Missing a historic chance

By Praful Bidwai

Monday, September 19, 2011 

Did India snatch defeat from the jaws of victory during its prime minister’s first visit to Bangladesh in 12 years? The answer is largely yes, although the visit also registered some gains. On balance, the Indian leadership squandered a historic chance to overcome mutual distrust and transform the India-Bangladesh relations to a point where they reflect the potential for exemplary cooperation between the two neighbours, with huge benefits to both and to the South Asian region.

The visit’s biggest vitiating factor was West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who adopted an unreasonable and parochial stand on sharing the waters of River Teesta and pulled out of the trip. Could her obstinacy and temperamental behaviour have been anticipated? Was enough groundwork done to prepare her for an equitable sharing of the river’s waters? There are two divergent accounts of this. One says Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s representatives, including National Security Adviser Shiv Shankar Menon, tried hard to convince Banerjee that the interests of her state, in particular, the North Bengal districts, were being taken care of in the Teesta agreement with water shared in a 52:48 ratio between the two countries. Banerjee first agreed, but suddenly raised micro-level issues, such as sharing the flows during the lean season. During that season, West Bengal, she insisted, would concede no more than 25 percent of the flow at a barrage called Gazaldoba, which lies 90 km inside Indian territory. Menon took this proposal to Bangladesh for discussion.

But meanwhile, Banerjee abruptly decided to boycott the trip. She is reportedly extremely keen to build a base for her Trinamool Congress party in North Bengal, where the Left and the Congress are traditionally strong. According to the second account, the Central government failed to reassure Banerjee sufficiently, and could have done so had it worked harder on the larger picture. At that picture’s centre is the historic wrong India committed by unilaterally diverting the waters of the Ganga by building a barrage at Farakka in 1975. This was grossly unfair in and of itself. Worse, the diversion caused enormous losses of food and fisheries production in Bangladesh for almost two decades. According to Ashok Swain of Sweden’s Uppsala university, Farakka changed the river’s hydrology, “disrupted fishing and navigation, brought unwanted salt deposits into rich farming soil, [and] affected agricultural and industrial production ...”, causing an annual loss estimated at 2 to 2.5 percent of the GDP. This is equivalent to the effect of the entire Information Technology sector being taken out of the Indian economy! Even worse was the human tragedy, including large-scale displacement, destitution and forced migration.

Farakka became a symbol of Indian domination and stoked anti-Indianism in Bangladesh, which the Right cynically exploited. Anti-Indianism entered the mainstream. Banerjee could have been persuaded to understand the importance of undoing this blunder. She might even have comprehended the inequity of the current Teesta water-sharing pattern, under which India reportedly has access to about 32,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) of water during the lean season for eight million people, while Bangladesh must make do with just 5,000 cusecs for 20 million. Unfortunately, such a focussed effort was not made. Even if it had been, it’s conceivable that Banerjee would still have been obstructionist – for wholly narrow, short-term political reasons. As a last resort, the Centre could have asked for more time to negotiate a satisfactory Teesta accord, and still tried to get Banerjee on board. That didn’t happen. The Teesta failure is a huge setback to the cause of radically reforming Indo-Bangladesh relations.

