India set to start massive project to divert Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
India set to start massive project to divert Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/may/18/india-set-to-start-massive-project-to-divert-ganges-and-brahmaputra-rivers
19 comments
US$200B will buy a lot of self-contained archaeology. Think 20km x 20km x 300m environmentally contained city with integrated everything. Not saying US$200B of canals won't be good, but if you have 200B to burn and 30 years to do it then maybe you get do better for your buck.
India is already doing in the form of the Smart Cities Mission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Cities_Mission
But what is the point of all these "smart cities" if there is no Water?
But what is the point of all these "smart cities" if there is no Water?
I'm sure that Bangladesh feels much better now...
The difference here is that Germany and the US could be counted upon to negotiate in good faith with their riparian neighbors.
India... not so much.
India... not so much.
I call BS on this. India has always been a good neighbor. If that wasn't the case we would never have been able to resolve the long standing border dispute that existed between India and Bangladesh: http://www.news18.com/news/india/prime-minister-narendra-mod...
The question that really needs to be asked is: Does India have good neighbors? China and Pakistan illegally occupying lands in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, illegal immigration from Bangladesh into North-eastern Indian states, Sri Lanka capturing and killing Indian fisherman, the list goes on and on.
EDIT: There is already a Water Treaty between India and Bangladesh over sharing of Ganges waters at Farakka: http://www.jrcb.gov.bd/attachment/Gganges_Water_Sharing_trea...
You still have doubts over India having bad faith in negotiating with it's neighbors? Give me one instance where India has broken a pact with it's neighbors?
The question that really needs to be asked is: Does India have good neighbors? China and Pakistan illegally occupying lands in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh, illegal immigration from Bangladesh into North-eastern Indian states, Sri Lanka capturing and killing Indian fisherman, the list goes on and on.
EDIT: There is already a Water Treaty between India and Bangladesh over sharing of Ganges waters at Farakka: http://www.jrcb.gov.bd/attachment/Gganges_Water_Sharing_trea...
You still have doubts over India having bad faith in negotiating with it's neighbors? Give me one instance where India has broken a pact with it's neighbors?
what do you mean by "india being always a good neighbour"? yes it used to be, long ago, but not any more. You have no idea how this country is pushing around it's neighbours.
http://www.felanicamp.com/ http://www.thedailystar.net/country/felani-killing-justice-d...
and what do you actually mean by "illigal immigration from bangladesh"? It's actually the both way around. In fact, bangladesh is the biggest and the only destination of all the cow smugglers from india's eastern border.
http://www.thequint.com/india/2015/10/12/cow-smuggling-pay-5...
During the spring/summer, you can cross the Ganges river by walking, if you ever come to rajshahi, chapai-nawabganj border, you will be able to see it yourself.
edit: typo
http://www.felanicamp.com/ http://www.thedailystar.net/country/felani-killing-justice-d...
and what do you actually mean by "illigal immigration from bangladesh"? It's actually the both way around. In fact, bangladesh is the biggest and the only destination of all the cow smugglers from india's eastern border.
http://www.thequint.com/india/2015/10/12/cow-smuggling-pay-5...
During the spring/summer, you can cross the Ganges river by walking, if you ever come to rajshahi, chapai-nawabganj border, you will be able to see it yourself.
edit: typo
> what do you mean by "india being always a good neighbour"? yes it used to be, long ago, but not any more. You have no idea how this country is pushing around it's neighbours.
Both examples you cited are of illegal immigration. There is absolutely no reason for the BSF to kill anyone crossing the border legally.
EDIT: Yes we used to be a good country as long as we allowed illegal immigration and illegal cattle trade. The moment we prevented it we naturally became the bad guys.
> and what do you actually mean by "illigal immigration from bangladesh"? It's actually the both way around. In fact, bangladesh is the biggest and the only destination of all cow smugglers from india's eastern border.
Those cow smugglers are illegally immigrated Bangladeshi's themselves. Read about your smugglers here: http://www.ibtimes.com/cattle-smuggling-dangerous-illegal-hi....
Specific quote: "However, the Telegraph noted that even when soldiers from India's Border Security Force (BSF) seize stolen cattle, they are often attacked or even killed by mobs of people led by the smugglers themselves. Lawmakers fear that the depletion of local cattle would also hurt the farming economy on the Indian side of the border if police do not crack down on smuggling. Putul Chandra Roy Pradhani, the organizing secretary of the All Assam Students Union (AASU), which is better known for campaigning against illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, warned that strict legislation must be passed against cattle raiders as well. “[Cattle] smugglers are taking advantage of flexible laws,” he told the Telegraph. “In 2009 and 2010, [the local government] enforced rules and regulations that almost stopped the [cattle] smuggling. But those rules and regulations are not being strictly imposed now.”
Read about the illegal immigration of Bangladeshi's into India here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_India#I...
Approximately 3 million illegally crossed over to India. How many Indian's crossed over illegally to Bangladesh?
Both examples you cited are of illegal immigration. There is absolutely no reason for the BSF to kill anyone crossing the border legally.
EDIT: Yes we used to be a good country as long as we allowed illegal immigration and illegal cattle trade. The moment we prevented it we naturally became the bad guys.
> and what do you actually mean by "illigal immigration from bangladesh"? It's actually the both way around. In fact, bangladesh is the biggest and the only destination of all cow smugglers from india's eastern border.
Those cow smugglers are illegally immigrated Bangladeshi's themselves. Read about your smugglers here: http://www.ibtimes.com/cattle-smuggling-dangerous-illegal-hi....
Specific quote: "However, the Telegraph noted that even when soldiers from India's Border Security Force (BSF) seize stolen cattle, they are often attacked or even killed by mobs of people led by the smugglers themselves. Lawmakers fear that the depletion of local cattle would also hurt the farming economy on the Indian side of the border if police do not crack down on smuggling. Putul Chandra Roy Pradhani, the organizing secretary of the All Assam Students Union (AASU), which is better known for campaigning against illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, warned that strict legislation must be passed against cattle raiders as well. “[Cattle] smugglers are taking advantage of flexible laws,” he told the Telegraph. “In 2009 and 2010, [the local government] enforced rules and regulations that almost stopped the [cattle] smuggling. But those rules and regulations are not being strictly imposed now.”
Read about the illegal immigration of Bangladeshi's into India here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_India#I...
Approximately 3 million illegally crossed over to India. How many Indian's crossed over illegally to Bangladesh?
well, it turns out that it's not that small !
http://scroll.in/article/664305/dhaka-has-a-question-what-ab...
As for the cow smugglers, you can find gazzilions of exact the opposite stories elsewhere. Also looks like india has Rs 12,000-crore of beef industry, only targeted to bangladesh.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/bang...
let me give you a small example, those crappy TATA cars/trucks only sell in bangladesh, nepal and bhutan (may be?), and no where in the world.
http://scroll.in/article/664305/dhaka-has-a-question-what-ab...
As for the cow smugglers, you can find gazzilions of exact the opposite stories elsewhere. Also looks like india has Rs 12,000-crore of beef industry, only targeted to bangladesh.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/bang...
let me give you a small example, those crappy TATA cars/trucks only sell in bangladesh, nepal and bhutan (may be?), and no where in the world.
Are you seriously this ignorant about TATA group? Go and find out who owns Jaguar and then come back to me with real facts.
well, this used to be a story long time ago. I think, like 8 years ago, in 2008-09. Jaguar went bail-out, and TATA acquired it. Do people still buy jaguar cars? I doubt.
