5 ms·

Dude, go through the wiki link once. Also we already have a water treaty with Bangladesh.

by ashwinm 10y ago

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.
    - shripadk 10y ago
      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.PDF http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/0723832353.P...

Dude, go through the wiki link once. Also we already have a water treaty with Bangladesh.

by ashwinm 10y ago

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.

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.
  - shripadk 10y ago
    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.PDF http://www.nwda.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/0723832353.P...