan. These Awami stooges claimed to be elected by people of Bangladesh but sure working for indian agenda than interest of bangladesh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIRTUAL CORRIDOR TO INDIA

Deadly game with nation's fate

M. Shahidul Islam


It�s like watching a movie already seen twice. Or, it could be the recurrence of a hellish nightmare? The reasons that had compelled the last BNP-led Government not to approve the proposed Asian Highway in December 2005 remain alive, but the AL-led regime has agreed in principle to approve the three different routes, only to turn the entire country into a virtual corridor of India.
The Communication Ministry on May 21 made the decision following a meeting in which roads and railway secretary ASM Ali Kabir and senior officials from the foreign, defence, home and finance ministries, ERD, roads and highways and railway departments were present. Following the meeting, Communication Minister Abul Hossain, as well as a spokesperson of the ministry, confirmed that the Government had approved the scheme in principle. It�s a deadly game with nation�s fate.

Whither Asian Highway from Japan to Turkey?
The decision is dangerous both on counts of its historicity and the cost and benefit calculations. Since the proposal for the Asian Highway was mooted first in 1959, some 15 countries, including Pakistan, became founding members by signing the agreement. Bangladesh too is considered a founding member by virtue of its integration with Pakistan until 1971. Then, following decades of vacillation and bargaining, the United Nations Economic and Social Council for Asia Pacific (UNESCAP) managed to draft an Intergovernmental Agreement for the 1,41,000 kilometers-long roadways that would crisscross many Asian countries from Japan to Turkey, to reach the shores of the Atlantic Ocean and the continent of Europe.

Connectivity with India
As the move intensified with the tempest of globalization whipping the world in the last decade, a total of 27 nations ratified their participation (32 had signed so far) by 2004 while the deadline for Bangladesh expired in December 2005 following the BNP-led alliance Government�s negation to accept the proposed route on ground that it would compromise country�s national security by turning Bangladesh a virtual transit and corridor of India.
The economic and infrastructural viabilities too did not favour a positive decision from Dhaka. For, of the three routes proposed by the UNSECAP for Bangladesh - AH1, AH2 and AH 41 � two of them serve solely Indian interests at the cost of harming economic and geopolitical interests of Bangladesh.
Being surrounded by India from all sides excepting the Sea to the south and the limited outlet with the Myanmar, the BNP-led alliance regime decided instead to pursue aggressively to linking Bangladesh with Myanmar in order to reach the Far Eastern countries as part of a comprehensive Look East policy.
Sources say that decision was based on three major factors: First, various bilateral deals have already made connectivity with India easier over the preceding decades, without yielding better economic opportunities for Bangladesh. Secondly: Dhaka�s main concern was how to connect landlocked Nepal, Bhutan and the Indian North East with Chittagong and Mongla ports to integrate those economies with the regional mainstream. Third: Bangladesh could reach the Asian mainland only via Myanmar, not via India.

Economics and geopolitics
Added to those concerns were the perspectives of sovereignty, economics and geopolitics. As the three proposed routes are slated only to facilitate transportations of Indian goods from the Indian mainland to the Indian North East via Bangladesh - and impose unbearable pressure on the two ports of the country �- Chittagong and Mongla �- which can barely cope with our own needs at the present - the BNP-led regime insisted on choosing the third route (AH-41). The other two routes (AH-1 and AH-2) being both economically and geopolitically non-viable, and, having serious implications for the nation�s sovereignty, the deadline in December 2005 was quietly allowed to pass by.
How can such a decision be faulted �- and reversed without considering its implications�- when the 495 kilometers long AH -1 will connect Tamabil, Sylhet, Kachpur, Dhaka, Jessore with Benapole; only to render Bangladesh into an Indian corridor by facilitating connectivity between the Indian states of Tripura and Manipur on one side, with Assam and the West Bengal on the other, by using the territory of another sovereign nation? The same is true of the 805 kilometers long AH- 2 which will connect Banglabandha of Panchagarh, Hati-Kamrul of Sirajganj, Dhaka, Kachpur and reach Tamabil again, only to re-enter India across the Sylhet frontier.
Although the third route, 752-kilometer AH- 41, too will serve to carry goods for India from the Mongla port by connecting Bagerhat via Jessore (and thence to Benapole), it seemed comparatively harmless as it will traverse past Dhaka before proceeding toward Teknaf and Cox�s Bazar to eventually connect Myanmar.

An Indian Highway
That is how the connectivity scheme the Government decided to approve will allow construction of an Indian Highway, not an Asian one, given that none of those routes will connect Bangladesh with other Asian nations who are part of the scheme. Barring Myanmar, with which Bangladesh has already arranged bilateral land connectivity, the two other points of connectivity with India neither allow Bangladesh to reach the Tokyo to Ankara Highway (as the Asian Highway is meant to be) nor the other nations who are part of it (Japan, South Korea, (India excepted), Indonesia, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, China, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Bhutan, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos and Malaysia).
Besides, there are allegations of Indian influence- peddling in choosing and doggedly pursuing the implementation of the proposed routes. Sources say the AH-1 route will enter Bangladesh from India via the western Benapole frontier and will exit again to India through northeastern Tamabil of Sylhet. That seems to be an Indian Highway stretching from West Bengal to Tripura and Assam.
Likewise, the AH-2 will enter Bangladesh from northwestern Banglabandha frontier and will reach again Tamabil. The two routes entering from and exiting to India are meant to facilitate the huge volume of traffic to and from Indian North Eastern states. Only the third route being an internal (or sub-regional) link to connect southeastern Mongla port with Teknaf near the Myanmar frontier, the previous government wanted the third one to be the main route to bolster our �Look East Policy� that aimed at fostering economic cooperation with Myanmar, China, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Nepal, Bhutan left adrift
Who�s behind this highway game and why did it resurrect once again? Sources say India having enormous influence over the UN and its affiliated bodies, Delhi choose to intensify the �politics of highway� since 2004 after Bangladesh commissioned a land port at Banglabandha ( in Panchagargh district) to facilitate exports to Nepal, Bhutan and the Indian North East. The port was expected to increase trading with these nations via the 61 km corridor (between Bangladesh and Nepal) and the 68 km corridor (between Bangladesh and Bhutan).
Following this move from Dhaka, India choose to impose upon Bangladesh, via the UNESCAP, the proposed routes for Asian Highway; two of which (AH-1 and AH-2) were designed to enter Bangladesh only to re-enter India. Only the third route (then known as AH-3) was left to connect Myanmar to allow Bangladesh�s exit to the Far East.
Analysts say it was an Indian ploy to obtain corridor through other means. And, coming as it did following Dhaka�s negation to export gas to India, Delhi�s stance could be summarized as very stubborn: �my way or highway.�
However, the lack of Delhi�s empathy was too visible to ignore. After all, Dhaka�s decision to commission the Banglabandha port came amidst repeated Nepalese insistence to open the land port due to a Nepal-India bilateral agreement preventing Nepalese trucks from directly entering Bangladesh and vice a versa. Those inconveniences were compounded further by the necessity to off load everything from trucks inside India for custom and security inspections.
Not only that. Despite repeated requests to facilitate Nepal-Bangladesh, Bangladesh-Bhutan and Bangladesh � Indian North East connectivity via those corridors, India persistently pursued the UNESCAP to impose on Bangladesh the two routes to serve its own geopolitical and economic interests at the cost of disadvantaging Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan.
Reliable sources claim that the previous BNP-led regime�s negation to comply with the Indian demand for gas, transit, corridor, and, finally, the Asian Highway have had much to do with what followed in Bangladesh since October 2007.

Policy of subservience
That being the backdrop and the reality, the AL-led Government�s decision to approve the routes is tantamount to �selling out� our vital national interests, as it testifies to the Government�s lack of independence and the magnitude of helplessness borne out of being beholden by something unknown to the public. Fact is: India wants to use Bangladesh territory to connect its mainland with its North East, and, to use Bangladesh�s ports for the economic wellbeing of the landlocked North Eastern states. Above everything, India wants to overcome its military handicap in the insurgency-infested North East by using this connectivity.
Hence, for Bangladesh, the decision making mechanism in allowing such a scheme shall be the one used in recent past by both nations. For example, after the devastation of hurricane Sidr, Indian High Commissioner said in response to Bangladesh�s demand for rice: �We can not sell rice to Bangladesh keeping our people starved. �Well said. Likewise, amidst unprecedented pressure - even by using senior US diplomats - to obtain gas from Bangladesh in 2003, Dhaka made a realistic assessment of its gas reserve and spare-able capacity and said no to India. That decision too was wise. Six years on, Bangladesh doesn�t have enough gas to keep its own industries and electricity generation facilities functional.

Structural inhibitions
Being aware that India's main intent is to serve the entire land-locked North Eastern region comprising seven large states (known as seven sisters) by using the proposed Highway, Bangladesh must calculate the premium involved with respect to traffic-related-logistics and infrastructural repairs, which, cumulatively, will outweigh any expected material gain it may hope for from the venture. Added to the danger to be posed by inadequate capacity of our ports, the future of this project could be suicidal.
Country's main port in Chittagong is overburdened and ageing. It also handles almost eighty-five percent of the country's sea-borne trade. Established in the 15th century, this moth-eaten establishment gained its full potential only after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. Of its 15 operational jetties, only 13 are equipped with shore cranes, each having a lifting capacity of only about 1.5 tons. Since 1991, its only floating crane (used for lifting heavier cargos) remained out of order, until recently.
Besides, the river-moorings have no shore cranes and ships berthed at the moorings still use their own derricks or cranes for unloading or loading cargoes. Despite the construction of - or conversion into - few container berths in recent years, the capacity of the port is as yet not sufficient enough to meet our national needs, let alone serve foreign nations. The sinking of a small ship on the entry to the jetty had left the port crippled for weeks over a month ago, further testifying its limitations.