So, you mean now are we going to see those jaguar "trucks" on the streets of bangladesh? holy crap.
You missed the point, could you please name a single country (other than bangladesh, india, nepal, bhutan, srilanka, and pakistan) where those TATA cars run ?
So, you mean now are we going to see those jaguar "trucks" on the streets of bangladesh? holy crap.
You missed the point, could you please name a single country (other than bangladesh, india, nepal, bhutan, srilanka, and pakistan) where those TATA cars run ?
As far as TATA cars selling in the US is concerned please read this article: http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-tata-motors-surge...
Quoting:
"Tata Motors shares surged more than 8 per cent to an intraday high of Rs. 322 after its luxury car division Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) reported a 61 per cent surge in US sales last month.
JLR sold 6,850 units in the US market in September. Sales of the Land Rover vehicles rose 89 per cent year-on-year to 5,855 units, while those of Jaguar fell 13 per cent to 995 units. JLR had posted a 12 per cent rise in US sales in August."
So then who buys those cars in the US? Aliens?
Quoting:
"Tata Motors shares surged more than 8 per cent to an intraday high of Rs. 322 after its luxury car division Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) reported a 61 per cent surge in US sales last month.
JLR sold 6,850 units in the US market in September. Sales of the Land Rover vehicles rose 89 per cent year-on-year to 5,855 units, while those of Jaguar fell 13 per cent to 995 units. JLR had posted a 12 per cent rise in US sales in August."
So then who buys those cars in the US? Aliens?
> well, this used to be a story long time ago. I think, like 8 years ago, in 2008-09. Jaguar went bail-out, and TATA acquired it.
Are you kidding me? Jaguar was on the verge of bankruptcy in 08-09. Now it is one of the most profitable enterprises for TATA group.
> Do people still buy jaguar cars? I doubt.
It sold a total of 462,678 vehicles during 2014, comprising 381,108 Land Rover vehicles and 81,570 Jaguar vehicles. I wonder who bought them? Aliens probably.
> So, you mean now are we going to see those jaguar "trucks" on the streets of bangladesh? holy crap.
Your hatred for anything Indian is clearly evident in this asinine comment.
Are you kidding me? Jaguar was on the verge of bankruptcy in 08-09. Now it is one of the most profitable enterprises for TATA group.
> Do people still buy jaguar cars? I doubt.
It sold a total of 462,678 vehicles during 2014, comprising 381,108 Land Rover vehicles and 81,570 Jaguar vehicles. I wonder who bought them? Aliens probably.
> So, you mean now are we going to see those jaguar "trucks" on the streets of bangladesh? holy crap.
Your hatred for anything Indian is clearly evident in this asinine comment.
> You missed the point, could you please name a single country (other than bangladesh, india, nepal, bhutan, srilanka, and pakistan) where those TATA cars run ?
If you don't like the fact that TATA owns Jaguar/Land Rover, you'll also be interested in knowing that it owns a South Korean car company called Daewoo which is the second largest heavy commercial vehicle manufacturer in South Korea.
TATA also owns Hispano Carrocera which is based in Zaragoza, Aragon, Spain which is one of the largest manufacturers of bus and coach cabins in Europe.
If you don't like the fact that TATA owns Jaguar/Land Rover, you'll also be interested in knowing that it owns a South Korean car company called Daewoo which is the second largest heavy commercial vehicle manufacturer in South Korea.
TATA also owns Hispano Carrocera which is based in Zaragoza, Aragon, Spain which is one of the largest manufacturers of bus and coach cabins in Europe.
I failed to understand, why a giant like TATA keep acquiring all these bailed out companies
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1122730
I know nothing about hispano carrocera (or whatever), if TATA can save these "bailed-out" brands, hope that's good for them.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1122730
I know nothing about hispano carrocera (or whatever), if TATA can save these "bailed-out" brands, hope that's good for them.
If a company can save "bailed-out" brands that is a good thing isn't it? I don't see why you have a problem with that.
Please go watch this video and educate yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku6SAMsyHbo
Next time please research your facts well else you'll only come across as an ignoramus.
Next time please research your facts well else you'll only come across as an ignoramus.
in the US, people opt to sell jaguars and like to get other stuffs, like hyundai sonata or even a saturn ion.
May be, you can sell them to aliens, I don't know.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20145762/ns/business-the_driver_se...
http://jalopnik.com/5929251/the-ten-car-companies-with-the-m...
http://jalopnik.com/5834160/ten-sexy-crap-cars/
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/100-worst-cars-o...
I could go to the line of comparing with other auto conglomerates, like toyota, honda, bmw, volkswagen, but I did not choose to do so.
also, hilariously, looks like it's on the verge of another bail-out --
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/09/jaguar-usa-cuts-prices-...
well, you can do googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA, nothing is going to come out of this, moreover this discussion will fan out to other unrelated topic.
Lets get the facts straight. I have been to both borders (sona-masjid to malda), multiple times, and there is no difference of the economic situations on the both sides, everything is "exactly" the same, both places are extremely poor. Even they speak the same language, the only difference I found was the slight differences in the colloquial accent.
bangladesh-india border is not something that you should compare with the tijuana/san-diego border. The socio-economic difference between tijuana and san-diego is staggering. Honestly, I did not see any incentive for the people on the bangladeshi side to cross to malda so that one day, they might become CEOs of TATAs. In fact, in most cases, people on the both sides have complex familial ties and they also own different (illegal) businesses. But if you look at the tijuana/san-diego border, people from tijuana might be able to become CEOs of silicon valley startups.
btw, I do not hate indians.
May be, you can sell them to aliens, I don't know.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20145762/ns/business-the_driver_se...
http://jalopnik.com/5929251/the-ten-car-companies-with-the-m...
http://jalopnik.com/5834160/ten-sexy-crap-cars/
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/100-worst-cars-o...
I could go to the line of comparing with other auto conglomerates, like toyota, honda, bmw, volkswagen, but I did not choose to do so.
also, hilariously, looks like it's on the verge of another bail-out --
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2015/09/jaguar-usa-cuts-prices-...
well, you can do googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA, nothing is going to come out of this, moreover this discussion will fan out to other unrelated topic.
Lets get the facts straight. I have been to both borders (sona-masjid to malda), multiple times, and there is no difference of the economic situations on the both sides, everything is "exactly" the same, both places are extremely poor. Even they speak the same language, the only difference I found was the slight differences in the colloquial accent.
bangladesh-india border is not something that you should compare with the tijuana/san-diego border. The socio-economic difference between tijuana and san-diego is staggering. Honestly, I did not see any incentive for the people on the bangladeshi side to cross to malda so that one day, they might become CEOs of TATAs. In fact, in most cases, people on the both sides have complex familial ties and they also own different (illegal) businesses. But if you look at the tijuana/san-diego border, people from tijuana might be able to become CEOs of silicon valley startups.
btw, I do not hate indians.
The funny thing is that even the first article you linked to was published on 3/26/2008. Just after being acquired by TATA.
> well, you can do googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA, nothing is going to come out of this, moreover this discussion will fan out to other unrelated topic.
That's precisely what you just did: "googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA". You made a stupid point about TATA not selling it's cars in any country other than India's neighbors and asked me to prove you otherwise. When I called you out on that, you now on the back-foot and instead talk about the "crappiness" of the car and the temporary "declining" sales in the US. You talk about "hilariously being on the verge of another bail out" but I can link you to a more recent article (5 Jan 2016) on Jaguar Land Rover sales picking up in the US by 30%: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/05/jaguar-l...
