For example, Nepalese trucks are allowed to remain in India for 72 hours. This is a reciprocal arrangement, but inconvenient for Nepal. Nepalese trucks traveling between Kakarvitta and nearest port Haldia (Kolkata) in India take more than 72 hours, due to delays in obtaining customs clearance; police escort, for which a payment has to be made but which is not readily available; highway checking; and long queuing, un/loading and inadequate berthing facilities at the port. Nepalese truckers cannot make it in 72 hours. As a result, Nepal has lost all in and out bound trucking business to India.

Nepal and Bangladesh wanted transit through India. The Phulbari corridor agreement was signed accordingly between India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan. However, the 619 km long corridor, transiting only 43 km between Panitanki and Phulbari in India did not materialize.

India did not develop infrastructure at Banglabandha. It did not allow traffic through the bypass which could reduce the transit distance to half. Also, India did not field the customs and immigration staff, who had to be called in from Siliguri or elsewhere. The land port has remained virtually closed to trade and transit between Bangladesh and Nepal.

The government should learn a second set of lessons concerning non-tariff barriers practiced by India in its trade with Bangladesh. The government, as well as the private sector representatives discussed this issue with India in all bilateral and regional forums. Agreements including Safta were reached, but never fully adhered to by India.

For instance, Indian customs authorities routinely impose spot customs duties that are considerably in excess of the agreed upon tariffs. Example: on April 1, six hundred tons of processed betel nuts were found lying at Petrapole for days awaiting customs clearance, because India suddenly imposed a 100% duty on import of this item, and on April 16, truckloads of raw jute and jute bags were found awaiting customs clearance for days at Petrapole, because India increased duty to 15% and required additional 4% on raw jute.

In addition, Indian Customs change HS codes to push goods to higher tax category, re-fix the prices to over valuation, require chemical tests (performed in Delhi), etc. Such non-tariff barriers impacted negatively on all exports by Bangladesh.

None of the banks in the seven states in the north and NE India is allowed to open Letter of Credit (LC) for import of any commodity from Bangladesh. An importer is required to travel to a designated bank in Kolkata and perform a number of formalities to open LC.

Finally, the process for obtaining product clearances by Indian national and various local chambers and associations is discouraging. Application form is hardly available and product registration cost is exorbitantly high compared to the low cost of registration of Indian products in Bangladesh.

India's persistent demand for transit by road is well understood. The seven states in north and NE India receive general cargo from the rest of India. Majority of the goods are trucked from Kolkata to Agartala in Tripura. The distance is 1,615 km, which can be reduced by more than 1,000 km if transit is provided through Bangladesh (Benapole-Akhaura). It will save 75% transport costs.

But for Bangladesh, the estimation of costs and benefits of providing road transit to India is not so simple. It involves a number of technical, economic, social and environmental issues and concerns. The road network in Bangladesh is not designed to meet the needs of modern freight transport systems. The roads are unsuitable for movement of heavy goods vehicles with containers due to flow capacity, road width, and axle load constraints.

On the other hand, customs clearance, port demurrage charges, vehicle specifications inclusive of emission standard, road safety, insurance, road maintenance, tolls, code of conduct for drivers, etc need to be addressed. India is not prepared to comply with the established international norms and practices for trade and transit.

Bangladesh and India should jointly consider trade and transit opportunities which are technically sound, economically efficient, and socially and environmentally acceptable to both the countries:

Transit by inland water transport (IWT): The Protocol on Inland Water Transit and Trade provides eight in-transit and inter-country water routes, of which five are used. However, due to accumulation of silt over the past years, the waterways largely lost navigability and also, the existing navigational aids and port facilities are inadequate and inefficient.

Bangladesh and India together should consider restoring the navigability of the most direct Rajshahi-Dhulian route. They should find it worth investing in IWT for transporting low-value non-perishable commodities for environmental, social, and economic reasons, e.g.: (a) low draft water is particularly suitable for barge traffic; (b) one 10,000 horsepower tow-boat can push 40 barges (1,500 tons each) that have the carrying capacity of 600 railcars (100 tons each) or more than 2,200 trucks (25 tons each); and (c) number of kms one ton can be carried by barge per (diesel) litre is 183 km compared to 72 km by rail and 21 km by road.

Transit by rail transport: It is currently performed through four designated land ports; however, constrained by different gauge lines and lack of integration which require transshipment. Low value commodities are transported from eastern India to NE India, mostly by rail from Kolkata to Agortala via Gauhati and Lumding. The distance is 1,635 km. The alternative route, i.e. transit through Bangladesh (Akhaura-Benapole) will reduce the distance to only 625 km.

This would require one shift from broad gauge to meter gauge at Tongi and then back to broad gauge at Akhaura, assuming that the other broad gauge links will be completed as planned. However, the key issue concerning rail transit is the Jamuna Bridge, which was not originally designed for train. India should be willing to invest in rail, since it is more efficient than road. For example, a double-tracked rail line can carry more passengers or freight in a given amount of time than a four-lane road.

Designated trade and transit facility at Chittagong port: For example, tea produced in Assam is largely exported through Kolkata port to Europe. The road distance between Gauhati (Assam) and Kolkata is 1,380 km. If allowed through Chittagong port via Akhaura, the distance will be reduced by 60% to only 530 km.

However, it will still require nine days on average to clear customs, loading into a container and subsequently into the vessel compared to six days at Haldia, Kolkata, and one and a half days at Nhava Sheva, Mumbai (JNPT).

In addition to delays, inefficiency (and corruption) has already made the Chittagong port the most expensive in Asia. The government should address the physical inadequacies, strengthen the customs and port authorities, and promote transparent and accountable inter/national private sector participation.

Implementation of the above three actions concerning transit to India should be adequate, efficient, and equitable. The government should make its position clear to India and get out of the "transit-to-India" quagmire.

The author is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star