Bridging The Breach

In a nutshell, the 30-year-treaty signed by Hasina and Prime Minister Deve Gowda provides for fair and equitable sharing of water during the lean season from January-May. From March 1 to May 10, the critical period of this season, it guarantees a flow of 35,000 cusecs in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. It also provides for the setting up of a joint committee to oversee the implementation of the agreement, and allows review by either nation every five years, earlier in case of problems. The joint committee will submit annual reports to both governments, and in case of a deadlock over any issue, refer it to the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers’ Commission for redressal.

This is certainly a far better arrangement than the ad-hoc system being followed since 1988. Before that, there was a five-year pact (1977-1983) which guaranteed 35,000 cusecs of water to Bangladesh. Then, an MOU was reached uptil 1988, after which talks failed and India controlled the water release at Farakka. After 1988, according to Hasina, "Bangladesh didn’t get any water at all". The issue was a thorn in both sides since then, and apart from handing over the Tin Bigha corridor to Bangladesh, there has not been much bilateral bonhomie. The fact that during the run-up to the elections in Bangladesh, Hasina had vociferously called for an end to the Indo-Bangladesh treaty of friendship didn’t help, though she was obviously trying to defuse Opposition charges of being an "Indian stooge".

In New Delhi, she lamely defended her stand by claiming that most of the points of the friendship treaty were already there in the SAARC charter, and didn’t need duplication.

For India, the carefully-worded treaty is a concrete expression of External Affairs Minister Inder Kumar Gujral’s avowed intention to be fair and even generous towards neighbouring countries. Of course, there were some hiccups. West Bengal Chief Minister Jyoti Basu, who was repeatedly praised by both Hasina and Deve Gowda for his role in negotiating the pact, was said to be perturbed over the treaty’s tenure. He had initially agreed to a three to five year treaty, and that too on an experimental basis. But Gowda and Gujral prevailed on Basu to give a tacit nod to the extended treaty, despite the murmurings of protests from the West Bengal Congress, which sees the pact as a sell-out that would affect Calcutta’s efforts to get back on the world port map.바카라 웹사이트

In return, Basu sought an assurance from Gowda that no more dams would be built on the upper reaches of the Ganga, and that additional facilities would be provided for dredging the port to ensure clear shipping paths. He also sought action against unauthorised drawal of water by Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which had led to a decline in the amount of water reaching Farakka.

With this pact putting the water crisis out of the way for a long time, India also hopes Dhaka will be amenable to requests for transit facilities to the North-eastern states, and that it will take action against anti-India groups operating out of Bangladesh. The issue of illegal immigrants is another major irritant.

But India possibly understood that linking the water accord with these issues would not be politically acceptable to Hasina, who would be accused by the Opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party of having indulged in a trade-off.바카라 웹사이트

At the joint press conference, Gowda said the treaty was "a tribute to the special quality of Indo-Bangladesh relations... sanctified by the blood of the martyrs who laid down their lives in 1971. It is also appropriate that the treaty was concluded on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh, which is a landmark in the history of our continent." But whether the newly-signed treaty will be a watershed in Indo-Bangla relations remains to be seen.바카라 웹사이트