Singh’s Dhaka visit was billed as a game-changer, which would pave the way for a Bay of Bengal community, including Burma, and provide greater linkages with Nepal and Bhutan, thus promoting South Asian integration. It would also greatly facilitate transit and trade between India’s northeast and the mainland. Transporting 45 percent of all goods to the region through waterways, roads, rail and air links via Bangladesh would yield enormous savings in fuel and time. The advantages of developing this backward and restive northeast cannot be overstated. India must reverse the damage by negotiating fair and equitable agreements on all the shared rivers with Bangladesh as quickly as possible. India must acknowledge that Bangladesh has legitimate concerns about some Indian dam projects such as Tipaimukh in Manipur. These must be addressed in a cooperative spirit. The Bangladesh government has acted positively on India’s demands on transit and security. It has refused to provide sanctuaries to insurgent groups from the northeast, enabling the agreement now being reached with the United Liberation Front of Asom.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has gone out of her way to meet Indian requests, often at the risk of being branded unacceptably pro-Indian. India should do more than reciprocate all this. Indian policymakers need to remind themselves of the Gujral Doctrine, a worthy principle which held that India’s dealings with all her neighbours barring Pakistan must go beyond strict reciprocity, to generously unilateral gestures. (I would argue this should apply to Pakistan too, especially in trade and people-to-people exchanges, but that’s another matter.) The Gujral Doctrine created goodwill for India, and helped counter the charge that India has a Big Brother-like attitude towards its smaller neighbours and doesn’t hesitate to interfere in their internal affairs, as it did by sending troops to Sri Lanka, imposing an embargo on goods going to Nepal, and militarily intervening in the Maldives. It’s imperative that India rectify not just the image, but the object (its relations).

As India-Bangladesh relations go, it is not enough for New Delhi to rest on the small gains made through the various agreements signed in Dhaka on the land boundary, biodiversity conservation, economic cooperation, and a $750 million loan for trade infrastructure, etc. India must correct the huge imbalance in bilateral trade, with a deficit of $4.5 billion vis-à-vis a country that’s 15 times smaller in economic size. Readymade garments make up 80 percent of Bangladesh’s exports. In 2008, India started giving “duty-free” access to them, but still levied a countervailing duty of 4 to 12 percent, thus taking away with the left hand what was given with the right hand. The garment quota was raised from eight million pieces to 10 million last year, but Bangladesh exhausted this year’s quota in the first six months.

India still has 480 items on its “negative” trade list for Bangladesh. But if all these were to be given true duty-free access, it would cost India a paltry $5 million loss in revenue, according to a 2008-09 estimate by the Centre for Policy Dialogue in Dhaka. Such access would greatly boost investment, growth and employment in Bangladesh, with immense benefits for regional integration. India must develop imaginative strategies in trade, economic and cultural cooperation, education and action to combat climate change. Bangladesh is one of the world’s most climate change-vulnerable countries. Parts of India’s East Coast are equally vulnerable. Cyclone Aila, which devastated large swathes in Bangladesh and India’s Sunderbans, showed this in 2009.

As a precondition for this change of stance, India must stop seeing itself primarily as part of the global Big League and relate seriously to the South Asian region to which it belongs, geographically, culturally and strategically.

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and human-rights activist based in Delhi. Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in

 http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=68341&Cat=9

Mamata Banerjee and our disappointment

Syed Badrul Ahsan

THE DAILY STAR, Wednesday, September 7, 2011

OP-ED

Ground Realities

There is little question of the pre-eminence Mamata Banerjee holds in Indian national politics, a place she has earned over the years through, first, her active role in the Indian National Congress and then in her own Trinamul Congress. She was a leading voice of dissent in West Bengal (recently renamed Paschimbanga) until she ran the Left Front out of power in the state in May this year. Equally significant has been her role in two union governments, in which she has served as minister for railways both times. Her present role as a crucial coalition partner in the UPA government in Delhi is a reality the powers that be in India do not ignore, for reasons which are only too obvious.

It was therefore only natural for everyone in Bangladesh to have been enthused by the thought that Mamata Banerjee would be on the team Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would lead to the talks with the Bangladesh government in Dhaka. As chief minister of a state with which Bengalis on this side of the political frontier have shared culture, indeed heritage and for a long time a state of unified politics (until the vivisection of the subcontinent in 1947), she certainly could have looked forward to a warm welcome from us. Now that she has decided not to be in Bangladesh with her nation's prime minister, we are truly saddened and genuinely surprised.

