[🇧🇩] India's Water Terrorism Against Bangladesh

Reply (Scroll)
Press space to scroll through posts
G Bangladesh Defense
[🇧🇩] India's Water Terrorism Against Bangladesh
237
7K
More threads by Saif

People\ from India have raised their voice against Farakka barrage as it is playing havoc with the ecological balance of Bihar and West Bengal. Will the Indian Govt. tear down Farakka barrage to save Bihar?


 

Can India do whatever it wants with common rivers?
Tuhin Wadud
Published: 30 Aug 2024, 12: 41

1725066020722.png


Floods have swept across all the districts in the eastern hilly regions of the country over the past few days. The situation in Feni, Comilla, Noakhali, and the hill districts is devastating. While heavy rainfall is a significant cause of these floods, India cannot evade responsibility for the damage. There are dams and barrages on the Gumti and Muhuri rivers. On the one hand there was heavy rainfall and on the other the sudden release of water without prior notice has caused immense damage to Bangladesh. India, however, does not feel the need to inform Bangladesh in advance.

According to the United Nations International Watercourses Convention, an upstream country has to discuss with the downstream country for constructing infrastructure on the common rivers. If an upstream country constructs infrastructure that causes harm to the downstream country, it is required to provide compensation for any damage. India has done neither. India as an upstream country cannot do whatever it wishes. Moreover, it is against the norms of good neighborliness.

Discussions on Bangladesh-India transboundary or shared rivers are virtually non-existent. Bangladesh’s foreign policy on river issues remains subservient, and there is a lack of diplomatic effort. Whatever India has wanted to impose on Bangladesh in the past has been accepted by every previous government.

I have never heard any government official speak out against India’s anti-Bangladesh water policies. A few advisors of the interim government have voiced concerns, but those must be specific.

No office in Bangladesh knows the exact number of Bangladesh-India trans boundary rivers. The commonly accepted figure is 54, but this is just the recognized count. The number of unrecognized rivers could exceed 200. In my book, "Responsibility in River Protection," I mentioned 69 rivers that are not included in the recognized list. We must first ascertain the actual number of these rivers to negotiate with India on transboundary rivers.

None of India’s actions regarding rivers as an upstream country prove that it is a friend of Bangladesh. In some cases, it seems many times as if India wishes for Bangladesh's demise.

I want to mention an incident from October 2021. At that time, there was no rain in Bangladesh. One night, India opened all the gates of the Teesta Barrage at Gajoldoba in West Bengal. This sudden release caused unprecedented damage to Bangladesh during the off-season. No protest was made by Bangladesh. While it is natural for water to flow downstream when there is rain upstream, the method in which the water is released is inhumane.

There is a Teesta Irrigation Project in Dalia, Nilphamari. Although it was designed to irrigate 111,000 hectares of land, it has never been possible to cultivate more than 90,000 hectares. In 2014, only 65,000 hectares were cultivated.

Before 2014, the water that flowed into the Teesta every year was partially used to maintain the river's flow, with the remaining water used for cultivation. In 2014, India unilaterally withdrew all the water. The cries of the farmers under the irrigation project that year did not reach Dhaka, let alone Delhi. Since 2014, India has tried almost every year to withdraw 100pc of the water.

When rivers are dammed upstream in India to hold back water, it causes two types of damage downstream. During heavy rainfall, they suddenly open all the gates, causing the violent current to damage houses, trees, ponds, and the river itself. In the dry season, when there is no water in the river, the groundwater level drops significantly. This disrupts the normal structure of the soil on the riverbanks. When water flows in with great force during the monsoon, erosion is much more severe than under normal conditions.

The unilateral withdrawal of water from the Teesta River was a test case. India wanted to see how Bangladesh would react if all the water from a river was withdrawn. The previous government did not protest India's actions, so now they are working on withdrawing water from the Dharla River. They plan to divert the Dharla's water to the Teesta. India will also withdraw water from the intermediary rivers between the Dharla and the Teesta.

Bangladesh has not yet taken the necessary steps to seek legal redress. In 1997, the United Nations passed a Watercourses Convention, which stated that the convention would come into effect once 35 countries ratified it.

