Teesta deal not legally dependent on Mamata

[Gandh brandi]

Teesta deal not legally dependent on Mamata
Mizanur Rahman Khan | Update: 15:11, Mar 21, 2017

A Teesta water-sharing deal can not be possible to sign without the consent of Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of India's West Bengal state, may only be a politically tenable argument.
But there is no constitutional obligation to await her nod.

Unfortunately, the Indian media have projected such a perception and pitifully such argument is being echoed by a section of the Bangladesh media too.
Indian expert on Bangladesh affairs Joyeeta Bhattacharjee in The Hindustan Times (10 December 2016) wrote that the consent of Mamata is essential, adding, “Even the Constitution places water under the state list.” Other media in India also carry such misconceptions.

Last Tuesday when the Awami League leader and former member of parliament Abdul Mannan was speaking on similar lines during a discussion on Channel 24, I differed. He was vehement that the water was on the state list. However, Indian premier Narendra Modi’s central government cannot avoid an international agreement on the river Teesta simply because of objections from Mamata’s state government. Yet on the TV talks shows in Bangladesh, they blindly and erroneously point to India’s constitutional obligations.
Using Mamata or her state government’s opposition as an excuse for not signing the Teesta agreement is unacceptable. It would be a breach of truth if we accept that India’s central government wants the treaty but cannot bypass the state government due to constitutional bindings. This simply weakens our government’s bargaining clout.
The fact is that water is on the state list, but that applies to India’s internal water sharing, harvesting and use. In no way has it relevance to signing and implementing treaties with a foreign country. The Indian constitution makes it clear in article 253 that Mamata’s assent is not required for the Teesta deal to be signed. Several constitutional experts have analysed and explained the constitutional clause to this end.

Whether the Bangladeshis involved in negotiating with India are aware of this, is another matter. They should bring the relevant documents of the Indian constitutional experts to the table when discussing with Modi’s officials.
Bangladesh’s water resources minister Anisul Islam Mahmud has said that two Indian prime ministers (Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi) openly committed to signing the Teesta agreement. This is an international commitment.

In the 1997 ‘S Jagannath versus India’ case, the Supreme Court said that article 51 of the constitution upholds the implementation of ‘international commitments’. There are other verdicts that echo this contention. So it is ridiculous to say that the Teesta treaty cannot be signed without any chief minister’s consent.
The Carnegie Centre of India last October published a research paper on ‘Putting the Periphery at the Centre: Indian States’ Role in Foreign Policy’. This was prepared by Happymon Jacob, associate professor international studies as Jawaharlal Nehru University. He indicated that in 2014 Narendra Modi introduced ‘state divisions’ in the foreign ministry, regarding the role of the states in foreign policy. These divisions have been opened up in Chennai, Guwahati, Hyderabad and Kolkata. This has been unprecedented in Indian history. According to Modi, “Team India will not mean only a team in Delhi under the leadership of the prime minister. The chief ministers and others will also be seen as equal partners in the team.”
Is Bangladesh paying the price for this ‘team’ of Modi’s?

Concerning the Teesta, Jacob says, this is an example of how an Indian state can stll diplomatic discussions between two sovereign countries. Jacob refers to how the late chief minister of Tamil Nadu Jaylalitha had opposed an agreement with Russia to establish a nuclear energy centre in Kudamkulam of the Tamil Nadu state. But with Manmohan Singh’s intervention, Jaylalitha made a U-turn and welcomed that Russians to her state.

There are two other instances where the central government paid the price diplomatically for indulging politics in foreign policy. In 2012 two Italian sailors were accused of killing two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast. Kerala was adamant to try them there in order to appease the irate public. This brought diplomatic ties between India and Italy to a standstill. New Delhi paid dearly for this because, in retaliation, the Italian government blocked India from entering the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). The matter lies in court at The Hague. Indian policymakers, of course, may think the weak(?) Bangladesh will not be able to take such action!

Again, the Tamil Nadu government and opposition stood united in their demand to support the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka. Manmohan Singh boycotted the Commonwealth summit in November 2013 in Colombo. This was obviously under pressure of the state government, even though he was aware India would suffer strategically from this decision. It pushed Sri Lanka more towards China.