The real issue is that you just choose to use outdated links that fit your discourse.
> well, you can do googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA, nothing is going to come out of this, moreover this discussion will fan out to other unrelated topic.
That's precisely what you just did: "googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA". You made a stupid point about TATA not selling it's cars in any country other than India's neighbors and asked me to prove you otherwise. When I called you out on that, you now on the back-foot and instead talk about the "crappiness" of the car and the temporary "declining" sales in the US. You talk about "hilariously being on the verge of another bail out" but I can link you to a more recent article (5 Jan 2016) on Jaguar Land Rover sales picking up in the US by 30%: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/01/05/jaguar-l...
The real issue is that you just choose to use outdated links that fit your discourse.
> in the US, people opt to sell jaguars and like to get other stuffs, like hyundai sonata or even a saturn ion.
Sure. That is people's choice. I just rebutted your claim that "no country other than" India's neighbors buys TATA vehicles.
> I could go to the line of comparing with other auto conglomerates, like toyota, honda, bmw, volkswagen, but I did not choose to do so.
You can definitely compare them to any conglomerate. How is that relevant to your original comment on TATA not selling cars in other countries?
> well, you can do googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA, nothing is going to come out of this, moreover this discussion will fan out to other unrelated topic.
You were the one who diverted the topic to TATA. If you had kept your "crappy" opinion to yourself this discussion would never have diverted.
> Lets get the facts straight. I have been to both borders (sona-masjid to malda), multiple times, and there is no difference of the economic situations on the both sides, everything is "exactly" the same, both places are extremely poor. Even they speak the same language, the only difference I found was the slight differences in the colloquial accent.
Great. Now I have to learn from you about differences between Bangladeshi and Indian culture. Not too long ago (approx 69 years), India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were one nation. We had the same identity and still do. The issues unfortunately have nothing to do with identity or culture. It's good that you have gained this basic understanding of the cultural connection between Bangladesh and India. It's now time for you to gain some more knowledge about the historical aspect of the two nations.
> bangladesh-india border is not something that you should compare with the tijuana/san-diego border. The socio-economic difference between tijuana and san-diego is staggering.
When did I compare it with tijuana/san-diego border? Are you hallucinating?
> Honestly, I did not see any incentive for the people on the bangladeshi side to cross to malda so that one day, they might become CEOs of TATAs.
No you don't. We are not worried about people crossing over if they want to become CEOs etc. We are worried about the sovereignty of our country. That is the basic protection every citizen of a country can seek.
> In fact, in most cases, people on the both sides have complex familial ties and they also own different (illegal) businesses. But if you look at the tijuana/san-diego border, people from tijuana might be able to become CEOs of silicon valley startups.
You needn't teach me these things. Everyone knows this basic fact in India. There are complex familial ties even with Pakistan and India. You need to go beyond the cultural connection and try and understand the issues that have cropped up between the countries. It has nothing to do with culture.
Sure. That is people's choice. I just rebutted your claim that "no country other than" India's neighbors buys TATA vehicles.
> I could go to the line of comparing with other auto conglomerates, like toyota, honda, bmw, volkswagen, but I did not choose to do so.
You can definitely compare them to any conglomerate. How is that relevant to your original comment on TATA not selling cars in other countries?
> well, you can do googling all day and spitting out all those craps about TATA, nothing is going to come out of this, moreover this discussion will fan out to other unrelated topic.
You were the one who diverted the topic to TATA. If you had kept your "crappy" opinion to yourself this discussion would never have diverted.
> Lets get the facts straight. I have been to both borders (sona-masjid to malda), multiple times, and there is no difference of the economic situations on the both sides, everything is "exactly" the same, both places are extremely poor. Even they speak the same language, the only difference I found was the slight differences in the colloquial accent.
Great. Now I have to learn from you about differences between Bangladeshi and Indian culture. Not too long ago (approx 69 years), India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were one nation. We had the same identity and still do. The issues unfortunately have nothing to do with identity or culture. It's good that you have gained this basic understanding of the cultural connection between Bangladesh and India. It's now time for you to gain some more knowledge about the historical aspect of the two nations.
> bangladesh-india border is not something that you should compare with the tijuana/san-diego border. The socio-economic difference between tijuana and san-diego is staggering.
When did I compare it with tijuana/san-diego border? Are you hallucinating?
> Honestly, I did not see any incentive for the people on the bangladeshi side to cross to malda so that one day, they might become CEOs of TATAs.
No you don't. We are not worried about people crossing over if they want to become CEOs etc. We are worried about the sovereignty of our country. That is the basic protection every citizen of a country can seek.
> In fact, in most cases, people on the both sides have complex familial ties and they also own different (illegal) businesses. But if you look at the tijuana/san-diego border, people from tijuana might be able to become CEOs of silicon valley startups.
You needn't teach me these things. Everyone knows this basic fact in India. There are complex familial ties even with Pakistan and India. You need to go beyond the cultural connection and try and understand the issues that have cropped up between the countries. It has nothing to do with culture.
Now, I am really frustrated to see how a simple argument can be deliberately made so complicated, needlessly.
1. yes, I asked about TATA cars, just to demonstrate how big it's market in bangladesh (and its other neighbours), if you compare TATA motors' worldwide penetration with respect to that of toyota or honda (or xyz), it's almost nothing. Might be, TATA is successfully selling some vehicles in brazil, mexico or namibia, but the so-called "post 2008 rise of TATA motor" is a myth.
2. Just not only for cars, bangladesh is a HUGE market for india, in terms of all other products (well, actually almost everything). Now look, india wants a market, that's fine (may be it has no other place to go). But at the same time, that river diversion project may inflict severe consequences, on the same country where india likes to expand its market into. That's why this project is suicidal, not only for bangladesh, for india as well. This was my point.
3. A company's sale drops and rises in every hour, if I could manage enough time and energy (like you seem to have), I could also come up with gazzilions of other web links where people are shitting on jaguars. Above all, that was not my point.
4. I gave an analogy of TATA with smuggled cows, just to explain how bangladesh is a lucrative market for india, from a marginal cow-smuggler to even a conglomerate like TATA, but somehow you failed to grasp this argument.
5. Well, you have mentioned "illigal immigrants" and posted some web craps explaining "how bangladeshis are fleeing to india like mexican people does into the US". That's why I mentioned my first hand experiences about the actual situations on the borders. Please keep in mind, india-bangladesh border crossings are not aimed to "achieve economic freedom by the poors from bangladesh". People from the both sides cross the border, every day, because of a set of completely different reasons. That's why I mentioned tijuana/san-diego, but again, for some strange reason, I failed to inject that into your thick membrane.
6. Above all, these poor peoples smuggle drugs and cows, may be, sometimes cotton sarees. I am not sure why they are so dangerous that might collapse your sovereignty.
7. and as for all those shootings, they are mostly caused by dispute on bribes, well, now please don't pretend that you are not an indian, and have never heard of "bribes" before. I can't give you any web-craps on these stories, because I don't want to, you will be able to find it yourself.
8. I do not give a rat's ass about cultural similarity or difference, and my comments go nowhere near those. I am not sure why you are babbling that same "culture" crap again and again.