After the 34th country ratified it, the convention remained in limbo for a long time. Bangladesh highly needs this convention. Yet, Bangladesh has not ratified it till date. The convention came into force in 2014 when Vietnam became the 35th country to ratify it. Unfortunately, Bangladesh has still not participated in it. By ratifying the convention, Bangladesh has the opportunity to seek redress through the United Nations.

It is unacceptable that different rivers in the country will continue to suffer various types of damage, and Bangladesh will merely stand by and watch.

Therefore, it is essential to establish basin-based and rights-based bilateral management for each of the approximately 200 shared rivers. If India does not agree, Bangladesh must seek redress through the United Nations as per the International Watercourses Convention.

*Tuhin Wadud is a professor at the Department of Bengali at Begum Rokeya University and the director of the river protection organization Riverine People.​
 

Teesta water issue has to be solved
Says Yunus, calls for humanitarian approach to flood management

1725688609113.png


Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus has emphasised the need to resolve the longstanding transboundary river water-sharing issue between India and Bangladesh in line with international norms.

In the second part of the interview with Press Trust of India, conducted at the CA's official residence in Dhaka last Sunday, Yunus said lower riparian countries like Bangladesh have specific rights that must be respected.

Google News LinkFor all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
The second part of the interview was released yesterday.

The chief adviser said Bangladesh's interim government would continue working with India to resolve differences over the long-pending Teesta water-sharing treaty, which has been in limbo since 2011.

"By sitting over this issue [water sharing], it is not serving any purpose. If I know how much water I will get, even if I am not happy and sign it, it would be better. This issue has to be resolved."

Asked about the interim government's stance on fast-tracking the Teesta treaty, Yunus clarified, "Push is a strong word. I wouldn't say we will push, but we will pursue it. Both sides need to sit down and settle it."

The Teesta water-sharing agreement has faced opposition from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who has cited water shortages in her state's northern region.

Yunus acknowledged the complexity of the situation, noting that while the Indian central government was prepared to finalise the deal, the state government's resistance has held it back. "This issue predates Bangladesh's independence. It's time to finalise it."

He proposed a humanitarian approach to manage flood crises, even in the absence of a formal treaty between Bangladesh and India.

"When the Indian high commissioner met with me, I suggested better coordination to control flood situations. This can be done on humanitarian grounds, without needing a treaty. Such cooperation would ease the suffering of the people," the chief adviser said.

On the contentious issue of border killings, Yunus strongly condemned the deaths of Bangladeshi citizens along the India-Bangladesh border.

"Killing is not a solution. There are legal avenues for dealing with border issues. Those being shot are not invaders but couriers. This is sheer callousness, and it must stop."

'WILL TRY TO MEET MODI'

Yunus said he will try to meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York later this month.

He also revealed his plans to gather the heads of the SAARC nations for a symbolic photo opportunity.

"SAARC was formed for a great cause. It now exists only on paper and is not functioning. We have forgotten the name of SAARC; I am trying to revive the spirit of SAARC."

The chief adviser said South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has not held a summit for a long time, and pointed out the potential benefits of renewed cooperation among the member countries.

"The SAARC summit has not taken place for quite a long time. If we come together, a lot of problems will be resolved," he said.

Modi is expected to address the UNGA on September 26, according to a provisional list of speakers issued by the UN.

Yunus emphasised the need to revive the "spirit of SAARC", stating that the eight-member bloc holds the potential to address many of the region's pressing issues.

SAARC comprises Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Drawing a comparison with the European Union, Yunus noted, "The European countries have achieved a lot through the European Union. We have to ensure that SAARC works…. If there is a problem regarding Pakistan, other ways can be worked out. But the functioning of SAARC must not stop."

On the Rohingya crisis, the chief adviser called for assistance from India and China in convincing Myanmar to repatriate the displaced population.​
 

Dying rivers in independent Bangladesh
Pavel Partha 07 April, 2024, 21:55

1725755273206.png


DURING the liberation war, people of this land chanted, ‘[The River] Padma, Meghna, Jamuna is our destiny (Padma, Meghna, Jamnuna, tomar amar thikana’). Bangladesh — the birth of the nation and the struggle for its independence were inspired by the rivers of this land. As we celebrate 53rd Independence Day, do we dare to ask how the rivers that bore witness to the heroic struggles and sacrifices of our freedom fighters and carried the dead bodies of ordinary citizens when families were not allowed to bury their dead are doing? Are streams of our rivers enjoying the freedom of flowing freely in an independent nation? Has the geography of the rivers been evolving without any hindrances in the past decades? The environmentally insensitive anti-river development policy has paved the way for the slow death of many rivers. Many rivers are now part of forgotten history. Every day, almost every day, newspapers are burdened with stories of their deaths. The silent cries of dying rivers are ringing, but the state remains unperturbed. Rivers are stolen in plain sight. Barely anyone cares. No brave environmental court is there to speak for the rights of the dying rivers.