So it is all hogwash that India’s central government’s hands are tied by the constitution, blocking the Teesta treaty. We should not swallow the excuse of Mamata or the state government’s contentions. Mamata Banerjee will look after her state’s interests.
But has she ever said she would not obey the constitution? It is Delhi that will have to bear the blame for delaying the Teesta treaty.
*Mizanur Rahman Khan is joint editor, Prothom Alo and can be reached at mrkhanbd@gmail.com. The article, originally published in Prothom Alo Bangla print edition, has been rewritten in English by Ayesha Kabir.

 

[A.A. Khan]

Merely excuses, time-buying techniques.
Teesta agreement drama looks like a ploy to pacify Bengalis, India will never increase the water share. Since 1972 it looks for temporary agreements, there is no third party arbitration. The topmost authority one can adhere to is JRC [Joint River Commission] which has'nt had any review about the situation for many years.
Bangladesh share is around 36% on the river flow but cuts are evident.
Nepal and Pakistan both have a arbitration option but Bangladeshis don't shows the Bangladeshi govt. s stupidity

Can't help but laugh on this opinion crap. Which weed does Bangladeshis smoke? No mention of Ganges treaty renewal
Bangladesh has lost most of its hold on water, and India has consolidated on most of the rivers due to Bangladeshi ignorance.
The ecological disaster is visible in Bangladesh, salinity levels have increased, water quality has gone down

Ganges Treaty of 1996 is also temporary treaty of 30 years. Bangladesh needs to get another treaty before that. In best of ties India will offer another adhoc temporary arrangement.

In India, illegal Bangladeshi is another good political topic for their hindu brigade. There are several flashpoints coming in future which will make this govt. arm-twist weak Bangladeshi govt. into more compromises and no deal from indian side.
Water management inside the country also is extremely important. Both these important issues ignored by the opinion writer.

 

[Quibbler]

r u drunk ? cahrs to nahee pee lee?

Quick searches will give you good onsight into economoc projections. Near term economoc projections are more often right than not.

 

[Aasimkhan]

Some how i feel no love lost for Bangladeshi Government. They got what they asked for, period.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Merely excuses, time-buying techniques.
Teesta agreement drama looks like a ploy to pacify Bengali's, India will never increase the water share. Since 1972 it looks for temporary agreements, there is no third party arbitration. The topmost authority one can adhere to is JRC [Joint River Commission] which hasn't had any review about the situation for many years.
Bangladesh share is around 36% on the river flow but cuts are evident.
Nepal and Pakistan both have a arbitration option but Bangladeshis don't shows the Bangladeshi govt. s stupidity

Can't help but laugh on this opinion crap. Which weed does Bangladeshis smoke? No mention of Ganges treaty renewal
Bangladesh has lost most of its hold on water, and India has consolidated on most of the rivers due to Bangladeshi ignorance.
The ecological disaster is visible in Bangladesh, salinity levels have increased, water quality has gone down

Ganges Treaty of 1996 is also temporary treaty of 30 years. Bangladesh needs to get another treaty before that. In best of ties India will offer another adhoc temporary arrangement.

In India, illegal Bangladeshi is another good political topic for their Hindu brigade. There are several flash-points coming in future which will make this govt. arm-twist weak Bangladeshi govt. into more compromises and no deal from Indian side.
Water management inside the country also is extremely important. Both these important issues ignored by the opinion writer.

The India Doctrine
31 March at 16:20 ·

India wants to use Bangladesh unilaterally.

Professor Shaeeduz Zaman, Professor of International Relations Department, Dhaka University. In his interview the Professor spoke on issues relating to the forthcoming visit of our Prime Minister to India and on various topics encompassing Bangladesh’s relations with China. Professor Shaheeduz Zaman was interviewed by the representative of Naya Diganta Assistant Editor, Mr. Altaf Anam.

