Both US and Canada or US and Mexico are aware of this fact. For example, the fumes of sulphur dioxide, emitted from the smelter in Trail of British Columbia, Canada, caused damage to the state of Washington. The US claimed damages from Canada. They went to arbitration. The arbitrator decided in 1941 that no state had a right to use or permit the use of territory for emission of toxic fumes causing damage to the neighbouring state. On that score the US won the case. Again, the US and Mexico disputed sharing waters of Rio Grande and concluded in 1944 an agreement that provides sharing of fixed quantity of waters by both countries.

Since Bangladesh is an almost "India-locked" country (if I am permitted to use the expression), whatever occurs in north-eastern Indian states has a direct and visible impact on Bangladesh. If there exists non-supportive relationship with India, it can be difficult for Bangladesh to address adequately the issues arising out of it.

Given the above scenario, the question is: how do the events in northeastern states have impact on Bangladesh and its effect on India? This question has often agitated the minds of people in Bangladesh. A tentative discussion follows in the paragraphs below:

Unnatural border
During the rule of the British, the border between "old" Assam province and Bengal was demarcated for administrative purposes of the British, ignoring the common language or ethnicity of people between the two provinces. In fact richly endowed with natural resources Assam constituted a hinterland and market of Bengal partly because it was landlocked. So the new north-eastern seven states, carved out of old Assam after independence, suddenly found themselves almost cut-off from the rest of India, except through the land (neck) of West Bengal.

The Radcliffe Award after the partition of the British India in 1947 was drawn haphazardly because Lord Radcliffe was not given enough time by the British government to examine all the factors in laying down the boundary between India and Pakistan. In many sections of his boundary, his writings and the line drawn on the map do not match. For example he describes a river that forms the boundary but actually no river exists on the ground. This inconsistency led India and Pakistan to dispute over the land boundary.

The 1974 Mujib-Indira land border agreement
After emergence of Bangladesh in 1971, Bangladesh inherited the problem. Both Bangladesh and India wisely concluded the 1974 Mujib-Indira Agreement on Demarcation of Bangladesh-India Land Boundary. In the preamble of the Agreement, it states that the purpose of the agreement is "to define more accurately at certain points and to complete the demarcation of the land boundary between Bangladesh and India".

The Agreement is not only to define precisely the disputed areas but also to undertake demarcation of the land boundary so that no confusion or uncertainty exists on the border. Regrettably for more than 30 years, India has failed to ratify the Agreement ( for whatever reasons) and as a result a section of 6.5 kilometer-long boundary on the east involving one of the northeastern states remains un-demarcated.

Security concern and misunderstanding
The insurgency in northeastern Indian states has been there for decades and often it turns into violent forms. It is a matter of great concern for Bangladesh because of its spill over effects on the bordering areas of Bangladesh.

Furthermore there are many tribes who straddle across the borders and often they become involved because of the common affinity and sympathy for members of the same tribe. This implies that an insurgency in northeastern states has destablising impact on the tribal belt of Bangladesh.

One fact that merits attention is to what extent Bangladesh authorities can ward off illegal entry of insurgents into Bangladesh, given the fact that borders are porus and artificial ? Insurgents can easily walk across and hide in dense forests for days together or with common tribal communities in Bangladesh.

It has been the experience that insurgency in the Indian states has led to serious misunderstanding between the two countries. India suspects that its armed militants are hiding in Bangladesh and that Bangladesh is not doing enough either to expel or prevent them entering into Bangladesh.

The repeated Indian allegations of presence of insurgents or militant groups in Bangladesh territory have caused mistrust between the two countries and brought their relations to their possible lowest ebb in recent times. Bangladesh denies the allegations but India is not impressed over the denial. The misunderstanding has affected adversely the overall bilateral relationship.

Furthermore, India has added another complication by insisting and constructing border fence along the no-man's land that, according to Bangladesh authorities, is not permissible under the Bangladesh-India Border Guidelines. India does not agree to the Bangladesh's interpretation of the word "defence structure" of the Guidelines.

Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the Border Guidelines, the fact is that construction of border fence is deeply offensive to people of Bangladesh. Why? It is because unilateral fencing the border is based on suspicion and mistrust and that is not conducive to friendly relations. One reality is that political and economic relations are intertwined and cannot be separated. And as a result people of both countries suffer from such stand off.

Economic globalisation
For economic purposes, the boundaries that separate one nation from another are no more real than the equator. Political boundaries do not define economic compulsion or requirements or consumer trends. In global economy, the meaning of national products has disappeared. No single country produces many of the products that we get in the market. The finished product is a combined effort of many countries. Transnational corporations have established manufacturing outlets in various countries to become cost effective.