Have we always been an anti-river nation? Vernacular history does not say so. Historically, our lives revolved around the rivers of Bangladesh. Yet, a recent report by the National River Conservation Commission says that of the 770 rivers that historically flowed through the country, only 405 have survived. More than 100 rivers have been lost since independence. How did it happen? On Independence Day, we must raise the river question to understand the lost love for our rivers. Why are rivers disappearing? It is because economic development is happening at the cost of our ecological integrity. The neo-liberal development model that successive governments adopted failed to recognise the historical significance of the river for Bangladesh and its people. Sadly, the government celebrates the country’s graduation from the least developed country to a developing nation, standing on the graves of many rivers.

NATURE, ecosystem, life-philosophy, economy, and politics in our country evolved around the river system. All the rivers — Brahmaputra, Padma, Surma, Teesta, Meghna, Karnaphuli, Naaf, Sitalakhya, Mogra, Feny, Dakatia, Monu, Rakti, Kopotakhya, Langla, Dhaleshweri, Karotoa, Ichamoti, Raymangal, Sangkha, Halda, Kangsha, Titas, Piyan, Ubdakhali, Jadukata, Simsang, Boral, Baleswar, Garai, Turag and many more — are either dying or struggling to maintain their mark on our national map.

In the river basins, different forms of production systems developed. The development of capital and the expansion of trade relations also followed the river basins. In 1722, almost 300 years ago, the construction work of the Kantajee temple began in Dinajpur. The terracotta on the walls of this temple has scenes from many boat journeys. Not too far from this temple is the River Tepa, which is now in really bad shape. The way the River Ganga is the god of water, Khoyaz Khizir and Badar Gazi are similarly the prophets of water. This is how the river remains central to the belief system of the subaltern lives. The history of Muslin and Zamdani is intrinsically linked with the river basins of Buriganga and Sitalakhya. Many weaving traditions in Bangladesh — Pabna taat, Tangtail taat, Bana taat of Hajongs and many weaving techniques from the Chittagong Hill Tracts — are also dependent on the local rivers. Many varieties of paddy and diverse agricultural traditions are embedded in the history of the river in Bangladesh. The saying that Bengalis live on rice and fish (‘Mache-bhate Bangali’) is situated in this unique history.

The neoliberal development process has defied the natural growth and life of a river and disrupted the economy dependent on the river system in Bangladesh. In the 1960s, Norman Ernest Borlaug, an American agronomist, was awarded the Noble Peace Prize for his discovery of high-yield crops, which then prompted what is now known as the Green Revolution. This mode of agriculture is technology-dependent and encourages groundwater extraction and the use of chemical fertilizers. In the long run, this mode of agriculture has proven to be harmful for the farmland and ecology in general. Before the introduction of high-yielding agricultural systems, farmers were dependent on rivers, ponds, rainwater, and other forms of natural sources of water. People were following the grammar and philosophy of nature. However, in independent Bangladesh, successive governments uncritically adopted the philosophy and technology of the green revolution, discrediting farmers’ knowledge, silencing the voices of subaltern people, and killing their relationship with the river and their surrounding nature. In the name of food security, through the farming of high-yield crops, subsidised access to chemical fertilisers poisoned the farm land, and the unregulated extraction of groundwater depleted water resources. When rivers and other water bodies are considered the lifeline of forests and biodiversity, the agricultural policy of the government launched an implicit and explicit destructive campaign.

ONE after another, industrial units are established. The largest multinational corporate apparel units, such as Adidas, Hilfiger, Philip Maurice, and Nike, supplied from Bangladesh. These factories serve the profit-seeking interests of the global and local business elite but have no regard for our rivers as they are discharging their industrial waste into rivers. The tanneries in Hazaribagh were responsible for the death of the River Buriganga. The shrimp industry in the north-western region destroyed the river system in the region. The commercial tea gardens, tobacco farming, aggressive acacia and eucalyptus gardens, and farming of hybrid corn contributed to the slow death of our rivers. All these were continued in the name of economic development.