Our surprise is there because her refusal to be in Dhaka has given a sudden battering to our expectations. Where we had expected that Ms. Banerjee would play a major role in ensuring that the people of Bangladesh and the people of Paschimbanga shared the waters of the Teesta, as they have shared so many things throughout their long association in history, we are now left handling a situation where we must scramble to undo some of the damage she may have done to the future of India-Bangladesh relations. Clearly, the chief minister is unhappy at the way the Manmohan Singh government has been conducting negotiations with the Bangladesh government, with the probable terms of the deals Delhi and Dhaka mean to reach on key issues of common interest. By opting out of the trip to Dhaka, she has likely pushed back an opportunity for Bangladesh and India to inaugurate a new, more mutually beneficial relationship between each other.

We understand that Mamata Banerjee is miffed at the union government's failure to take her on board as it has sought to hammer out a deal with the Bangladesh government. The government, she has reasons to feel, would not have dealt with a Left Front administration (had it been in office) the way it has dealt with hers. She puts it across to people that the Indian prime minister has kept her in the dark about the negotiations in Dhaka. That, again, is rather a far-fetched idea, seeing that it would be politically naïve, even suicidal, on the part of the Delhi authorities to ignore a critical state, one with which Bangladesh shares much more than rivers and a border, as they go into hammering out a deal with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her government. The extent to which Ms. Banerjee's feelings may have been misplaced is borne out by the fact that the union government kept her fully apprised of what it meant to do in Dhaka. Senior government functionaries were in touch with her three times and kept her posted on the details of the draft agreements to be discussed with the Bangladesh authorities. That only upholds the collegial attitude the Manmohan Singh administration has adopted in governance. Where the Trinamul is concerned, the prime minister has been particularly careful, especially since he needs the Banerjee government's support on any deal with Bangladesh over the Teesta waters and especially again because the Trinamul Congress happens to be a key element in the ruling coalition in Delhi.

The question, ours, is then simple: given the facts, why did the Paschimbanga chief minister pour cold water, in that clichéd manner of speaking, on a bright new promise that looked about to open up a shining new dawn for the people of Bangladesh and India? That matters had been discussed with her, that the political system India is governed by affords little room for the centre to bypass state governments on anything of either a domestic or international nature, is a truth that does not come into question. And yet Mamata Banerjee, clearly for reasons that she has not spelt out, reasons we suspect have to do with domestic Trinamul politics in her state, has now pushed the entire gamut of Delhi-Dhaka negotiations into a bad state of uncertainty. We cannot but reflect on whether Jyoti Basu or Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee would do what Mamata Banerjee has done. Basu remains a hugely loved figure in Bangladesh. Bhattacharjee has always been aware of the historicity of the links which have consistently kept the two Bengals in a state of firm bonding.

Our disappointment at Mamata Banerjee's withdrawal from the negotiations in Dhaka is deep. Even so, we keep hope going -- that Manmohan Singh and Sheikh Hasina will yet strike a deal which will reinforce the links between their countries, that they will give a new meaning to history through injecting new substance and impetus into its various and varied contours.

The writer is Editor, Current Affairs, The Daily Star. E-mail: bahsantareq@yahoo.co.uk

Manmohan says Mamata assented to Teesta deal

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addresses the 

media on board his special flight to Delhi on Wednesday.

By Praveen Swami

THE HINDU, September 8, 2011 (On Board air india one)

Indian negotiators still unaware of West Bengal's special objections to water deal, highly placed sources say.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that the West Bengal government assented to a strategic water-sharing agreement with Bangladesh before backing out of it over the weekend — and thus forcing India to resile on its international commitments.

Dr. Singh said he had consulted with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for over a month on the details of the treaty, asking National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon “to seek guidance from her.” “I was told that all technical details were sorted out,” Dr. Singh told journalists on-board his flight home from Dhaka.

Last week, the Trinamool Congress raised objections to the draft treaty at a meeting of the Cabinet's Political Affairs Committee. “I again sent Shankar Menon to visit Kolkata,” Dr. Singh said. “He had a meeting, and what the Chief Minister said, and what Mr. Menon understood, he took to Dhaka, and the arrangement was made.”

But, Dr. Singh continued, “some other factors came up and therefore Ms. Banerjee said that she will not accompany me to Dhaka. “It was only subsequently,” he insisted, “that I learned her disagreement was on account on what we were attempting to do on the Teesta.”

