Tongue-in-cheek approach to transit

The 'kind' (mamata) chief minister of West Bengal has decided recently that she is not in favour of solving the enclave situation. She already showed the audacity to snub the PM of India by 'sabotaging' the Teesta water treaty. She is not living up to her name as far as we are concerned. Yes, we have been reduced to the kindness of our neighbour who is quite unkind, I must say.

As of a few days ago, the Indian government wants to renew the transit protocol. By the way, the Indian Parliament has been busy since the PM's visit with a host of legislations, so much so that the treaties with Bangladesh did not make its way for ratification.
In the meantime, we had already dammed the Titas river for the purpose of easement of heavy Indian traffic. It took a public interest lawsuit to instigate the removal of the dam. While we are blaming our neighbour for unilateral withdrawal of water during the dry seasons via Farakkah and Tipaimukh, while we are punishing our own people downstream for their sake. I find the situation extremely ironic.

I also find the whole transit idea shrouded in mystery. What financial benefit do we get out of it? What are the reciprocal benefits from the other side to be exact? What will be the security and safety arrangements to be carried out by both sides? What kind of security personnel will be accompanying their modes of transport? What security shall we provide and what will be the mode of payment for this service? What are the classifications for the types of transports that will be crossing through our territory? Light, heavy, barges, boats, ships? Will it include radio-active materials for future nuclear power stations to be built for peaceful purposes? Will it be limited to consumer and industrial goods or also construction materials and other products that will end up being detrimental to our environment and our livelihood in the long term?

Lots and lots of questions and yet no answers. Looking at the geophysical map, it is obvious that our territory is an impediment to the seamless flow of goods and services from the Indian hinterland to the peripheries of the seven sisters.

They naturally should have a lot to gain from a transit treaty, but so should we.

However, in the face of Indian foot-dragging, I suggest the following.
Let transit facilities be given only via our river-ways, with some connecting roads up-to the border in the Sylhet region, and through the rail networks. Not only that, we should specify each and every river that will be open to the bi-national transit traffic.

First and foremost, let's give them the mighty Ganga. When the river has water, it can be connected to all the other major rivers of the country. Oh it is dry you say? Let them deal with it. We did not make the river dry, did we? Let them solve the water issue for their own sake. Maybe with their own access in stake, the Farakkah issue will be given a different set of priorities. As an incentive, the transit fees will be half during the dry seasons from October through March. Large barges and ships can easily utilise the mighty river.

Then, let's give them Meghna, with no access via Chiitagong port. Why congest up the port? It is barely efficient enough to deal with the turn-around of our own export-import traffic. Let them use the Ganges to access to Meghna and go up to Akhaura.

Since pre-partition times, we have had rail-tracks that have transversed east and west, north and south, across our borders. I say let's revive it. The Kolkata-Dhaka link is grossly underused, with each country with only one weekly passenger service. Historically, Chittagong port was the terminus of the Assam Bengal Railway. The underused and grossly inadequate Mongla port can be modernised and expanded, and connected to the rail networks. Let's update history. (Hint: The $ 1 billion easy credit given to us by India. Let's get it and spend it in these infrastructures for mutual benefit.)

In late October of last year, the advisor for foreign affairs had mentioned a core committee that was supposed to have looked into the transit related modalities of fee structures, modalities etc. I am sure there should be an Indian counterpart to this committee. Hopefully, both will come up with a win-win situation in a transparent manner soon.

While looking up the transit issue, I was looking at some government websites of Switzerland. Why, you ask? Because that country is geographically located smack in the heart of Europe, with behemoths like Germany in the north, France in the east, Italy in the south, and Austria in the east. It has opted to remain out of both the UN and the European Union, and has managed to maintain its tranquil serenity and yet invested billions and billions in the form of tunnels, rail and road links through its territory to facilitate the flow between its giant neighbours. Why? Simply because, other than chocolates, watches, tourism, and banking services, transit provides the Swiss with a gigantic amount of revenue. Instead of the European Union, we have the Indian Union surrounding us. It is time to take advantage of the situation, don't you think?

Back in January of 2001, the Swiss government came up with a 'Distance-related Heavy Vehicle Fee', with the aim of restricting the increase in heavy freight traffic on the roads and promoting the transfer of goods traffic to rail. The policy was introduced not only to streamline the heavy traffic, but also to relive the strain on the environment. In a separate category, there is also a "Performance Related Heavy Vehicle Fee', the fee structure and categories, exceptions, rates per kilometre and per ton, environmental compliant regulations are all articulated and the information is open to the public.

Yes, there are plenty of examples out there without having to reinvent the wheel.

——————————-
MK Aaref is an architect. He studied architecture and urban planning at the University of Houston. Later, he specialised in privatisation during his MBA from Aston University, UK. He currently resides and practices in Dhaka.