4 ms·

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

by ashwinm 10y ago

kchoudhu 10y ago
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.
- shripadk 10y ago
  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-modi-signs-land-boundary-agreement-with-bangladesh-pm-sheikh-hasina-1002466.html 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.
- ashwinm 10y ago
  Dude, go through the wiki link once. Also we already have a water treaty with Bangladesh.
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    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.
    - shripadk 10y ago
      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_treaty,1996.pdf http://www.jrcb.gov.bd/attachment/Gganges_Water_Sharing_trea...
      - kchoudhu 10y ago
        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.
        shripadk 10y ago
        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.
        kchoudhu 10y ago
        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.
        shripadk 10y ago
        > 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 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.

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

by ashwinm 10y ago

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

kchoudhu 10y ago

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.

shripadk 10y ago
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-modi-signs-land-boundary-agreement-with-bangladesh-pm-sheikh-hasina-1002466.html 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.
ashwinm 10y ago
Dude, go through the wiki link once. Also we already have a water treaty with Bangladesh.
- kchoudhu 10y ago
  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.
  - shripadk 10y ago
    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_treaty,1996.pdf http://www.jrcb.gov.bd/attachment/Gganges_Water_Sharing_trea...
    - kchoudhu 10y ago
      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.
      - shripadk 10y ago
        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.
        kchoudhu 10y ago
        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.
        shripadk 10y ago
        > 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 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.