9. This is what I see always, indians like to brag about india and only brags in front of the folks from bangladesh (and nepal, pakistan, bhutan, srilanka may be?). I think it's a good time to stop doing that, yes, india might be a better place than bangladesh, just like bangladesh might be a better place than burkina faso. But such comparison does not fly too high, not anymore.
10. Please try get this real fact straight into your head, india is india, it's not germany, japan, france or south-korea, it's india. If you look at the majority of indian people's life standard, india is nowhere close, even to those of singaporeans, thailanders or even to malaysians. Looks like you need to wait for another 500 years (may be ?) to get close to that.
11. Let me tell you something, looks like it's really a good time to get more "real" facts, so in the meantime, please enjoy this video --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixJgY2VSct0
I am done, not going to comment on this crap anymore.
1. yes, I asked about TATA cars, just to demonstrate how big it's market in bangladesh (and its other neighbours), if you compare TATA motors' worldwide penetration with respect to that of toyota or honda (or xyz), it's almost nothing. Might be, TATA is successfully selling some vehicles in brazil, mexico or namibia, but the so-called "post 2008 rise of TATA motor" is a myth.
2. Just not only for cars, bangladesh is a HUGE market for india, in terms of all other products (well, actually almost everything). Now look, india wants a market, that's fine (may be it has no other place to go). But at the same time, that river diversion project may inflict severe consequences, on the same country where india likes to expand its market into. That's why this project is suicidal, not only for bangladesh, for india as well. This was my point.
3. A company's sale drops and rises in every hour, if I could manage enough time and energy (like you seem to have), I could also come up with gazzilions of other web links where people are shitting on jaguars. Above all, that was not my point.
4. I gave an analogy of TATA with smuggled cows, just to explain how bangladesh is a lucrative market for india, from a marginal cow-smuggler to even a conglomerate like TATA, but somehow you failed to grasp this argument.
5. Well, you have mentioned "illigal immigrants" and posted some web craps explaining "how bangladeshis are fleeing to india like mexican people does into the US". That's why I mentioned my first hand experiences about the actual situations on the borders. Please keep in mind, india-bangladesh border crossings are not aimed to "achieve economic freedom by the poors from bangladesh". People from the both sides cross the border, every day, because of a set of completely different reasons. That's why I mentioned tijuana/san-diego, but again, for some strange reason, I failed to inject that into your thick membrane.
6. Above all, these poor peoples smuggle drugs and cows, may be, sometimes cotton sarees. I am not sure why they are so dangerous that might collapse your sovereignty.
7. and as for all those shootings, they are mostly caused by dispute on bribes, well, now please don't pretend that you are not an indian, and have never heard of "bribes" before. I can't give you any web-craps on these stories, because I don't want to, you will be able to find it yourself.
8. I do not give a rat's ass about cultural similarity or difference, and my comments go nowhere near those. I am not sure why you are babbling that same "culture" crap again and again.
9. This is what I see always, indians like to brag about india and only brags in front of the folks from bangladesh (and nepal, pakistan, bhutan, srilanka may be?). I think it's a good time to stop doing that, yes, india might be a better place than bangladesh, just like bangladesh might be a better place than burkina faso. But such comparison does not fly too high, not anymore.
10. Please try get this real fact straight into your head, india is india, it's not germany, japan, france or south-korea, it's india. If you look at the majority of indian people's life standard, india is nowhere close, even to those of singaporeans, thailanders or even to malaysians. Looks like you need to wait for another 500 years (may be ?) to get close to that.
11. Let me tell you something, looks like it's really a good time to get more "real" facts, so in the meantime, please enjoy this video --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixJgY2VSct0
I am done, not going to comment on this crap anymore.
As I have stated elsewhere in this thread, the 1996 agreement lasts for only 30 years, doesn't cover interlinking projects by India and makes NO mention of the Brahmaputra River, which supplies half the water flowing through Bangladesh today, and forms a massive part of the project linked in the Original Article.
The treaty is a woefully inadequate guard against future abuse.
The treaty is a woefully inadequate guard against future abuse.
So what? I just gave you an example of Indo-Bangladesh already having water treaty. There is no evidence to suggest that India would not be willing to have another treaty with Bangladesh for interlinking projects.
Interlinking project has been discussed for the past 30 years. Bangladesh took no interest in taking part in the discussions. Bangladesh only woke up to it when India finally decided to go ahead with the interlinking project. In spite of that the Water Resources Minister has said that discussions will be held with Bangladeshi counterpart and come up with an agreement.
Also saying that "negotiating in bad faith" after the groundwork has been laid is BS. The first interlink project has nothing to do with Bangladesh. The Water Resources Minister clearly stated: "We are going ahead with five links [of the rivers] now and the first one, the Ken-Betwa link [in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh] is going to start any time now,". The Ken-Betwa Link is no where close to Bangladesh and it has nothing to do with the Brahmaputra river. Read about it here: http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/0723832353.P...
Also saying that "negotiating in bad faith" after the groundwork has been laid is BS. The first interlink project has nothing to do with Bangladesh. The Water Resources Minister clearly stated: "We are going ahead with five links [of the rivers] now and the first one, the Ken-Betwa link [in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh] is going to start any time now,". The Ken-Betwa Link is no where close to Bangladesh and it has nothing to do with the Brahmaputra river. Read about it here: http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/0723832353.P...
It's not a treaty. It is the treaty. And treaties don't "just follow" because there is already a treaty on a similar topic already in place.
The time to sign such an agreement on interlinking would have been before breaking ground on the interlinking project. To demand an agreement afterwards is to negotiate in bad faith.
The time to sign such an agreement on interlinking would have been before breaking ground on the interlinking project. To demand an agreement afterwards is to negotiate in bad faith.
No the existing treaty is only for a single region. The Interlink project is much greater and broader in scope and the same treaty cannot be applied to the interlink project. It's ridiculous to think that a small water treaty signed in 1996 can have a scope to cover a project as huge as the Interlink. New treaty/agreement has to be signed and will be done by India in the best interests of Bangladesh.
Why not?
He does not have any good reason, he is just spewing BNP nationalist rhetoric. India has shared waters fairly even with Pakistan following international frameworks. Its just a common practice in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal to piss on India. Its their insecurity towards regional hegemon talking rather than the policy itself.
> The Indian water resources ministry spokesperson said: “The Indian government is addressing Bangladesh’s water problems too,” adding that ministers from the two countries had discussed the water issue in the past. “We don’t have the details, but we will ensure Bangladesh gets its share of water too.”
I have absolutely no faith in the ability of the government of a bigger nation to think in the best interests of a smaller neighbor. (Just look at US history with Latin and South America.) What does "its share of water" mean? Does it mean that they'll flood Bangladesh when there is too much water for the reservoirs to hold? Does it mean that practically all the water flow will stop in the dry months? Put yourself in the other side's shoes. Would you trust them? Why? On what basis?
I have absolutely no faith in the ability of the government of a bigger nation to think in the best interests of a smaller neighbor. (Just look at US history with Latin and South America.) What does "its share of water" mean? Does it mean that they'll flood Bangladesh when there is too much water for the reservoirs to hold? Does it mean that practically all the water flow will stop in the dry months? Put yourself in the other side's shoes. Would you trust them? Why? On what basis?
We can probably judge their sensitivity to Bangladesh's concerns by looking at what they've done already with the (admittedly smaller) Farakka Barrage on the Ganges.
