Why not?
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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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
In any event, thank you for making my point for me.
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!
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.
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!
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.
So Yes, it is Nice Real Nice.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/immigration-statistics-fast...
it's close to china, even though india's population is nowhere near.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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? ;-)
India's leadership has changed since then, however, and their actions in 1971 do not preclude a subsequent change of heart, or even crass indifference to what goes on downstream (which, honestly, is what I believe is happening now). A robust discussion and much diplomacy is in order between the two countries -- the possibility of which the Indian commentariat in this thread seems to be very eager to shut down.
well, in fact, bangladesh can also screw india in some sense, by helping the maoist separatists of the north-eastern part, but bangladesh never does that.
A lot of the ULFA leaders were living in Bangladesh and got tacit support from the government of Khaleda Zia.
This is true of every country, I don't really see what the point is here.
For example, one of the presidential candidates for the US is campaigning on the popular platform of getting a neighboring country to pay for a wall between itself and the US by threatening to withhold financial remittances to that country.
The point is that this isn't a question of self-interest causing a small amount of inconvenience to a neighbor -- it's self-interest that could cause grievous, existential harm to a smaller country.
(I am Indian.) If you think a planned project from the Indian Government with vague assurances of work going to start "in a few days" is a reality, you need to think twice, or possibly several more times.
The project will most likely get bogged down among environmental concerns, Government red tape, and pressure from Bangladesh.