Too friendly an overture to India by govt, again
THE Awami League-led governments decision to allow transhipment of food grains from Kolkata to Tripura via the river port at Ashuganjthat, too, without any chargeraises a few questions. According to a report published in New Age on Saturday, the decision was taken at a meeting on April 29 at the shipping ministry, chaired by the prime ministers economic adviser, in line with a directive from the Prime Ministers Office. The consignment will cross the Bangladesh border from Ashuganj by trucks to be hired from Bangladesh, says the report. When a proposal for imposition of charge for the use of infrastructure in Bangladesh was placed in the meeting, the prime ministers economic adviser waved it aside, saying Bangladesh will provide India with the transhipment facility on humanitarian ground, the report adds. It is pertinent to recall here that, under a similar special transit facility, India carried heavy equipment through the same route to a 720-megawatt power plant, then under construction, in Tripura in two separate consignments in 2011 and 2012 without any fee, triggering public protests here. It is also pertinent to recall here that India has for long been seeking access to land, port and rail facilities in Bangladesh for carrying goods from its mainland to its land-locked northeast states to reduce hassle and transportation cost.
Of course, in line with the amended Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade, based on which Ashuganj in Bangladesh and Shilghat in India have been declared ports of call in May 2010, India can tranship goods from one part of its territory to the other through Bangladesh. However, the protocol requires both the countries to agree on, among others, duties for the service set by the host country following its customs laws. While such agreements have not yet been arrived at because of various reasons, particularly the lack of adequate infrastructure in Bangladesh, the protocol itself has drawn severe criticism from different quarters that deem it to be detrimental to Bangladeshs national interest. Moreover, the economic advisers humanitarian ground argument appears questionable; for, there has been neither any report of food crisis and/or other exigencies in Tripura nor any official appeal from the Indian government for exemption of transhipment charges that we are aware of. Notably, the economic adviser also opposed a proposal made earlier by government officials to impose transit fees on India, terming such an action uncivilised. As such, the decision seems to indicate a continuation of the AL-led governments policy to appease India, even at the cost of undermining national interest, although the latter has so far treated the formers concern over, say border disputes and water-sharing of trans-boundary rivers, with sheer indifference, if not downright disregard.
It is indeed time for conscious sections of society to raise their voice against the governments apparent appease India policy and sustain the pressure on the incumbents so that they do not enter into any agreement or arrangement with India that undermines Bangladeshs national interest. Meanwhile, the incumbents would be well advised to revise the decision in question.
Too friendly an overture to India by govt, again
THE Awami League-led governments decision to allow transhipment of food grains from Kolkata to Tripura via the river port at Ashuganjthat, too, without any chargeraises a few questions. According to a report published in New Age on Saturday, the decision was taken at a meeting on April 29 at the shipping ministry, chaired by the prime ministers economic adviser, in line with a directive from the Prime Ministers Office. The consignment will cross the Bangladesh border from Ashuganj by trucks to be hired from Bangladesh, says the report. When a proposal for imposition of charge for the use of infrastructure in Bangladesh was placed in the meeting, the prime ministers economic adviser waved it aside, saying Bangladesh will provide India with the transhipment facility on humanitarian ground, the report adds. It is pertinent to recall here that, under a similar special transit facility, India carried heavy equipment through the same route to a 720-megawatt power plant, then under construction, in Tripura in two separate consignments in 2011 and 2012 without any fee, triggering public protests here. It is also pertinent to recall here that India has for long been seeking access to land, port and rail facilities in Bangladesh for carrying goods from its mainland to its land-locked northeast states to reduce hassle and transportation cost.
Of course, in line with the amended Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade, based on which Ashuganj in Bangladesh and Shilghat in India have been declared ports of call in May 2010, India can tranship goods from one part of its territory to the other through Bangladesh. However, the protocol requires both the countries to agree on, among others, duties for the service set by the host country following its customs laws. While such agreements have not yet been arrived at because of various reasons, particularly the lack of adequate infrastructure in Bangladesh, the protocol itself has drawn severe criticism from different quarters that deem it to be detrimental to Bangladeshs national interest. Moreover, the economic advisers humanitarian ground argument appears questionable; for, there has been neither any report of food crisis and/or other exigencies in Tripura nor any official appeal from the Indian government for exemption of transhipment charges that we are aware of. Notably, the economic adviser also opposed a proposal made earlier by government officials to impose transit fees on India, terming such an action uncivilised. As such, the decision seems to indicate a continuation of the AL-led governments policy to appease India, even at the cost of undermining national interest, although the latter has so far treated the formers concern over, say border disputes and water-sharing of trans-boundary rivers, with sheer indifference, if not downright disregard.
It is indeed time for conscious sections of society to raise their voice against the governments apparent appease India policy and sustain the pressure on the incumbents so that they do not enter into any agreement or arrangement with India that undermines Bangladeshs national interest. Meanwhile, the incumbents would be well advised to revise the decision in question.
Too friendly an overture to India by govt, again