Naya Diganta: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina will be visiting India. What is the significance of this visit?
Professor Shaeeduz Zaman: In principle, if considering Bangladesh’s interest, the core issue should be on the sharing waters of the Teesta River. India should be clearly told that; a commitment was made and Bangladesh strategically cooperated with India for her North Easter security.
The people of Bangladesh had hoped that India would look after the interests of Bangladesh. In this regard, the long delay and intentional refraining from reaching a solution is indeed depressing. We are now being informed that Mr. Pranab Mukarjee, may act as the facilitator. This process should have started long before. Why did Mr. Narendra Modi not take any steps to reverse Ms. Mamata Banarjee intentions? To be honest Bangladesh’s interests have been totally neglected. The way that Bangladesh extended her hand for ensuring security for Indian North East, the only way evaluate this would be for a solution to Teesta, this would be meaningful. Instead of reaching a meaningful solution, India is delaying the process.Interestingly, many are now convinced that, finally India will never conclude any long term treaty on Teesta issues.

ভারত একান্তভাবে বাংলাদেশকে ব্যবহার করতে চায়
অধ্যাপক শাহিদুজ্জামান। ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ের আন্তর্জাতিক সম্পর্ক বিভাগের অধ্যাপক। প্রধানমন্ত্রীর আসন্ন ভারত সফর এবং চীনের সাথে বাংলাদেশের সম্পর্কের নানান দিক নিয়ে নয়া দিগন্ত প্রতিনিধির সাথে কথা বলেছেন। অধ্যাপক শাহিদুজ্জামানের সাক্ষাৎকার নিয়েছেন নয়া দিগন্তের সহকারী সম্পাদক আলফাজ আনাম

নয়া দিগন্ত : প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনা ভারত সফরে যাচ্ছেন। এবারের সফরের তাৎপর্য কী?শাহিদুজ্জামান : নীতিগতভাবে আমি মনে করি, বাংলাদেশের স্বার্থ যদি চিন্তা করা হয়, এই সফরের মূল বিষয় হওয়া উচিত তিস্তা নদীর পানি বণ্টন। সুস্পষ্টভাবে ভারতকে এটুকু জানিয়ে দেয়া- এ বিষয়ে একটি অঙ্গীকার ছিল এবং বাংলাদেশ উত্তর-পূর্ব ভারতের নিরাপত্তার প্রশ্নে বড় ধরনের কৌশলগত সহযোগিতা ভারতকে দিয়েছে।
বাংলাদেশের মানুষও আশা করেছিল ভারত বাংলাদেশের স্বার্থ দেখবে। এ বিষয়ে যে দীর্ঘসূত্রতা এবং ইচ্ছাকৃতভাবে তিস্তা বিষয়ে কোনো সিদ্ধান্ত না নেয়াটা দুঃখজনক। এখন আমরা জানতে পারছি প্রণব মুখার্জি মধ্যস্থতা করতে পারেন। এ প্রক্রিয়া তো অনেক আগেই শুরু করা উচিত ছিল। নরেন্দ্র মোদি কেন মমতা ব্যানার্জির দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি পাল্টাতে পদক্ষেপ নিলেন না? বলতে গেলে বাংলাদেশের স্বার্থকে একেবারেই অবমূল্যায়ন করা হয়েছে। বাংলাদেশ যত সহজে উত্তর-পূর্ব ভারতের নিরাপত্তার ব্যাপারে সহযোগিতার হাত বাড়িয়ে দিয়েছে, তার মূল্য একমাত্র তিস্তা সমস্যা সমাধানের সাথে মিলতে পারে বা অর্থবহ হতে পারে। এই অর্থবহ প্রক্রিয়াকে ব্যবহার না করে ভারত কালক্ষেপণ করছে। এমনকি অনেকের মনে এই ধারণা আছে- তিস্তার ব্যাপারে ভারত শেষ পর্যন্ত দীর্ঘমেয়াদি কোনো চুক্তিই করবে না।

 

[Nilgiri]

India wants to use Bangladesh unilaterally.

And why would we have it any other way? Its not a question of wanting anyway, we already do....and want to expand this.

Liberation debt is still not paid, not for another 100 years at least.

 

[bluesky]

And why would we have it any other way? Its not a question of wanting anyway, we already do....and want to expand this.

Liberation debt is still not paid, not for another 100 years at least.

What stupid debt are you talking about here? We liberated ourselves, albeit, with Indian weapons. IA military deaths did not exceed even 1300 men killed in action. Whence our own death exceeded hundreds of thousands. The IA weapons that we received were returned in hundred fold when IA troops took away all the important PA weapons after the war.