That means that it is increasingly difficult to tell the nationality of a product. The recent gigantic airbus 380 manufactured by Eurospace has vital parts built by more than half a dozen countries outside Europe and even Australia has been involved in making certain components for the airbus. The airbus is a global product. Another example of global economy is the product of Reebok sneaker. It has an African name, is made by an American company in South Korea and displays Union Jack (British) as a label.

Economic sub-regionalism with north-eastern states
Let us now examine from another perspective the contiguous location of Bangladesh next to north-eastern states and see whether they can turn into a great advantage to both countries instead of current cause of misunderstanding.

One fact is to be admitted that in South Asia, there is no regionalism in the traditional sense of the term. SAARC has failed to provide the basics of regional cooperation during the last two decades. There is a strong view that sub-regionalism is the pragmatic way to move forward.

Sub-regional cooperation seems to be the order of the day because sub-regional cooperation is based on proximity of geographical areas and common economic interests. The proposed "Kunmimg" initiative among China, Myanmar and Bangladesh is rooted in sub-regionalism of economic cooperation.

In the days of economic globalisation and stiff competition, almost all researchers working on India-Bangladesh cooperation have indicated that a closer cooperation or integration of Bangladesh's economy with that of north-eastern states will turn the eastern region into a "hub" of economic activities. The neglected eastern region has the potential to become an engine of economic growth that may eventually draw in the fold China, Myanmar and Thailand.

Both Bangladesh and northeastern states possess vast energy resources including gas, coal, forests and potential hydropower. The region's persistent energy shortages have been a major factor in its low rate of economic growth. If economic integration or cooperation between Bangladesh and north-eastern states is evolved, both Bangladesh and India will reap immense benefits.

Win-win situation
Many economists believe that for Bangladesh, the following benefits may accrue, among others: (i) bigger market for Bangladeshi goods, (ii) access to energy from northeastern states, (iii) joint enterprise utilising natural gas of Bangladesh, (iv) minerals from north-eastern states for production of cement and other products in Bangladesh and (v) earning substantial revenues by allowing Indian goods through Bangladesh territory or Chittagong port to north-eastern states from rest of India.

On the other hand, India will receive ample benefits such as (a) increased economic growth in the region will eradicate poverty and unrest in north-eastern states and insurgents will have no leg to stand on to advance their rebellion, in the event of prosperity and employment in the states, (b) Indian industrialists could set up industries in Bangladesh, using its natural gas, for export of products to northeastern states and (c) India will save millions of dollars in sending goods to north-eastern states through Bangladesh.

Both Bangladesh and India are gradually integrating into global economy and there is no escape from it for economic growth and development. The eastern region needs to arise from lethargic stupor and break the shackles of poverty of people of the region through intensification of economic cooperation. Private sectors of both countries may pursue the goal vigorously.

What are the difficulties?
It seems that both countries are imprisoned in their old mind-set of so-called "sovereignty" of territories and of unnecessary concerns of security. At the time of robust transnational economic cooperation all over the world, sovereignty of national boundaries is of little relevance. Even during the Cold War, Communist countries in Eastern Europe have cooperated with Western Europe and used transit facilities.

Security concerns seem to have been overblown by both countries to their disadvantage. If goods from India worth more than US$1 billion are annually smuggled into Bangladesh, why does security concern arise when economic cooperation including transit rights is accorded to each other?

Possible strategy
One of the strategies is confidence building measures between Bangladesh and northeastern states. New Delhi may encourage more people-to-people contact between the territories. Bangladesh may consider inviting leaders from northeastern states to attend national social or cultural events in Bangladesh.

Another idea is to consider by Bangladesh authorities to award a few scholarships to students from north-eastern states at academic institutions in Bangladesh as they have earmarked reserve seats for Nepalese students. The purpose of these steps is to build trust between peoples of Bangladesh and northeastern states that in turn will eventually be reflected at the level of the two governments.

Conclusion
The effects of economic cooperation will have multiplier outcomes. The people of north-eastern regions will not be insular and become prosperous and happy. The roots of insurgency will eventually disappear. The unstable region bordering Bangladesh will become secure. Economic cooperation will usher in robust economic growth in Bangladesh and will certainly provide political and economic dividends to India. Both countries will be in a "win-win"` situation.

There is no adequate reason why relations between Bangladesh and India are mired in tension, mistrust and suspicion. The existing climate of misgivings needs to be transformed into a constructive relationship for the sake of people of both countries. Mutually supportive relationship may hopefully become the centrepiece of economic diplomacy of both Bangladesh and India.

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