All economic and industrial sectors — agriculture, fishery, apparel — one way or another are responsible for the death of our rivers. Such is the state policy. No one is made accountable; no one is brought to justice. As if the death of rivers would liven up our economy and improve our GDP. And the calculation of GDP follows the logic of capitalism. In the way neo-liberal corporate capital penetrates our economy, it invades our development philosophy with an anti-river mentality.

THE origins of the main rivers of Bangladesh are in India, Myanmar, Tibet, or China. Hence, the violence against rivers is not restricted within national boundaries. Neighbouring countries are equally oppressive and violent towards transboundary rivers. The Farkka barrage, the Teesta barrage, the Tipaimukh dam, and many hydropower projects in India have obstructed river flows, caused flash floods, or contributed to serious water crises in Bangladesh. The corporate-sponsored unplanned coal mining in north-eastern India also influenced our river system, particularly in the Sylhet division. Yet, river diplomacy in Bangladesh is not river-friendly. The state takes pride in not signing the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (the Water Convention) and promotes pro-dam development policy.

Scientific studies now confirm that the arbitrary withdrawal of water upstream across the border by India is slowly but steadily killing Bangladesh’s two major rivers and associated socio-economic and aquatic systems. Recent research conducted by a group of national and international researchers observed that the river’s health has progressively deteriorated since the opening of the Farakka Barage across the River Ganga in India. In the past decades, the water flow in the river Padma has decreased by 26 per cent and the river’s permanent water area has shrunk by 50 per cent during the dry season. The study conducted on a 70-kilometre area of the Padma from Godagari to Sarada in Rajshahi concluded that nearly one-third of the native fish species that were available in 1982 had disappeared. The permanent water area and the depth of the river have also significantly reduced, from 140 square kilometres in 1984 to 70 square kilometres in 2019. India has diverted an increased proportion of flow to the river Hooghly through the Farakka Barrage, which has contributed to the declining river health in Bangladesh.


The anti-river neoliberal development psyche of the state must be challenged. The tide and ebb of a river is its natural right to live that a state must protect. The rivers of Bangladesh can liven up Bangladesh’s sovereign, self-reliant economy. Rivers are not private property or any form of material property that can be owned, but the state’s indifference towards the ecological life of rivers has allowed vested quarters to feast on rivers. There is a High Court directive declaring rivers as legal entities and assigning the National River Protection Commission as the legal guardian to act as their parents in protecting the rights of waterbodies, canals, beels, shorelines, hills, and forests. Yet, violence against rivers continues unabated.

In riverine Bangladesh, how much more injustice to our river should we tolerate? We need real ecological emancipation of our rivers. In this struggle for emancipation, in which the ecological and environmental integrity of the nation will be treated as equally significant as the national economy, we must commit to the cause of our rivers. On the occasion of the 53rd Independence Day of Bangladesh, if we want to remain true to the historic slogan, ‘Padma, Meghna, Jamuna (also Karnaphuli, Simsung) is where we belong’, we must commit to the cause of rivers and resist any violence against our rivers.​
 

River water is about diplomacy, not just politics
Says Rizwana

1727049065149.png


Syeda Rizwana Hasan, adviser to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, and the Ministry of Water Resources, yesterday called for immediate action on river water management between Bangladesh and its upstream neighbour.

Speaking during a visit to the flood-damaged Ballamukha embankment in Parshuram upazila of Feni, she emphasised that the time for government inaction on such critical issues is over.

"River water is not just about politics; it's about diplomacy and economics," she said during her visit.

"We are here to understand the suffering and expectations of our people and to engage in meaningful talks with the upstream country accordingly," she added.

The adviser highlighted the longstanding challenges surrounding the Teesta River, noting that despite 53 years of negotiations, no formal water-sharing agreement has been reached.

She urged both countries to prioritise the humanitarian aspect of the issue and work toward a consensus on water management and disaster response.

"Even if an agreement results in less water for us, we must save the people of our country. Our neighbour cannot ignore this demand," the adviser said.

She added that a framework for future discussions has been outlined and will be finalised after further consultations.​
 

Members Online

Latest Threads

Latest Posts

Back