Staff Correspondent
Opposition leader and former premier Khaleda Zia yesterday despatched a letter to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh requesting not to construct Tipaimukh dam on the river Barak considering the negative impacts on Bangladesh, reports UNB.
Meanwhile, in a letter to the parliamentary standing committee on water resources Opposition Chief Whip Zainul Abedin Farroque proposed names of five experts in the parliamentary delegation on BNP's behalf for visiting the dam site.
Chairman of the committee Abdur Razzak yesterday expressed disappointment over BNP's proposal for including names of experts instead of lawmakers in the all-party delegation.
“The proposal for including five experts instead of your party lawmakers for the parliamentary delegation frustrated me,” he said in a letter to Zainul Abdin.
In his letter Razzak said the standing committee had approved to send a 10-member parliamentary delegation including a member of Joint River Commission and a water resources expert of BUET.
In addition Razzak mentioned that Zainul had--first verbally and then in writing--requested him to include one of their party [BNP] lawmakers but in a letter to him on June 21 Zainul proposed the names of experts.
One of the BNP's proposed experts Ainun Nishat, country representative of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in his interview with the BBC said he felt embarrassed and sorry to find his name in the BNP proposal.
“At first I was embarrassed as my name was proposed by BNP as a member of the delegation. I am not affiliated with any party politics. I am a technician and I talk about the matters that emerge from my analysis,” said Ainun.
Ainun told the BBC that he wanted to provide policymakers with the technical knowledge he had and did not want any politics over this matter
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Manipur team voices Tipai fear in Sylhet
Staff Correspondent, Sylhet
A five-member delegation from the Indian state of Manipur and Assam yesterday urged Bangladeshi nationals--at home and abroad--to be united and protest against the much-talked-about Tipaimukh dam project.
They were addressing at a "Sanghati Samabesh" (solidarity meeting) at the seminar hall of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST) yesterday afternoon.
The team reached Sylhet Sunday to express solidarity with the anti-Tipaimukh dam campaign in Bangladesh.
The delegation includes Prof RK Ranjan Sinha of Earth Science Department of Manipur Central University, environmentalists Ramananda, Joseph Marr, Vikramjit and Arnab Dutta. Engineer Muhammad Hilal Uddin, coordinator of the Jatiya Tipaimukh Bandh Protirodh Committee accompanied the team to Sylhet.
The speakers said 57 percent dams in the world responsible for environmental degradation are in India and China. Now things are to be dealt internationally because Tipai project would just wreak havoc on Bangladesh
"We are here to express our solidarity with Bangladeshi people'' said Prof Sinha. The project is not at all a viable one, he said, adding, "We want Bangladesh to sit with the Indian authorities to discuss the crucial issue. Besides, it is an issue of common rivers and India cannot make decisions alone.
A documentary on the protests against Tipaimukh project since its preparatory work began 10 years ago was also presented.
The speakers said there should be strong awareness against the Tipaimukh project. Disasters caused by our imprudent activities throughout the world have put the nature's balance at risk, they added
Emphasising the need for mutual interests they said as an upper riparian country India should consider Bangladesh's interest on moral ground since Indians would also be badly affected by the project. "We have to raise strong protest at home and abroad against the mega project for our survival," they asserted.
They further said the inhabitants of the country's northeast region including greater Sylhet and Mymensingh as well as whole Bangladesh and the Indian states of Assam and Manipur should raise strong protest against the project, since it would create catastrophe in the whole region. Already several Indian groups had registered their voice against the much talked about project. The speakers added that there should be a greater agitation against the controversial attempt.
The river bifurcates its way by the names of Surma and Kushiyara entering into Bangladesh territory. People of greater Sylhet region had been protesting the project since the news of approval of the project came to light years ago
Ilyas uddin Biswas of Sust chaired the programme while Sushanta Kumar Das, Aktarul Islam, Prof Kamal Ahmed Chowdhury, Yasmin Haque, CPB-District President Bedananda Bhattacharya and district Awami League Vice-president Abdus Jahir Chowdhury Sufian spoke, among others. MA Gani conducted the programme.
Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=93807
A five-member delegation from the Indian state of Manipur and Assam yesterday urged Bangladeshi nationals--at home and abroad--to be united and protest against the much-talked-about Tipaimukh dam project.
They were addressing at a "Sanghati Samabesh" (solidarity meeting) at the seminar hall of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST) yesterday afternoon.
The team reached Sylhet Sunday to express solidarity with the anti-Tipaimukh dam campaign in Bangladesh.
The delegation includes Prof RK Ranjan Sinha of Earth Science Department of Manipur Central University, environmentalists Ramananda, Joseph Marr, Vikramjit and Arnab Dutta. Engineer Muhammad Hilal Uddin, coordinator of the Jatiya Tipaimukh Bandh Protirodh Committee accompanied the team to Sylhet.