The barrage regularly floods Bangladesh when the monsoon rains are too heavy to handle, and withholds far too much when the rains are too light. Past performance is likely to be an indicator of future performance.
Alas. It's much easier to call me an unhinged Bangladeshi nationalist (huh?) and call it a day though.
The barrage regularly floods Bangladesh when the monsoon rains are too heavy to handle, and withholds far too much when the rains are too light. Past performance is likely to be an indicator of future performance.
Alas. It's much easier to call me an unhinged Bangladeshi nationalist (huh?) and call it a day though.
But India is different. India was instrumental in liberating Bangladesh. The democracy Bangladesh enjoys today would never have been possible if India had not gone to War with Pakistan and defended Bangladesh's freedom. Comparing India with the US when it comes to relations with neighboring countries is ridiculous. US is not a template for maintaining healthy relations with other countries.
I think the equation is whether to srve the interests of 300-400 million indians living in these areas or that of 100+ million in Bangladesh.
even then India has acted generally to protect everyone's interest vis a vis other countries like US who allow millions in Africa to starve to protect the interest of a few 100 US farmers.
even then India has acted generally to protect everyone's interest vis a vis other countries like US who allow millions in Africa to starve to protect the interest of a few 100 US farmers.
I'm sorry I didn't realize we were playing musical chair or something. Saying that the US does worse is not really a defense. What will you say next? "India has never used nukes in a war but the US has"?
> I think the equation is whether to srve the interests of 300-400 million indians living in these areas or that of 100+ million in Bangladesh.
Is that what we're going to do? give 4/5th of the water upstream and 1/5th the water downstream because that's the population differential? Or wait, the population of India is 1B+.
> even then India has acted generally to protect everyone's interest
I won't try to defend the actions of the US government. However, it is very disingenuous to suggest that Indian government will be able to make a stand against its own people. I don't mean to say this is out of malice. I just think we're setting ourselves for failure if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests.
> I think the equation is whether to srve the interests of 300-400 million indians living in these areas or that of 100+ million in Bangladesh.
Is that what we're going to do? give 4/5th of the water upstream and 1/5th the water downstream because that's the population differential? Or wait, the population of India is 1B+.
> even then India has acted generally to protect everyone's interest
I won't try to defend the actions of the US government. However, it is very disingenuous to suggest that Indian government will be able to make a stand against its own people. I don't mean to say this is out of malice. I just think we're setting ourselves for failure if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests.
>> if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests.
In the case of India it does. Even though it is changing and they are unfortunately adopting the individualistic philosophy of the west..
When the UNSC was being setup post WW-II, India canvassed against its own candidature for China
After testing its N Bomb, it gave up working on it actively to help build a N free world. Willingly stated a no first use principle.
Released 92000 Pak PoW after the 1971 war for no quid pro quo.
You don't hear these stuff in western media. Hell, we don't hear of regular state and federal elections held in the world biggest democracy.
to get an idea of what I am talking about and how the Indian philosophy is rooted in us all being one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srSwuG9kVw
In the case of India it does. Even though it is changing and they are unfortunately adopting the individualistic philosophy of the west..
When the UNSC was being setup post WW-II, India canvassed against its own candidature for China
After testing its N Bomb, it gave up working on it actively to help build a N free world. Willingly stated a no first use principle.
Released 92000 Pak PoW after the 1971 war for no quid pro quo.
You don't hear these stuff in western media. Hell, we don't hear of regular state and federal elections held in the world biggest democracy.
to get an idea of what I am talking about and how the Indian philosophy is rooted in us all being one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srSwuG9kVw
Hegemons can comport themselves gracefully in their relations with putative allies and neighbors, or they can ride roughshod over everyone just because they are more powerful. As far as South Asian diplomacy is concerned, India is more USSR than USA right now.
In any event, thank you for making my point for me.
In any event, thank you for making my point for me.
BD's nationhood is because of India's so called "Roughshod". To compare US and India about regional power in a very skewered form is not even funny, but hey, ask LatAm and Carib about American hegemon and compare that with BD under shadow of India.
edit: also India did not take any territory post-1971 in spite of being a victor, now compare that to US and Mexican war. Talking about roughshods!
edit: also India did not take any territory post-1971 in spite of being a victor, now compare that to US and Mexican war. Talking about roughshods!
I love the line of reasoning from online apologists that states that since they helped birth Bangladesh, India now has the right to push Bangladesh around in perpetuity.
Bangladeshis genuinely appreciate the assist (we really do!), but that doesn't mean we are going to stand around and bend over without complaint when India decides to unilaterally cut off the rivers that feed and sustain the 180 million people in Bangladesh.
Just because there aren't guns and secret police involved doesn't mean that harm can't occur. If this project goes ahead, India's actions are just as unpleasant as anything the US did in Latin America.
But hey, at least they'll finally be a superpower.
Bangladeshis genuinely appreciate the assist (we really do!), but that doesn't mean we are going to stand around and bend over without complaint when India decides to unilaterally cut off the rivers that feed and sustain the 180 million people in Bangladesh.
Just because there aren't guns and secret police involved doesn't mean that harm can't occur. If this project goes ahead, India's actions are just as unpleasant as anything the US did in Latin America.
But hey, at least they'll finally be a superpower.
@kchoudu,
1. My comment is debunking your allegation of India being a perpetual bad actor in South Asia (no good faith)
2. May I remind you the biggest beneficiaries of Farrakah and Interlinking of Ganges and Brahmaputra are "Ethnic Bengalis". "genetic brothers and sisters" of people of BD not some Punjabi in Delhi is benefitting out of it nor a Kannadiga in Bangalore.
3. Superpower, what a cheapshot! Its so easy to mock BD and I have chosen not to, because I respect the people who are given a bad hand, shitty government, bad geography and with climate change would eat away lot of land, you know, may be you/your friends might have bailed out to west, but when BD has any big problem India is the only option, and hey, look at Rohigyas in Burma!
1. My comment is debunking your allegation of India being a perpetual bad actor in South Asia (no good faith)
2. May I remind you the biggest beneficiaries of Farrakah and Interlinking of Ganges and Brahmaputra are "Ethnic Bengalis". "genetic brothers and sisters" of people of BD not some Punjabi in Delhi is benefitting out of it nor a Kannadiga in Bangalore.
3. Superpower, what a cheapshot! Its so easy to mock BD and I have chosen not to, because I respect the people who are given a bad hand, shitty government, bad geography and with climate change would eat away lot of land, you know, may be you/your friends might have bailed out to west, but when BD has any big problem India is the only option, and hey, look at Rohigyas in Burma!
Re. 1: I haven't seen signs of Indian good faith on matters of substance in a long time.
Re. 2: I couldn't care less if Punjabis in Delhi were benefiting from the project, and apart from the particularly rich cultural traditions we share with the people in West Bengal, I don't really give a rat's ass about our "genetic brothers and sisters" in India. How you managed to type that out without needing to take a shower or check your irony meters afterwards confuses the hell out of me.
Re. 3: You have us on the CHT issue: Bangladesh's treatment of the Rohingya is deplorable, and they need to be regularized ASAP.
edit: I noticed that you managed to slip a couple of ad hominem comments in there about me escaping to the west. Nice. Real nice.
Re. 2: I couldn't care less if Punjabis in Delhi were benefiting from the project, and apart from the particularly rich cultural traditions we share with the people in West Bengal, I don't really give a rat's ass about our "genetic brothers and sisters" in India. How you managed to type that out without needing to take a shower or check your irony meters afterwards confuses the hell out of me.
