Multi-faces of Corridors and Connectivity The need for corridors and connectivity are in some cases common for some countries and groups in South Asia (SA). But, the need for the same for some countries and groups remains unique in nature in the said region. In cases, where the need is common for some countries, no extra favour is required. Only the reciprocity among the concerned countries can solve the problem quite smoothly. Where the need for countries or groups is unique in nature for one or more number of countries, to meet it up a positive gesture from the counterpart or countries concerned is essential to solve the problem. This is immensely important for the greater interest of the regional trade and commerce, socio-economic development, peace, security and stability. For example, if we consider the case of corridor issues for the people living in the enclaves; both Bangladesh and India have enclaves inside each-others territories. To resolve the corridor problem Bangladesh and India signed Indira-Mujib Treaty in 1974. Bangladesh was forthcoming and ratified the treaty in the Parliament in the same year. But India is languishing till date. Notably, since the signing of the treaty four decades have passed. India still did not ratify the treaty in the Parliament. As such, the people of Bangladesh living in the enclaves with in the Indian Territory are leading inhuman life for decades after decade. What could be the core reason for India not ratifying the treaty in the Parliament? In my view, one main reason could be attitude problem. Because, India being a powerful country, showed utter negligence to the grave problem. Unfortunately, Bangladesh also could not pursue bilateral matter in a forceful manner to get it resolved. It is surprising though, India in a deliberate attempt is all set to enjoy corridor facilities through Bangladesh for the free movement of men and materials between mainland India and North-East Indian States. How lucky she is! She needs such corridor facilities for many reasons to include economic, strategic and security reasons. The fact remains that North-East India is not separated from mainland India. As such, movement of men and materials can be accomplished between mainland India and North-Eastern States through her own territory. Still she prefers to use Bangladesh as corridor for the reasons as mentioned. It may be noted that Siliguri in West Bengal to Guwahati in Assam is well connected. But, this move becomes costly and also hazardous from security point of view. Thus, the corridor facilities through Bangladesh would benefit India financially and it would always be risk free. Should India gets the opportunity to shift military hardware and troops, it will provide her the strategic gain – definitely a huge bonus point. As such, India considers the corridor facilities through Bangladesh as a ‘safe heaven’ and also a strategic gain. Obviously, India is determined to ensure this facilities at all costs. Anyway, should India considers this to be most essential, then it becomes a unique requirement of her. No other country would be benefited out of it. What is funny in the corridor issue is India’s effort to befool Bangladesh or give bluff to people of Bangladesh by naming the corridor facilities as transit or transshipment or simply ‘connectivity’. Sometime back Indian negotiators attempted to sign ‘an umbrella transshipment agreement’ to solve corridor problem behind the curtain. Later, it was stalled for the reason not known to me. We all know the criterion of transit. It definitely involves a movement to a third country. For example, if a person wants to travel from country A to country B and eventually he needs to move via country C; in such case country C becomes the transit point. But, in this case, a person from mainland India (area A) to move to North-East India (area B) is in no way under obligation to move through Bangladesh (country C). The reason being, area A and B are directly communicable. Besides, if at all anyone moves from area A to area B through country C; it will not be a transit for the reason that he is moving from one part of India to another part of India only. There is no involvement of third country. Thus, what India is pursuing for is definitely the corridor facility and it cannot have a second name. Now, if we consider the problem Nepal and Bhutan, both the countries being land-locked need corridor facilities through Bangladesh and India to have access to seaport. This is a unique need of the two countries to facilitate their trade and commerce, which are most essential for their socio-economic development. Though Bangladesh and India are not affected in this case, but both the countries should extend support to these two land-locked countries so that they access to seaport and expand their trade and commerce. There are members of ultraviolent groups remaining active in different part of SA region and peripheral bordering countries. Some of these groups are engaged in secessionist movement and some of them are devoted to ideological movements. In broad term all these movement groups are considered as ‘outlawed groups’ by state powers. But in different segment of the society they have different identities. Two identities are quite common and frequently used by different media to introduce them. One such identity is ‘secessionist movement’ groups. The groups operating in North-East India and Indian administered Kashmir fall in this category. The other common name being, ‘Maoist’ groups. The groups pursuing ‘leftist ideology movement’ as a whole fall in this category. The secessionist movement groups of North-East India and Jammu & Kashmir claim to be fighting for self-rule and they consider themselves to be the freedom fighters. On the other hand the leftist ideology movement groups operating in different area with different names; but they have almost the common ideology based on Maoism. The known leftist ideology groups operating in mainland India are Peoples’ Revolutionary Group (PRG), Peoples’ War Group (PWG), Maoist Communist Center (MCC), Naxal etc. Off late, the leftist ideology groups have extended their area of operation up to North-East India through Indian State of West Bengal. In mainland India, in at least 14 states the leftist ideology groups alias Maoists have their significant presence. These states in chronology of adjacent states from West to East are Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Maidhaya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Chattishgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal. Thus, at the Western end if they extend their hands towards West, they can very well shake hands with the Kashmiri groups. Likewise, at the Eastern end if they extend their hands towards further East, they can shake hands with the North-East Indian groups. The secessionist movement groups in Jammu & Kashmir and North-East India have no ethno-religious similarity. But, they are all fighting for the identical cause against Indian Union and confronting Indian Security Forces. Besides, the leftist ideology groups also do not have any ideological harmony with neither the Kashmiri groups nor the North-East Indian groups. But, they are also fighting against Indian Security Forces. As such, a possible solidarity among all these groups in near future cannot be ruled out. The leftist ideology groups are continuously on the lookout for corridors and connectivity to remain connected with the bordering and peripheral countries of SA to facilitate their training, operation and administrative activities. The secessionist movement groups are also making all-out efforts and using their ingenuity and finding shelters in inaccessible areas of India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bangladesh. They also use the ‘no man’s land’ of the border areas as corridor for their movement. Thus, they remain well connected with the SA and peripheral countries. To be more specific about the movement of these groups, few scanty information are given here. Reportedly, Maoists groups operating in mainland India use Nepal as corridor for their connectivity with China. Besides, secessionist movement groups of North-East India using ‘no man’s land’ along international boundary to reach up to ‘golden triangle’ for arms trading. This is well known to many of us. In near future, taking the benefit of wide connectivity (when it will be effective/developed) they may expand the illegal arms trading activity. If that be the case, it may worsen the regional security situation and take the illegal weapon trafficking to a new height. Now it depends on regional defence and security experts, specially, the defence and security experts of Bangladesh and India as to how best they be able to handle it. Understandably, the only use of gun and military might may not yield desired result. Rather, the actual solution possibly lies with the political leaders and policy makers who can get together and address all the issues discussed above, case to case basis. To my understanding, this is most essential for the peace, security, stability and socio-economic development of the region. There is no reason of denying the fact that both Bangladesh and India needs to extend connectivity with the countries of the Eastern region. This is most essential to foster trade, commerce and socio-economic development of the two countries. Appreciably, there lies no peace meal solution to the problems stated above. Historically, Bangladesh continuously maintained positive attitude with a submissive posture to have amicable solution to the existing and foreseeable problems. Even Nepal and Bhutan also had positive mindset. But, the ‘Big Brother’ India always maintained rigidity to keep intact her unilateral national interest. Now, there is a change in regime in India. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has come to power with absolute majority. BJP leader Mr Narendra Modi, who is also the Prime Minister enjoys huge authority. Should he wish, he can change things for better; though he possesses poor track record. Now, we have to wait and watch as to how the scenario develops under Mr Narendra Modi? Before I conclude, I would like to make a mention about the ‘Chinese Master Plan’ of greater regional connectivity, which they made in public in 2013. They have named it land and maritime ‘New Silk-Road Project’. The project is for the greater economic and strategic interest of China for which she developed required infrastructure over the years. Today, in this mail I will not give details on ‘Chinese Master Plan’ of greater regional connectivity. I keep it pending for a future mail. The above synopsis would hopefully give a food for thought. Anyway, I continue to work on all these issues in relevant details. If we ever get scope, we hope to have fruitful discussions, at least on the important ones among the aforesaid issues. Such discussions will enable us to exchange our views and derive mutual benefits. Specially, I will be more educated should I get the opportunity.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:02:17 +0000