Sadeq Khan
Whether or not “Modi”-fication of the government of India by election-2014 has prompted Delhi to accept the verdict of United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in Hague on Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary delineation between India and Bangladesh without an ado, the Modi government of India certainly proved to be more amenable to territorial settlement with India’s smaller neighbours than its predecessor governments led by Nehru-Gandhi hierarchy. Perhaps the vision of greatness of “Hindu” India begets more pragmatism than that of Nehruvite “Akhand Bharat” or Mother India that must resist being carved.
Modi’s foreign policy goal was enunciated in his own words to his party workers in Delhi on the first of June as follows: “We have never thought beyond the country’s frontiers. We are a big country, we are an old country, we are a big power. We should make the world realise it. Once we do it, the world will not shy away from giving us due respect and status.”
Modi shows pragmatism
As such, he instructed his foreign missions to stop “lobbying” for permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and very pragmatically made his first mark of difference in foreign policy by a gesture of “regional” engagement of benign hegemony, a policy avowedly followed by China in relation to the latter’s close neighbours for several decades. Positive regional response to the invitation by Delhi to all SAARC country heads of state or government, and also to the head of government of Mauritius to attend the inauguration of Prime Minister Modi is an indicator of the so-far-so-good Modi intent to consolidate an ethno-cultural sphere of influence of regional power projection as a stepping stone to India’s big power status in the eyes of the world.
It will take time, however, for the Modi administration to reorient its foreign policy establishment and its adjuncts. As was clear from his foreign minister Sushma Swaraj’s Dhaka visit, little substantive could be obtained by Bangladesh from that visit beyond goodwill all-around and visa term relaxation for teenagers and senior citizens. India obtained right of free passage for food grains cargo for Tripura from Kolkata to meet reported food crisis in that Indian state.
Modi government’s unreserved acceptance of the UN Arbitral Tribunal’s award over its maritime boundary dispute with Bangladesh bears witness to the new foreign policy style (if not yet new content) of “Modi”-fied India.
The opening statement of the Permanent Court of Arbitration award on the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration, Bangladesh v. India, read as follows:
“On 7 July 2014, the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh v. India) rendered its Award. The Award establishes the course of the maritime boundary line between Bangladesh and India in the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf within and beyond 200 nautical miles. A Member of the Arbitral Tribunal, Dr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, concurred in part and dissented in part with the decision reached by the majority of the Tribunal and attached a separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion to the Award.”
The Tribunal award
The Tribunal awarded Bangladesh 19,467 sq km area out of the disputed 25,602 sq km. The judgment is final and binding on both countries, without any scope of appeal. India said that it respected the verdict of UN tribunal that has ruled that most of the disputed 25,602 sq km exclusive economic zone and territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal belong to Bangladesh.
External affairs ministry spokesperson said the Arbitration Tribunal for Delimitation of Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and India, established under the UN Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), has given its award, and: “We respect the verdict of the tribunal and are in the process of studying the award and its full implications. We believe that the settlement of the maritime boundary will further enhance mutual understanding and goodwill between India and Bangladesh by bringing to closure a long pending issue. This paves the way for the economic development of this part of the Bay of Bengal, which will be beneficial to both countries.”
In terms of ongoing hydrocarbon exploration in the Bay, the award made a token compromise, rejecting India’s claims on ten of Bangladesh’s off-shore hydrocarbon exploration blocks, seven of them practically in full, but conceding marginal Indian right in six blocks adjoining the maritime border fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Bangladesh will lose 650 km2 out of 3411 km2 of block 24 far off shore; 500 km2 out of 3402 km2 of block 19 above; 450km2 out of 3392 km2 of block 14; 400 km2 out of 3382 km2 in block 14; 300 km2 out of 6231 km2 of block 5; and near the shore 150 km2 out of 5719 km2 of block 1.
What Bangladesh lost, gained
Bangladesh has also nominally lost to India its claim to South Talpatty which rose offshore in the Bay with silt-loads carried by Haribhanga river of Bangladesh 2 km off the mouth of that river. In 1981, Indian Border Security Forces hoisted Indian flag and set up a temporary camp in the island, now non-existent, which until that time acted as a shelter for Bangladeshi fishing boats in inclement weather.
On the strength of Radcliffe Award principles of 1947 partition of British India, Bangladesh disputed Indian occupation of that island. It may be pertinent to recall that earlier in 1979, Morarji Desai, the-then Indian Prime Minister of the forerunner political camp of BJP, had agreed with the-then President of Bangladesh for a joint survey of the island’s position before any unilateral occupation, but his successor government of Indian National Congress preferred to act unilaterally.
Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services found in 1984 by satellite images that the western part on the Bangladesh side of the island was on the rise, but in 1990 the total island began to erode. In 1990, the island disappeared in satellite image. The Permanent Court of Arbitration simply refused to take cognizance of a non-existent island as a shoreline claim of either side and drew the maritime boundary on the basis of existing shoreline point of division between the two countries to draw the maritime boundary line.
Lesson from the case: Bangladesh should take its common river disputes with India also to the UN. Equitable review of Ganges Water-sharing Treaty and settlement of Teesta flows downstream may be better obtained under the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Waterways by Bangladesh signing that Convention, now that it has become operational, than by talks with South block potentates. It may also facilitate Modi command in Delhi over his recalcitrant bureaucracy to allow settlement by UN adjudication of bilateral disputes with neighbours, to improve regional rather than chauvinistic outlook for growth and economic power.
Source: Weekly Holiday