Re. 3: You have us on the CHT issue: Bangladesh's treatment of the Rohingya is deplorable, and they need to be regularized ASAP.
edit: I noticed that you managed to slip a couple of ad hominem comments in there about me escaping to the west. Nice. Real nice.
Your behavior in the entire thread was a ad hominem attack, agreed it was against a nation. But hey, look how cute you can get with words and with no logic and self-contradictory statements.
So Yes, it is Nice Real Nice.
So Yes, it is Nice Real Nice.
"bailing out" ? hilarious, india has the highest rate of "bailing out" to the west, among all the countries in the south asia, and it's not going to slow down.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/immigration-statistics-fast...
it's close to china, even though india's population is nowhere near.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/immigration-statistics-fast...
it's close to china, even though india's population is nowhere near.
[deleted]
no wonder, I have seen a similar attitude from indian nationalists towards a more powerful country like "china", specially when it comes to the india-china brahmaputra dispute.
http://www.ipcs.org/article/south-asia/india-china-a-water-w...
so in that sense, if you find any "bangladeshi nationalist" complaining about this interlink project, I bet it's coming from the same ground.
http://www.ipcs.org/article/south-asia/india-china-a-water-w...
so in that sense, if you find any "bangladeshi nationalist" complaining about this interlink project, I bet it's coming from the same ground.
My unease with India's river-related behavior is outlined in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11750933
India's relationships with its surrounding countries aren't exactly equitable and fair. Nepal and Bhutan have been reduced to servile client states; Bangladesh gets the short end of the stick with every new agreement. The less said about India's relationships with Pakistan and China, the better.
They're a big fish in a small pond. There's really no reason to believe that they'll do anything other than what is in their own best interests as far as this project is concerned.
India's relationships with its surrounding countries aren't exactly equitable and fair. Nepal and Bhutan have been reduced to servile client states; Bangladesh gets the short end of the stick with every new agreement. The less said about India's relationships with Pakistan and China, the better.
They're a big fish in a small pond. There's really no reason to believe that they'll do anything other than what is in their own best interests as far as this project is concerned.
> India's relationships with its surrounding countries aren't exactly equitable and fair. Nepal and Bhutan have been reduced to servile client states; Bangladesh gets the short end of the stick with every new agreement. The less said about India's relationships with Pakistan and China, the better.
BS. Backup your arguments with facts. Which agreement India signed that made Nepal and Bhutan servile client states? Pakistan and China have illegally occupied lands in India. Not to mention Terrorism that emanates from Pakistani soil. You think India should keep quiet and allow the infiltration to continue?
> They're a big fish in a small pond. There's really no reason to believe that they'll do anything other than what is in their own best interests as far as this project is concerned.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. If we only did things in our best interests, we would have occupied Pakistan in the 1965 Indo-Pak war that was waged on us by Pakistan. The Indian army had captured Lahore (capital city of Pakistan) but we returned the captured city back to Pakistan after it surrendered. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Front. We could have also taken advantage of the struggle for Bangladeshi freedom from Pakistan and instead of liberating Bangladesh just occupied it. We did not do that. Sorry to say but the price we have paid for being a good neighbor is terrorism, illegal land grabbing, illegal immigration and killing of our fishermen.
BS. Backup your arguments with facts. Which agreement India signed that made Nepal and Bhutan servile client states? Pakistan and China have illegally occupied lands in India. Not to mention Terrorism that emanates from Pakistani soil. You think India should keep quiet and allow the infiltration to continue?
> They're a big fish in a small pond. There's really no reason to believe that they'll do anything other than what is in their own best interests as far as this project is concerned.
Absolutely ridiculous statement. If we only did things in our best interests, we would have occupied Pakistan in the 1965 Indo-Pak war that was waged on us by Pakistan. The Indian army had captured Lahore (capital city of Pakistan) but we returned the captured city back to Pakistan after it surrendered. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Front. We could have also taken advantage of the struggle for Bangladeshi freedom from Pakistan and instead of liberating Bangladesh just occupied it. We did not do that. Sorry to say but the price we have paid for being a good neighbor is terrorism, illegal land grabbing, illegal immigration and killing of our fishermen.
You know Bangladesh would not exist were it not for India's intervention, right? And when the Indian Army had occupied all of Bangladesh, it could have just stayed there, "temporarily". But it withdrew fairly quickly, and Bangladesh was born.
My point is: if India wanted to screw Bangladesh over, it had ample opportunity; but it chose not to.
In any case: large chunks of Bangladesh is projected to be underwater in the near future, so maybe extra water is not a good thing? ;-)
My point is: if India wanted to screw Bangladesh over, it had ample opportunity; but it chose not to.
In any case: large chunks of Bangladesh is projected to be underwater in the near future, so maybe extra water is not a good thing? ;-)
yes, india withdrew the troops, not because of favour, mainly because of sheikh mujib's stubbornness.
well, in fact, bangladesh can also screw india in some sense, by helping the maoist separatists of the north-eastern part, but bangladesh never does that.
well, in fact, bangladesh can also screw india in some sense, by helping the maoist separatists of the north-eastern part, but bangladesh never does that.
> by helping the maoist separatists of the north-eastern part, but bangladesh never does that.
A lot of the ULFA leaders were living in Bangladesh and got tacit support from the government of Khaleda Zia.
A lot of the ULFA leaders were living in Bangladesh and got tacit support from the government of Khaleda Zia.
yes, still there are, but has nothing to do with "government support", governments on the both sides, are equally inept to handle corruption, crime and poverty.
[deleted]
And as I've said elsewhere in this thread, most Bangladeshis are eternally grateful that India intervened when they did.
India's leadership has changed since then, however, and their actions in 1971 do not preclude a subsequent change of heart, or even crass indifference to what goes on downstream (which, honestly, is what I believe is happening now). A robust discussion and much diplomacy is in order between the two countries -- the possibility of which the Indian commentariat in this thread seems to be very eager to shut down.
India's leadership has changed since then, however, and their actions in 1971 do not preclude a subsequent change of heart, or even crass indifference to what goes on downstream (which, honestly, is what I believe is happening now). A robust discussion and much diplomacy is in order between the two countries -- the possibility of which the Indian commentariat in this thread seems to be very eager to shut down.
I understand your concerns, and they are valid. However, none of us can predict the future; we can only use the past to fit patterns. For example: even during the worst periods of conflict between India and Pakistan, water continued to flow into Pakistan from India. Remember: Pakistan is mostly a desert without Indian water; and India did nothing. Relations between India and Bangladesh are quite friendly, so I have faith in a just resolution. Of course, Bangladesh must be vigilant.
> There's really no reason to believe that they'll do anything other than what is in their own best interests
This is true of every country, I don't really see what the point is here.
For example, one of the presidential candidates for the US is campaigning on the popular platform of getting a neighboring country to pay for a wall between itself and the US by threatening to withhold financial remittances to that country.
This is true of every country, I don't really see what the point is here.
For example, one of the presidential candidates for the US is campaigning on the popular platform of getting a neighboring country to pay for a wall between itself and the US by threatening to withhold financial remittances to that country.
A Trump presidency is a hypothetical; India's Interlink project is apparently a reality. Putting that aside, Mexico is probably going to be okay if the wall gets built. Bangladesh will starve when water from the Ganges and/or Brahmaputra is "reduced".
