Hacker News Reader

Comment by sremani | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

>> 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

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.

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.

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!

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.

@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!

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.

Your behavior in the entire thread was a ad hominem attack, agreed it was against a nation. But hey, look how cute you can get with words and with no logic and self-contradictory statements.

So Yes, it is Nice Real Nice.

"bailing out" ? hilarious, india has the highest rate of "bailing out" to the west, among all the countries in the south asia, and it's not going to slow down.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/immigration-statistics-fast...

it's close to china, even though india's population is nowhere near.

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-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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com