Indian negotiators, a highly placed government source told The Hindu, have still received no explanation for West Bengal's eleventh-hour decision to reject the draft water-sharing treaty — making it impossible for them to explain the country's stand to their Bangladesh counterparts or to lay the foundations for an alternative agreement.

Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed said on Tuesday night that New Delhi and Dhaka had “reached an understanding on water-sharing in the Teesta and Feni rivers” — the first official acknowledgment of just how close negotiators were to closing a deal.

The agreement, diplomatic sources told The Hindu, envisaged that India would be entitled to just under half the Teesta's waters, and called for both sides to carry out joint studies on how much was available before setting up a bilateral body charged with administering the treaty.

However, New Delhi was forced back out of the deal just hours before the Prime Minister's arrival in Bangladesh, after Ms. Banerjee refused to travel with him to Dhaka. Ms. Banerjee has made not offered an explanation of precisely what objections she has to the proposed treaty, but sources in her party said the draft presented to Bangladesh differed from the one she discussed with Mr. Menon.

The Prime Minister declined to discuss Ms. Banerjee's claims, saying he did not want to “enter into a disputation.”

The troubled Teesta

Even though farmers in Bangladesh will be the immediate beneficiaries of the Teesta treaty, it has huge implications for India. The treaty, which will provide a template for agreements to share the waters of 53 rivers with Bangladesh, will also help India establish principles for pressing its claims to rivers originating in China.

India and Pakistan began talking about the Teesta's waters soon after Independence. The talks went nowhere. In 1961, India adopted unilateral plans to build a barrage on its side of the border, raising concerns downstream.

Following more years of failed talks, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a consensus statement in 1976 which directed both countries to arrive at a “fair and expeditious” agreement. Even though the India-Bangladesh joint rivers commission held over a 100 meetings, a deal could not be hammered out.

Bangladesh completed construction of the Dalia barrage, the country's largest irrigation project, in 1979. The Dalia project was intended to use the Teesta's waters to irrigate some 540,000 hectares of land in the country's northern rice-growing heartlands. From 1985, the 4,500-km canal network meant to carry the Teesta's waters to farmers opened its gates.

The farmers got the water they desperately needed — but then, just a few years later, the canals ran dry.

In 1993, farmers in West Bengal began to get water from the Gazoldoba barrage in Jalpaiguri, which India had built on the Teesta. The Indian project supplied water for 228,000 hectares — farmers who used their votes to ensure that their needs were met before Bangladesh.

From 1996, scholars Yoshiro Higano and Muhammad Fakrul Islam have noted, India's “exclusive control of the Teesta's water in the dry season at Gazoldoba made the Dalia barrage useless.” In the monsoon, they said, releases of water from the barrage caused “floods and bank erosions, leading to serious suffering”.

In 1997, though, a draft treaty on the Teesta was hammered out, a year after the former West Bengal Chief Minister, Jyoti Basu, helped steward a landmark treaty on the Ganga. “He was a great man,” the Prime Minister acknowledged today.

Little progress was made in the decade and a half since, breeding bitterness in desperately-poor Bangladesh where farmers are hit by crippling water shortages in low-rainfall years.

Bengal LF Memo to PM

Date: 25 August 2011

Memorandum Submitted to The Prime Minister By the

Left Front Committee, West Bengal on August 25, 2011

Dr. Mammohan Singh

Hon’ble Prime Minister

Government of India

South Block, Raisina Hill

New Delhi 110 101

Dear Prime Minister,

At the very outset, we would like to thank you for sparing some of your valuable time from your busy schedule and having agreed to meet the delegation as undersigned.

We have met the Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal on 16.05.2011 and on 12.08.2011 to apprise him of the reign of terror unleashed by All India Trinamul Congress (AITC) following the declaration of the last Assembly Election results in West Bengal. In this connection, a delegation from the Left Front Legislature party in West Bengal also met the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 03.06.2011. Since then, the Leader of the Opposition has written six letters to the Chief Minister which proved abortive as there has been escalation of terror and violent attacks in the State.