But, when an ignorant guy like you is asking for liberation debt, your Parikar Pravu is begging us to take $500 million worth of weapons under credit. What a hypocrite guy you are!! Better, India return us the weapons that this miser India managed to steal from BD.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Except Teesta-Bangladeshi's will not accept any other agreements.

 

[Roybot]

There is one very easy solution to this Mamta problem. Make North Bengal into a separate state, aka Gorkhaland.

 

[Species]

Why doesn't India handover certain foreign policy powers to its provincial states so that we can directly deal with West Bengal on this issue and settle it for good? We already have a consulate general in Kolkata.

 

[Tshering22]

Why doesn't India handover certain foreign policy powers to its provincial states so that we can directly deal with West Bengal on this issue and settle it for good? We already have a consulate general in Kolkata.

Because state level autonomy has already been defined in India's constitution as well as legislation. It pertains to social, economic and linguistic autonomy only.

Mamta is a nobody when it comes to negotiating on behalf of India. She is just a provincial leader and her scope of authority is limited to her state's pre-defined internal affairs.

 

[Species]

Because state level autonomy has already been defined in India's constitution as well as legislation. It pertains to social, economic and linguistic autonomy only.

Mamta is a nobody when it comes to negotiating on behalf of India. She is just a provincial leader and her scope of authority is limited to her state's pre-defined internal affairs.

The constitution could always be amended. In this deal, we are already seeing how provincial states can influence a bilateral deal. For a country that is dealing with India, this centre vs state rivalry becomes quite frustrating. It would have been better if we could deal with West Bengal directly and avoid this political and bureaucratic hurdles.

Mamta is already influencing India's foreign relations, especially that with Bangladesh. Why not allow her to negotiate directly with us? That will solve many problems.

 

[Tshering22]

The constitution could always be amended. In this deal, we are already seeing how provincial states can influence a bilateral deal. For a country that is dealing with India, this centre vs state rivalry becomes quite frustrating. It would have been better if we could deal with West Bengal directly and avoid this political and bureaucratic hurdles.

The centre is under no obligation to listen to her if it comes to all its seriousness. But the consequences are going to be in domestic politics. This might take a while but the matter will be eventually sorted out. Problems of a parliamentary democracy.

Amending the constitution isn't that easy. It needs an overwhelming majority support to change it; not to mention deal with the political fall-out of far reaching consequences, especially where country's geography is involved.

Mamta is already influencing India's foreign relations, especially that with Bangladesh. Why not allow her to negotiate directly with us? That will solve many problems.

Because she is corrupt and inefficient. She has turned Bengal into a cesspit and her own fiefdom. She can barely manage a state and you want Modi to give her foreign ministerial powers?

She can pretend for sometime till PM Modi tolerates her. It will take time but that will eventually die down and the matter will get sorted.

 

[Species]

The centre is under no obligation to listen to her if it comes to all its seriousness. But the consequences are going to be in domestic politics. This might take a while but the matter will be eventually sorted out. Problems of a parliamentary democracy.

Amending the constitution isn't that easy. It needs an overwhelming majority support to change it; not to mention deal with the political fall-out of far reaching consequences, especially where country's geography is involved.

The problem is no matter how much you would try to signify the legalities, you can't deny that states do influence the foreign policy of India. So it's better to legally hand them over some foreign policy powers to remove some bureaucratic and political hurdles in such negotiations.

The amendment wouldn't be so hard as you are saying since states would always like to enjoy more power than they are enjoying now. The idea of transferring some foreign policy powers to the states would be supported wholeheartedly by every state in my opinion.

Because she is corrupt and inefficient. She has turned Bengal into a cesspit and her own fiefdom. She can barely manage a state and you want Modi to give her foreign ministerial powers?

She can pretend for sometime till PM Modi tolerates her. It will take time but that will eventually die down and the matter will get sorted.

Corrupt or not she is the one whom the people of West Bengal has voted to power, she has got the public mandate. It's not like she'll control the entire foreign relations of India rather only the ones which affect her state i.e. West Bengal. For Bangladesh, it will be a relief since our convincing tactics in the bilateral negotiations would be a lot different vis-a-vis India and West Bengal. We will, then, have a clear approach in comparison to the confusing approach we are pursuing now. Perhaps, allowing West Bengal to have a permanent representative office in Dhaka would be a good start.