The point is that this isn't a question of self-interest causing a small amount of inconvenience to a neighbor -- it's self-interest that could cause grievous, existential harm to a smaller country.
The point is that this isn't a question of self-interest causing a small amount of inconvenience to a neighbor -- it's self-interest that could cause grievous, existential harm to a smaller country.
> India's Interlink project is apparently a reality
(I am Indian.) If you think a planned project from the Indian Government with vague assurances of work going to start "in a few days" is a reality, you need to think twice, or possibly several more times.
The project will most likely get bogged down among environmental concerns, Government red tape, and pressure from Bangladesh.
(I am Indian.) If you think a planned project from the Indian Government with vague assurances of work going to start "in a few days" is a reality, you need to think twice, or possibly several more times.
The project will most likely get bogged down among environmental concerns, Government red tape, and pressure from Bangladesh.
Heh. I've been wanting to say something about the actual probability of this project getting started for a while, but I seemed to have already attracted enough opprobrium throughout this thread without also implying that it simply can't happen for, er, logistical reasons.
Before any Southern Californians object, remember that almost all your clean water comes from snowmelt diverted through hundreds of miles of aqueducts. Draining lakes such as Owen's Lake to a dusty dry alkali bed.
Who are we to condemn India's actions? Let's just hope the project minimizes ecological impact.
Who are we to condemn India's actions? Let's just hope the project minimizes ecological impact.
> Who are we to condemn India's actions? Let's just hope the project minimizes ecological impact.
I think Californians have every right to condemn this project. Not only have we experienced the benefits of huge water projects like this, but also the costs. The disruption of the delta (take note Bangladesh), Owens Lake that has been turned into stinging alkali sands, a Colorado river that rarely makes it to the sea, Hetch Hetchy, a beautiful valley in Yosemite that a century ago was sacrificed in order for San Francisco to have clean water (not a judgement call, the water in SF is fantastic, but there is a price..) and so on. Now we are gearing up to tunnel around the delta so Southern California can suck even more water out of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers; there will be an environmental price for that as well.
My concern with this project is that Bangladesh will get the short end of the stick. They already are in a difficult spot with the sea level rising, and, if a reduction in water flow also reduces the amount of silt reaching the delta there will be more subsidence and an already difficult problem will be made even worse.
I think Californians have every right to condemn this project. Not only have we experienced the benefits of huge water projects like this, but also the costs. The disruption of the delta (take note Bangladesh), Owens Lake that has been turned into stinging alkali sands, a Colorado river that rarely makes it to the sea, Hetch Hetchy, a beautiful valley in Yosemite that a century ago was sacrificed in order for San Francisco to have clean water (not a judgement call, the water in SF is fantastic, but there is a price..) and so on. Now we are gearing up to tunnel around the delta so Southern California can suck even more water out of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers; there will be an environmental price for that as well.
My concern with this project is that Bangladesh will get the short end of the stick. They already are in a difficult spot with the sea level rising, and, if a reduction in water flow also reduces the amount of silt reaching the delta there will be more subsidence and an already difficult problem will be made even worse.
Speaking as a non-Southern Californian... at least your neck of the woods has an obvious and inescapable conclusion. You're going to have a tremendous earthquake on the San Andreas, which will barely touch Southern California physically. It will probably level LA and SF though, at the very least. I suspect that faced with the prospect of cleaning that mess, and rebuilding, suddenly we'll all find our copies of 'Cadillac Desert'.
Wouldn't Californians therefore be in a position to object and warn others of the consequences?
Decades hence, the ensuing disasters will be considered inevitable. Of course there would have been bad science. Of course there would have been shoddy construction. Of course the scale of the project would have been matched only by the scale of corruption. Of course most stakeholders' interests would have been ignored. Of course it would have been more practical for people to move away from the desert than for the desert to be somehow reincarnated as habitable.
Looking forward, however, one can almost justify some measure of hope.
Looking forward, however, one can almost justify some measure of hope.
What won't be inevitable is whether those disasters are worse than what would have happened otherwise. People are already running out of drinking water! Contemporary western morals put the environment first at all costs, even ahead of human life. That's only a position you can take after your humans already have a good quality of life. Developing countries still need to improve on nature to help their people.
Would you instead like to return the Colorado river to its original course where it dumped most of its water into the sea, leaving desert all around it? Never have built all the many canals around the world? Just crammed all people into the few naturally fertile areas and left the rest as a giant eco-tourism park for the wealthy?
Would you instead like to return the Colorado river to its original course where it dumped most of its water into the sea, leaving desert all around it? Never have built all the many canals around the world? Just crammed all people into the few naturally fertile areas and left the rest as a giant eco-tourism park for the wealthy?
Like most people who know anything about the Colorado River, I do wish it were not depleted as it is now. I wish that wasteful subsidized alfalfa cultivation in Arizona would cease and therefore that dairy production would return to the Midwest where it sustainably belongs. I wish that the riverbed at the Gulf of California weren't dry every day of most years, and that native wildlife could recover. I wish that the cities of southern California and Arizona would try harder to live in a sustainable way.
With respect to TFA, I wish India-first commentators would realize that this project threatens hundreds of millions of Indians and Bangladeshis, a number that dwarfs former populations of the North American southwest.
With respect to TFA, I wish India-first commentators would realize that this project threatens hundreds of millions of Indians and Bangladeshis, a number that dwarfs former populations of the North American southwest.
No one is saying we don't need to solve the water problem. The suggestion on the table is that there are better solutions than a nationwide diversion project.
Inter-linking not diverting, BS western media!.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rivers_Inter-link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rivers_Inter-link
There's a set volume of water in these rivers. If you "interlink" the rivers, some of the water that would go to Bangladesh will go elsewhere, depriving downstream consumers of water they were expecting.
It's a dick move by India. Calling it something else does nothing to change that.
It's a dick move by India. Calling it something else does nothing to change that.
The present Indian government settled a long standing border dispute with Bangladesh (since it's liberation from Pakistan in 1974 aided by India) where 111 border enclaves were exchanged for 51 enclaves: http://www.news18.com/news/india/prime-minister-narendra-mod...
India has good relations with Bangladesh despite there being illegal immigration across the borders and I'm sure the governments of both countries will be able to resolve this dispute amicably.
India has good relations with Bangladesh despite there being illegal immigration across the borders and I'm sure the governments of both countries will be able to resolve this dispute amicably.
Dude, go through the wiki link once. Also we already have a water treaty with Bangladesh.
According to the wiki, Interlink has been deemed to be potentially beneficial to Nepal and Bangladesh assuming proper water management treaties are negotiated with those countries.
Please point me to these properly negotiated agreements.
And pointing to the existing water sharing agreement with Bangladesh is dishonest. Putting aside the fact that it only lasts for 30 years and makes no mention of Interlink, everyone agrees that the treaty is inadequate, as evidenced by the massive tracts of arable land in northern Bangladesh that have fallen out of cultivation over the last 40 years due excess salinity caused by poor flow out of the Farakka Barrage.
So yeah: dick move.
Please point me to these properly negotiated agreements.
And pointing to the existing water sharing agreement with Bangladesh is dishonest. Putting aside the fact that it only lasts for 30 years and makes no mention of Interlink, everyone agrees that the treaty is inadequate, as evidenced by the massive tracts of arable land in northern Bangladesh that have fallen out of cultivation over the last 40 years due excess salinity caused by poor flow out of the Farakka Barrage.