We are fully aware that the Law & Order as presently prevailing in the State is primarily under the jurisdiction of the State Government. However, in the background of recent developments of the Left Wing Extremists’ (LWEs) affected areas in the southern part of the State and in the Hills, Dooars, Terrai and adjoining areas in North Bengal, the present state of unrest distrust exist among the different linguistic people are jeopardising the spirit and unity, integrity and harmony in these sensitive area. We firmly believe that the Union Government can not afford to be a silent spectator in a situation like this.

The Left Front Government, when it was in office, fully agreed with your assessment of the Left Wing Extremism (LWE) as the greatest danger to the internal security of the country. There had been remarkable success in confronting this menace by the co-ordinated actions of the Central and State Governments by successful use of the joint forces. Unfortunately, the new Government in the State has completely reversed this stand, thereby giving the LWEs a freehand to regroup and expand their area of operation much beyond what had existed ever before. The State Administration, while keeping the joint forces idle, has concentrated its offensive against the leaders and workers of CPI(M) in particular and those of the Left Front parties in general, who had been at the fore-front of the political, ideological and developmental process, in a word, multiform battle against the self-styled “Maoist”. Even the present ruling parties of the State are unable to carry out their political activities in those areas. Even the adjoining States have complained against the inaction of the West Bengal Government in this regard.

The way the tripartite agreement has been signed on the problems of the Hills keeping the opposition and, we believe, the PCC in West Bengal, in dark, will further complicate the situation there. Keeping on record the demand of Gorkha Jana Mukti Morcha (GJMM) for a separate State of ‘Gorkhaland’ and opening a Pandora’s Box by providing a High Power Committee to explore the possibilities for inclusion of new areas, from Dooars, Terrai and Plains in the proposed Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA). These are clear departures from the understanding arrived at the tripartite meetings held when the Left Front Government was in the office. We believe, you will agree, that this will lead to discontent, particularly among the tribal and other people of the Dooars, Terrai and Plains and resultantly will destabilize the situation in these sensitive areas. In view of the situation which has developed there may be threat to the security of the country.

In the situation stated above we are compelled to seek redressal of our grievances from your honour. A complied report of Post-poll violence unleashed on the Left in this State as on 15.08.2011 is annexed herewith for your kind perusal and necessary intervention. As summary of this report reveals that 30 Left Front leaders and workers [CPI(M) : 28, RSP : 2] have been killed and 7 more were abetted to commit suicide during this period; 684 women were assaulted physically, 508 molested and 23 raped; 3785 persons had to be hospitalized for the treatment of injuries suffered by them and many more were forced not to lodge complaint and seek hospital treatment. There had been 2064 number of arson and looting of houses and 14081 persons were evicted from their place of living. Around 40,000 in total had to leave their home under threat. To buy peace and stay in their home, people have been forced to pay money to the local AITC leaders and workers. According to a conservative estimate, total extortion amount thus paid might exceed Rs. 277.7 million. 758 Party, Trade Union and other Mass Organisation offices were either attacked, ransacked, burnt, forced to close or captured. 77 Student Union offices have been captured. Their office-bearers have been driven out, some of them forced to resign and even others denied to appear for their Exams. There has been a widespread attack on the rights of the peasantry where by 3418 Ryots were denied the right to cultivate their own lands amounting 9222.73 acres. Besides 26838 number of Patta holders and Share croppers have been forcibly evicted from 9222.02 acres of Patta and Barga lands. While Maoist and KLO militants are promised to be released as political prisoners, thousands of Left Front activists have been implicated in false cases on fabricated grounds including those instituted on the plea of so-called recovery of arms. Even the Left Party organs have not been spared. 241 Boards displaying Ganashakti daily in public have been dismantled and thousands of its copies have been burnt and the hawkers have been beaten up in order to disrupt its circulation chain.

