6 ms·

He does not have any good reason, he is just spewing BNP nationalist rhetoric. India has shared waters fairly even with Pakistan following international framewo

by 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.

by sremani 10y ago

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.