So yeah: dick move.
TREATY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH AND THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA ON
SHARING OF THE GANGA / GANGES WATERS
AT FARAKKA:
http://www.jrcb.gov.bd/attachment/Gganges_Water_Sharing_trea...
http://www.jrcb.gov.bd/attachment/Gganges_Water_Sharing_trea...
As I said above: it's not in effect after 2026, and makes no mention of interlinking projects, and doesn't say anything about the Brahmaputra.
Given current events, it is a woefully inadequate guard against abuse.
Given current events, it is a woefully inadequate guard against abuse.
Circumstances keep changing and treaties will be modified for the better. You can't reasonably expect treaties to exist forever? All treaties are meant to lapse and be replaced by better ones.
On matters of existential import (and riparian sustainability is definitely one of these for Bangladesh), I absolutely would expect to have in place a binding agreement in perpetuity.
This is serious business for Bangladesh: without the rivers, the flooding they cause and fluvial sediment deposits that come with the floods, Bangladesh ceases to exist just as surely as if the sea swallowed the entire country.
This is serious business for Bangladesh: without the rivers, the flooding they cause and fluvial sediment deposits that come with the floods, Bangladesh ceases to exist just as surely as if the sea swallowed the entire country.
> On matters of existential import (and riparian sustainability is definitely one of these for Bangladesh), I absolutely would expect to have in place a binding agreement in perpetuity.
Of course you can expect a lot of things. But expectations cannot be unrealistic. A binding agreement in perpetuity is impossible. None of us, India or Bangladesh, know or can predict the future. No treaty/agreement has ever been signed between any two countries in this World with an "in perpetuity" clause. You can always revisit treaties and improve upon it. If you consider India as a friendly neighbor you (i'm guessing you are from Bangladesh) should not distrust our ability to negotiate a good treaty.
> This is serious business for Bangladesh: without the rivers, the flooding they cause and fluvial sediment deposits that come with the floods, Bangladesh ceases to exist just as surely as if the sea swallowed the entire country.
And India recognizes that. I have seen the documentary on eroding coastline of Bangladesh and it is of concern to Indians. If you don't believe me you can read my comment that I wrote 146 days ago regarding erosion of the Bangladeshi coastline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10804361. We are more sensitive to our neighbors problems than our neighbors being sensitive to our problems. This is unfortunate reality.
Of course you can expect a lot of things. But expectations cannot be unrealistic. A binding agreement in perpetuity is impossible. None of us, India or Bangladesh, know or can predict the future. No treaty/agreement has ever been signed between any two countries in this World with an "in perpetuity" clause. You can always revisit treaties and improve upon it. If you consider India as a friendly neighbor you (i'm guessing you are from Bangladesh) should not distrust our ability to negotiate a good treaty.
> This is serious business for Bangladesh: without the rivers, the flooding they cause and fluvial sediment deposits that come with the floods, Bangladesh ceases to exist just as surely as if the sea swallowed the entire country.
And India recognizes that. I have seen the documentary on eroding coastline of Bangladesh and it is of concern to Indians. If you don't believe me you can read my comment that I wrote 146 days ago regarding erosion of the Bangladeshi coastline: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10804361. We are more sensitive to our neighbors problems than our neighbors being sensitive to our problems. This is unfortunate reality.
Water disputes are becoming increasingly common it seems, see
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/03/egypt-ethi...
This is actually something you can start war on, since people can not live very long without water.
The situation of India is critical: most water source are heavily poluted, the population is as big as China's, but China has way more space and invaded Tibet, securing the montains water.
Now add the following facts:
The situation of India is critical: most water source are heavily poluted, the population is as big as China's, but China has way more space and invaded Tibet, securing the montains water.
Now add the following facts:
- India has a class system generating a lot of social tensions, and it's getting worst as a small super rich class is booming.
- A lot of different cultures and religions are mixed, sexual restrictions are still in place and they don't get along with some countries at their very border.
- They got the nuclear weapon.
A cocktail without ice.
Can't help but think about:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4637-russia-reviving-...
The 'stans seem to have backed the wrong horse in Luzhkov. Probably for the best, since it's difficult to imagine Russia completing a project of that size with recent oil prices.
Areas immediately around the Ganges are already experiencing drought because so much of the river's water is already used for irrigation.
Is North India and Bangladesh as screwed as this makes it sound?
Is North India and Bangladesh as screwed as this makes it sound?
yes, during the spring/early summer, on the bangladesh side, you can cross the ganges river on foot.
in the mid-monsoon, the river floods like crazy and washes away millions of settlements in a snap.
this has been going on like 40 years, just because of the farakka barrage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farakka_Barrage
in the mid-monsoon, the river floods like crazy and washes away millions of settlements in a snap.
this has been going on like 40 years, just because of the farakka barrage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farakka_Barrage
The next wars will be fought over water, not oil. We are already seeing pressure in India, heavily dammed China, SE Asia, not to mention smaller problems between the US and Mexico.
Desalination is also being considered, though it is expensive.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/aurangabad/Govt-mull...
There are some projects running in Chennai, currently.
There are some projects running in Chennai, currently.
Now china should start diverting Brahmaputra river, or build more dams
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/china-s-largest-dam-in-t...
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/china-s-largest-dam-in-t...
they have already started it, now it's time to see how india reacts.
[deleted]
What other alternatives exist for dealing with the issue of water shortage with 200 billion dollars?
How about desalination of sea water? Costs seem to be getting lower. What risks does this pose compared to inter linking of rivers?
How about desalination of sea water? Costs seem to be getting lower. What risks does this pose compared to inter linking of rivers?
Reminds me of Soviet plans to divert Siberian rivers to the south (deserts in Kazakhstan etc.). It's quite wasteful that these rivers flow north, where nobody lives, when you think about it.
Given how confusing the HN discussion is I can only imagine how misinformed the people who this actually affects are.
"Hey lets divert 2 huge natural rivers, I bet there won't be any unforeseen consequences if you really really just put enough thought into it"
Diverting huge rivers is a project people have engaged in everywhere for multiple thousands of years. We do it because it's useful.
Killing someone for their possessions and meat has been done for thousands of years, and is useful.
Why not Nationalize river waters?
I am sure there is a perfect recipe book for solving fresh water problem for millions of people and animals that India is not following.
The Law of Unforseen Consequences cannot be ignored and a full accounting of its costs will be paid.
This will not turn out well.
This will not turn out well.
I'm not so pessimistic. While absolutely there could be problems I think of a similar Australian scheme that has been largely successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme
RIP Bangladesh.
This isn't the first time a project of this scale has been done successfully. Germany has already done something similar with the Rhine-Main-Danube canal[1]. 3 similar projects have been conducted in America, involving over 2500km of waterways[2][3][4].
There are indeed some concerns over the environmental impacts that this will have, just like with any major infrastructure project, but no scholar has forecast the kind of doomsday rhetoric that people here seem to be spouting just from reading the headline.
If you're going to make the argument that such projects should be reflexively abandoned because of "unintended/unpredictable consequences", any and all GMO agriculture practices should also be abandoned immediately by the same reasoning. And yet, reasonable people have come to agree that blindly standing in the way of progress, especially when it stands to benefit hundreds of millions of people, is just silly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine%E2%80%93Main%E2%80%93Dan...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Waterway
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%E2%80%93Tombigbee_Wa...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Intracoastal_Waterway