Mongla is incapable
On the other hand, Mongla is not a full-fledged sea port as yet. Even last week the main dock of the port got submerged by the tidal waves caused by the latest hurricane in the Bay. The port is virtually an anchorage to allow ships load and unload their cargoes into barges and coastal ships moored in the middle of the Pussur River. And, the draft of the river being shallow, navigation of large ship remains unsafe as yet, although few new berths built over the years allow light draft vessels to berth at the jetties.
Coupled with the chronic instability caused by an unruly bunch of highly politicized labour force, Mongla port can hardly be trusted to serve foreign interests involving international commitments of a powerful, bellicose neighbour and the consequences of potentially reneging on any binding commitment could prove unmanageable. Besides, the limitations for further modification of the port are compounded by surrounding private properties and stationing of naval ships and naval activities all around.
Based on such realities, any decision by the Government to allow the proposed highways to enter from and exit to India via Bangladesh can lead to devastating consequences, involving serious national security implications. Such a decision may also impact adversely the existing relationships between the two close neighbours to the extent of provoking hostile moves by either side. Whether the Government agrees or not, this is certainly not the highway to heaven. Rather the very opposite of it.

HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE

can u explain how this highway will deteriorate indo-bangaldesh relationship?

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Don't give India corridor and there will be war in 10 years. Give them the corridor and there will be war in 3 years.

 

[idune]

Editorial
Govt seems to be undermining Tipaimukh danger

THE Awami League-led government, it increasingly seems, has somehow been convinced by its New Delhi counterparts that there is benefit for Bangladesh to be had from the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam/s on the river Barak. Ever since the Indian high commissioner disclosed late last week India’s plan to go ahead with the construction of the dam, at least three members of the cabinet said Dhaka would not oppose the project if it benefits Bangladesh. The commerce minister, Faruk Khan, as usual, came up with by far the strongest hint that the government may have been already convinced that dam could after all benefit, and not harm, Bangladesh, when he told journalists on Tuesday that ‘those who are talking too much against construction of the dam are talking without knowing anything…’ He did say the government ‘will soon send a delegation comprising experts and parliamentarians to see what is going on there and how it will benefit Bangladesh.’ That is, however, hardly reassuring.
It would indeed be interesting to know who the commerce minister was accusing of ‘talking too much… without knowing anything’; after all, the individuals who have been at the forefront of the ever-intensifying wave of opposition to the Tipaimukh project are mostly experts with years of experience under their belts. Interestingly still, many of them are Indians. They are unanimous in their conclusion that the Tipaimukh Dam/s would wreak an environmental disaster of an unimaginable magnitude and adversely affect millions of people on either side of the Bangladesh-India border who rely on the Meghna river system for their livelihood. Needless to say, their conclusions are based on an ever-growing pile of scientific evidence.
The benefit that the government may be envisaging, i.e. import of electricity generated from the dam, could turn out to be a chimera. In an article published in New Age on May 21, Dr Solbam Ibotombi, who teaches earth sciences at Manipur University and is a staunch critic of the Tipaimukh project, writes that ‘the dam was originally conceived to contain the floodwater in the Cachar plain of Assam but, later on, emphasis has been placed on hydroelectric power generation, having an installation capacity of 1,500MW but only firm generation capacity of 412MW.’ If so is the case, what percentage of the 412MW of electricity the government expects to import from India, which is no less electricity-starved than Bangladesh, and at what cost? As argued by Ibotombi and other Indian experts, the cost involved here is not just the cost of electricity but the irreparable economic and environmental damage that the project is likely to cause.
When there is a growing body of scientific evidence as well as strong opposition within India against the Tipaimukh project, the argument put forth by the commerce minister and some of his colleagues, i.e. there may be benefit in the project for Bangladesh, can hardly be construed as being a product of naivety and inadequate knowledge. In fact, given the Indian government’s perceived predilection for the Awami League, it could very well be construed as the government’s willingness to submit to Delhi’s plans. Here, the credibility of the government is not at stake alone, the livelihood of millions of people in India and Bangladesh is as well. The ministers in question would surely have done a great service to the country and to themselves if they took the pains to gather the details of the dam project and also go through the scientific evidences that point at the potential economic and environmental damage that the Tipaimukh project would cause. If they had, they might have thought twice before suggesting that Bangladesh is likely to benefit from the project and that the critics of the project are ‘talking too much… without knowing anything’.

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/may/28/edit.html

 

[glitteringstar]

India stopping your waters and Bangladesh providing routes to India to connect within their country. Why dont your media create awareness in common people about this issues?

 

[BanglaBhoot]

India stopping your waters and Bangladesh providing routes to India to connect within their country. Why dont your media create awareness in common people about this issues?

A section of the media not controlled by India or the AL is creating public awareness. There is a growing consciousness and developing movement against the Tipaimukh dam in particular.