A debate has been raging in the country on whether transit facilities should or shouldn't be given to India. Some argue that it shouldn't be given unless some core bilateral issues with India are resolved, while some have advanced the view that transit is an economic issue for trade facilitation and should not be politicised. Some have argued that what India wants is not transit but a corridor.
Whichever view one holds, the fact of the matter is that the transit issue is a complex one. It is a multi-faceted issue. I shall discuss it in the following paragraphs:

Corridor/Transit/Transhipment
The connotation of transit is to be distinguished from that of corridor. In a corridor, a country gives some kind of rights on the land either under lease or within a legal framework to the other country, while in transit there is no question of rights involved in the land territory allowed for transit.
For example, under the Bangladesh-India 1974 Land Boundary Agreement, Bangladesh wanted a lease in perpetuity for a 178 metres x 85 metres area of India's territory near Tin Bigha to connect enclave Dahagram with the mainland of Bangladesh. But, eventually, Bangladesh did not get the corridor from India.
India wants to dispatch goods from western parts of India to its seven land-locked northeastern states through Bangladesh, and no kind of rights exists on the land territory of Bangladesh. This is transit, an inter-country passage, like waterway-transit already provided to India since 1972.
Transhipment is distinct from transit. Transhipment refers to the same inter-country passage using Bangladeshi-owned transportation, whereas in transit Indian-owned surface transport will move through from one end to the other.
In Europe, Germany or Austria send goods to Italy through Switzerland. Another instance of transit -- Alaska dispatches goods to mainland US through Canada.

Is transit an economic issue?
Some argue that transit is an economic issue. It facilitates trade, therefore it may be perceived as such. I would argue that this is conceivable, but for most of the cases political relations define economic relations. History is replete with examples of friendly political relations providing the climate and the incentive for forging closer economic relations. For example, why does Bangladesh not have economic relations with Israel? It is because there is no political relationship with that country.
In that context, for creating a congenial political climate, India has to come up with fair and just proposals to resolve the aforesaid bilateral "bread and butter issues."

Is transit consistent with sealing the border?
Another prickly issue is fencing by India along the Bangladesh-India border. Does sealing-off Bangladesh make India a trusted neighbour?
India, as of June 2007, has been quietly sealing itself off from Bangladesh, fencing 2,500 kilometres in the past seven years. The fencing project will eventually reach across 3,300 kilometres, or 2050 miles, hundreds of rivers, and long stretches of forests and fields.
Of the total 3,300 kilometres fencing, 577 kilometres are in the Assam-Meghalaya border. Work on 91 kilometres has been completed and has been in progress along 129 kilometres. Gradually, India will seal off the 577 kilometres long border in this sector.
The US decision to fence 1,100 kilometres of the Mexican border triggered months of political debate, ranging across immigration policy to the environmental impact. When Israel announced it would build a 680-kilometre barrier around the West Bank, an international outcry erupted.
There has been barely a ripple over India's far larger project begun in earnest in 2000. The Bangladesh parliament must now discuss and debate how and in what way the fencing has an impact on the environment and the people who live in border areas?
While India has been silently sealing off its border, it wants land transit through Bangladesh. Is it not contrary to the spirit behind the fencing of the India-Bangladesh border?

To sum up
Indian Prime Minister Dr. Singh, in a speech on April 3, 2007 at the Saarc New Delhi Summit, spoke of "full regional connectivity" among Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Has it been achieved?
Transit or transshipment through Bangladesh is not a simple issue. But before providing it to India, a detailed study must be undertaken on the advantages and disadvantages that would accrue to people of Bangladesh. The study may include the infrastructure, cost-benefit analysis, risk analysis, and management and security that involve health hazards and environmental impact of hundreds of vehicles moving through Bangladesh. And it would be subject to discussion in the parliament.
The transit issue should be viewed with a comprehensive approach together with other issues mentioned above, and cannot be treated separately.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.