4 ms·

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!
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - kchoudhu 10y ago
      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.
      - sremani 10y ago
        @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!
        kchoudhu 10y ago
        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.
- newjersey 10y ago
  > 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?
  - shripadk 10y ago
    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.
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    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.
  - galtwho 10y ago
    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.
kchoudhu 10y ago
My unease with India's river-related behavior is outlined in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11750933 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.
- shripadk 10y ago
  > 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 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.
- discardorama 10y ago
  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? ;-)

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.

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!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kchoudhu 10y ago
    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.
    - sremani 10y ago
      @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!
      - kchoudhu 10y ago
        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.
newjersey 10y ago
> 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?
- shripadk 10y ago
  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.
- kchoudhu 10y ago
  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.
- galtwho 10y ago
  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.

kchoudhu 10y ago

My unease with India's river-related behavior is outlined in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11750933 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.

shripadk 10y ago
> 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 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.
discardorama 10y ago
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? ;-)