In a span of less than three weeks, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited both India and China. Former foreign secretary and North South University’s Professor Md Shahidul Haque, in an interview with Prothom Alo’s Raheed Ejaz and Monoj Dey, spoke at length on how far Bangladesh’s expectations were met during the India and China visits, the future of the Teesta project and Bangladesh’s stand in the regional geopolitical tensions.
How was the prime minister’s India visit? How far were Bangladesh’s expectations met?
The prime minister’s India trip was both very timely and fruitful. During this trip Prime Minister Narendra Modi clearly said that Bangladesh was always taken into consideration when drawing up all polices in their country. A vision statement was signed during this visit.
Are you implying that this visit was fruitful in the sense of future relations?
Through this visit the two leaders gave directives for a road map of cooperation to be devised.
While relations have a future, there is also the past and the present. The Teesta deal has been hanging in the air for long. In recent times India has shown interest in joint management of Teesta’s water and had proposed to send a technical team to this end. When a joint technical team gets involved in such a project, a long-term solution emerges. In such circumstances, how do you view the future of the proposed Teesta comprehensive project?
Bangladesh and India are both well aware of the importance and complexity of sharing Teesta’s waters. India is aware that it is unable to do anything about sharing Teesta’s waters and Bangladesh has shown interest in the Teesta project (conservation and management of downstream water) with another country. That is why rather than simply stalling the Teesta deal, India is endeavouring to assist Bangladesh in the Teesta project. India has realised that Teesta has created a wound between the two countries and the wound is widening.
Are you saying that the Indian government has realised that a wound has emerged in relations between the two countries as the Teesta deal has not been signed?
I have observed that this realization has emerged at various levels of India, not just in the government alone. Speaking to the people there, I understood that they felt that after the negotiations had been finalised, the deal should have been signed. They are now looking into ways and means to make up for the damage done.
An MoU has been signed between the two countries for a goods train route that will use Bangladesh territory to commute from one end of India to another. This has stirred controversy in political circles. What will the consequences be of this MoU. Which country stands to benefit?
There is need to clarify what sort of MoU Bangladesh has signed. In future, Bangladesh’s trains will travel via India to Bhutan and Nepal. And alongside India, Nepal and Bhutan’s trains will travel to Bangladesh. Nepal and Bhutan have railway links with India, not with us. Now with the signing of the MoU with India, the railway route to Nepal and Bhutan will be facilitated.
So you are saying that Bangladesh will reap benefit with the railway route facilities for goods and passengers to Nepal and Bhutan, alongside India. But we hear of certain shortcomings in commute to Nepal and Bhutan via India?
It is true that Nepal and Bhutan’s railway network is not that prepared. But this can be readied before the railway travel among the four countries starts. Overall, tariff, security and other details will be worked out to implement this MoU. So railway communications will create equal opportunities for all.
Electricity will be provided from Assam to Bihar over Bangladesh’s territory and a transmission line will be set up for this. How far will Bangladesh benefit?
As far as I know, Bangladesh will be able to get electricity from this transmission line if ever required.
Due to history, heritage, friendship and many reasons, Bangladesh and India’s relations cannot be compared to any other country. Even so, in recent times China has been popping up between the two countries. What triggers India’s sensitivity concerning China?
The world has reached a point where bilateral relations can no longer be restricted to two countries. In present times, partnership between two countries cannot be taken ahead in an isolated manner. That is why global issues are discussed when the prime minister visits India or China. This featured in talks before too, but perhaps not as extensively as now.
So the issue of a third party was there in talks between the two countries before, but now that has increased?
There is another factor to be taken into consideration here. The adversity between India and China is no secret now. It has come forward with more force and is nothing to be concealed.
Connectivity, water and such matters are linked to geopolitics. Sometimes economic issues gain an upper hand, sometimes politics. Unless there is political understanding, unless there is a political balance, it is difficult to do anything major in the economic sector
Does that means the China factor was raised during the prime minister’s India visit?
There may have been an exchange of views. When we visit Brussels or the capital of any other country, there is an exchange of views regarding other countries or regions. This has stepped up more in present times. One must keep in mind, our talks with India were not limited to China alone. Bangladesh is at the centre of the Indian Ocean and so relations with the US, China, Japan, Russia and the European Union all came up in discussions.
You are saying that relations with counter countries in the changed circumstances are discussed. If so, is it important to take all sides into consideration before taking up a major project with any country?
Projects pertaining to railway or water are not just business matters. These are Bangladesh’s strategic resources. We must keep this in mind. So when negotiating over strategic resources, one cannot just base this on the project itself. Connectivity, water and such matters are linked to geopolitics. Sometimes economic issues gain an upper hand, sometimes politics. Unless there is political understanding, unless there is a political balance, it is difficult to do anything major in the economic sector.
Thank you.
Thank you too.
* This interview appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir