3 ms·

> The Indian water resources ministry spokesperson said: “The Indian government is addressing Bangladesh’s water problems too,” adding that ministers from the t

> 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.
- newjersey 10y ago
  I'm sorry I didn't realize we were playing musical chair or something. Saying that the US does worse is not really a defense. What will you say next? "India has never used nukes in a war but the US has"? > 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. Is that what we're going to do? give 4/5th of the water upstream and 1/5th the water downstream because that's the population differential? Or wait, the population of India is 1B+. > even then India has acted generally to protect everyone's interest I won't try to defend the actions of the US government. However, it is very disingenuous to suggest that Indian government will be able to make a stand against its own people. I don't mean to say this is out of malice. I just think we're setting ourselves for failure if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests.
  - galtwho 10y ago
    >> if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests. In the case of India it does. Even though it is changing and they are unfortunately adopting the individualistic philosophy of the west.. When the UNSC was being setup post WW-II, India canvassed against its own candidature for China After testing its N Bomb, it gave up working on it actively to help build a N free world. Willingly stated a no first use principle. Released 92000 Pak PoW after the 1971 war for no quid pro quo. You don't hear these stuff in western media. Hell, we don't hear of regular state and federal elections held in the world biggest democracy. to get an idea of what I am talking about and how the Indian philosophy is rooted in us all being one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srSwuG9kVw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srSwuG9kVw

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.

newjersey 10y ago
I'm sorry I didn't realize we were playing musical chair or something. Saying that the US does worse is not really a defense. What will you say next? "India has never used nukes in a war but the US has"? > 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. Is that what we're going to do? give 4/5th of the water upstream and 1/5th the water downstream because that's the population differential? Or wait, the population of India is 1B+. > even then India has acted generally to protect everyone's interest I won't try to defend the actions of the US government. However, it is very disingenuous to suggest that Indian government will be able to make a stand against its own people. I don't mean to say this is out of malice. I just think we're setting ourselves for failure if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests.
- galtwho 10y ago
  >> if we think the government of a bigger nation which is responsible only to its own citizens can act to protect everyone's interests. In the case of India it does. Even though it is changing and they are unfortunately adopting the individualistic philosophy of the west.. When the UNSC was being setup post WW-II, India canvassed against its own candidature for China After testing its N Bomb, it gave up working on it actively to help build a N free world. Willingly stated a no first use principle. Released 92000 Pak PoW after the 1971 war for no quid pro quo. You don't hear these stuff in western media. Hell, we don't hear of regular state and federal elections held in the world biggest democracy. to get an idea of what I am talking about and how the Indian philosophy is rooted in us all being one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srSwuG9kVw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3srSwuG9kVw