9 ms·

Before people start engaging in fear mongering and doomsday prophesying, please spend a little time researching this issue further. This isn't the first time a

by whack 10y ago

Before people start engaging in fear mongering and doomsday prophesying, please spend a little time researching this issue further. 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%93Danube_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine%E2%80%93Main%E2%80%93Dan... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Waterway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Waterway [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%E2%80%93Tombigbee_Waterway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%E2%80%93Tombigbee_Wa... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Intracoastal_Waterway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Intracoastal_Waterway

kchoudhu 10y ago
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.
- shripadk 10y ago
  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-modi-signs-land-boundary-agreement-with-bangladesh-pm-sheikh-hasina-1002466.html 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_treaty,1996.pdf 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?
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    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.
    - shripadk 10y ago
      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.
      - kchoudhu 10y ago
        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.
        shripadk 10y ago
        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.
        kchoudhu 10y ago
        In Bangladesh's best interests? Oh sahib, why did you not you say so to begin with? Definitely a burden off my shoulders.
- praneshp 10y ago
  Why not?
  - sremani 10y ago
    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.
    - ramgorur 10y ago
      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-war-over-the-brahmaputra-4415.html 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.
    - kchoudhu 10y ago
      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.
      - sremani 10y ago
        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!
Aelinsaar 10y ago
I'm sure that Bangladesh feels much better now...
ageofwant 10y ago
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.
- shripadk 10y ago
  India is already doing in the form of the Smart Cities Mission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?

by whack 10y ago

kchoudhu 10y ago

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.

shripadk 10y ago
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-modi-signs-land-boundary-agreement-with-bangladesh-pm-sheikh-hasina-1002466.html 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_treaty,1996.pdf 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?
- kchoudhu 10y ago
  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.
  - shripadk 10y ago
    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.
    - kchoudhu 10y ago
      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.
      - shripadk 10y ago
        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.
        kchoudhu 10y ago
        In Bangladesh's best interests? Oh sahib, why did you not you say so to begin with? Definitely a burden off my shoulders.
praneshp 10y ago
Why not?
- sremani 10y ago
  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.
  - ramgorur 10y ago
    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-war-over-the-brahmaputra-4415.html 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.
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    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.
    - sremani 10y ago
      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!

Aelinsaar 10y ago

I'm sure that Bangladesh feels much better now...

ageofwant 10y ago

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.

shripadk 10y ago
India is already doing in the form of the Smart Cities Mission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?