All democratic institutions, the Panchayats, Municipalities, Co-operatives, different elected bodies of educational institutions have been made defunct either by attacks, intimidations or Government fiats. Even in certain areas teachers, non-teaching staffs and students are not allowed to enter their institutions.

The State is in unrest. The districts affected by the terror unleashed by AITC, the Jangalmahal now made a sanctuary for the ‘Maoists’, the mounting tension in the Hills, Terrai, Dooars and the adjoining plain in the North are glaring examples. Basic democratic rights of all sections of the people of the state are under threat. Even the INC, the partner of the ruling coalition, is not spared from these attacks. Even armed conflicts between the different factions of AITC are taking place. Anarchy has come to prevail over the rule of law. People of the state can not be expected to remain a silent spectator in this situation for long.

We sincerely request you to take immediate remedial measures to restore peace and normalcy in the State.

With regards,

Yours truly,

Biman Basu

Chairman

Left Front Committee, West Bengal

Left Front Parties:

1. Communist Party of India (Marxist)

2. All India Forward Block

3. Revolutionary Socialist Party

4. Communist Party of India

5. Samajwadi Party

6. Democratic Socialist Party

7. Marxist Forward Block

8. Revolutionary Communist Party of India

9. Biplabi Bangla Congress

10. Workers’ Party

PM under fire over Mamata's Naxal stance

Mail Today Bureau
New Delhi, October 30, 2009

Manmohan Singh's parrying of questions relating to Mamata Banerjee in Srinagar on Thursday afternoon was clear evidence that the government is no longer immune to the implications of a cabinet minister playing footsie with the Maoists. The Prime Minister was quizzed on Banerjee's reported remarks that there were no Maoists in the country. " I have not seen this statement. Obviously, the Maoist threat is a reality and the government is dutybound to deal with it," he said.

The PM then went on to stress that the Maoist issue had to be dealt with in a holistic way that included enforcing law and order and carrying out development in tribal areas. But the Trinamool Congress chief apparently has more pressing concerns than the government's discomfiture.The prime among them is the 37 assembly seats in the Maoistdominated Purulia, Bankura and Midnapore districts in West Bengal. Trinamool Congress is not the party of choice for the voters of this region.

However, the anti-Maoist offensive in Lalgarh has inflamed a suppressed ire against the ruling party, and Mamata is keen to harvest electoral benefits.So the railway minister refrained from categorically distancing herself from the radical outfit. Indeed, her initial response to the Rajdhani Express hijacking was to blame the CPM. " The Maoists have denied their involvement in the incident. It might have been done by CPM cadre," Banerjee had said in New Delhi. She also addressed those behind the abduction as " friends".

The CPM seized the opportunity to demand a probe into the train hijack and charge Trinamool with " patronising and protecting" Maoists. In an editorial in the party mouthpiece People's Democracy , the CPM asked the PM to explain the role of central ministers in this regard.Clearly conscious of the dangers of such accusations, it was left to P. Chidambaram to fight the CPM's offensive.

The Union home minister attacked the Left, saying that its leaders like Prakash Karat should first ask the West Bengal government about what was happening in the state.But his ministry asked the railway ministry to ensure that at least a dozen armed escorts are posted on all Rajdhani, Shatabdi and other superfast trains running through Naxalitehit areas. It also warned railways there were intelligence inputs about Maoists targeting more trains in the next six months.

PM DR MANMOHAN SINGH VS CONGRESS LEADER DR MANMOHAN SINGH

KOLKATA,2nd May: Dr Manmohan Singh addressed a Congress rally in Howrah on 1st May and said that ‘recently the Congress has published a report card on the working of the Bengal government with which I tend to agree, and it is shown there that Bengal has dropped back in various developmental activities.’

The same Dr Manmohan Singh had said on 12 January, 2005 while in Kolkata that ‘when I see newspapers call Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee the best chief minister in the country, I am not surprised. I agree with this statement. Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and his government are working away with courage, with the heart in the right place, and with intelligence. This is what is needed for the development of the nation. Bengal is about to re-claim the position of leadership in the country.’

Need one add anything more?