The speakers said 57 percent dams in the world responsible for environmental degradation are in India and China. Now things are to be dealt internationally because Tipai project would just wreak havoc on Bangladesh
"We are here to express our solidarity with Bangladeshi people'' said Prof Sinha. The project is not at all a viable one, he said, adding, "We want Bangladesh to sit with the Indian authorities to discuss the crucial issue. Besides, it is an issue of common rivers and India cannot make decisions alone.
A documentary on the protests against Tipaimukh project since its preparatory work began 10 years ago was also presented.
The speakers said there should be strong awareness against the Tipaimukh project. Disasters caused by our imprudent activities throughout the world have put the nature's balance at risk, they added
Emphasising the need for mutual interests they said as an upper riparian country India should consider Bangladesh's interest on moral ground since Indians would also be badly affected by the project. "We have to raise strong protest at home and abroad against the mega project for our survival," they asserted.
They further said the inhabitants of the country's northeast region including greater Sylhet and Mymensingh as well as whole Bangladesh and the Indian states of Assam and Manipur should raise strong protest against the project, since it would create catastrophe in the whole region. Already several Indian groups had registered their voice against the much talked about project. The speakers added that there should be a greater agitation against the controversial attempt.
The river bifurcates its way by the names of Surma and Kushiyara entering into Bangladesh territory. People of greater Sylhet region had been protesting the project since the news of approval of the project came to light years ago
Ilyas uddin Biswas of Sust chaired the programme while Sushanta Kumar Das, Aktarul Islam, Prof Kamal Ahmed Chowdhury, Yasmin Haque, CPB-District President Bedananda Bhattacharya and district Awami League Vice-president Abdus Jahir Chowdhury Sufian spoke, among others. MA Gani conducted the programme.
Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=93807
Monday, June 22, 2009
National unity on Tipaimukh issue urged: India should shun big brotherly attitude
Staff Reporter
June 22, 2009
Speakers at a discussion yesterday emphasised the need to forge unity of the nationalist forces to protect the country's interest. They also said that India should avoid big brotherly attitude to help improve bilateral relations with Bangladesh.
This observation came at a discussion on ' Indo- Bangladesh Relations: Recent Developments' organised by Centre for Strategic and Peace Studies (CSPS) at CIRDAP auditorium in the capital.
Barrister Moudud Ahmed MP was present as chief guest in the discussion while Prof Emajuddin Ahmed, former vice chancellor (VC) of Dhaka University presided over.
Prof MA Rob, VC of Manarat International University presented keynote paper and Shah Abdul Hannan, former secretary and chairman of CSPS moderated the discussion.
It was also addressed, among others, by Abul Hasan Chowdhury, former state minister for foreign affairs, Mohammad Qumaruzzaman, assistant secretary general of Bangladesh Jamaat-e- Islami Shafiul Alam Prodan, president of Jatiya Ganotantrik Party (JAGPA), Sheikh Sawkat Hossain Nilu, president of National People's Party (NPP), Prof Tareq Shamsur Rahman, Prof Abdul Latif Masum, Dr Sukamal Barua, Major (Retd) Abdur Rob, Jainal Abedin and Col (Retd) Ashraf.
Barrister Moudud Ahmed said some cabinet ministers of the government do not want to see the construction of Tipaimukh Dam but under pressure from a certain quarter they cannot express their views.
Terming the parliamentary committee formed by the government to visit Tipaimukh Dam as 'one sided' since there was no representative from the opposition parties.
"There is no representative of BNP in the parliamentary committee. BNP would not go to the site of Tipaimukh Dam without experts. Visiting there by parliamentary committee means giving endorsement the construction of Tipaimukh Dam," he noted.
Prof Emajuddin Ahmed said there was no alternative of consensus of the national issues.
He said that it was a matter of regret some ministers have passed such comments as if they were serving other country's interests.
"India does not need to make agents of her own rather a section of people of our country are keen to be their agents," he observed.
Mohammad Qumaruzzaman said India's attitude towards Bangladesh today seems worse than it was with its arch rival Pakistan.
Abul Hasan Chowdury said the Asian Highway and Tipaimukh Dam are not merely political issues rather these are issues of great national interest.
"There is no reason to consider ourselves as citizens of small country as the people of the country are known how to fight with unity for protecting their interests. We must unite ourselves for resolving the present crisis with our neighbours bilaterally and multilaterally," he said.
Shafiul Alam Prodan said conspiracy is on to destroy our patriotic armed forces.
Sheikh Sawkat Hossain Nilu said India is interfering in the internal affairs of Bangladesh.
Prof Tareq Shamsur Rahman said India should stop carrying out anti Bangladesh propaganda and the country should not yield to the pressure of India on transit issue.
Prof MA Rob said Bangladesh has to take a 'realistic policy' towards India for protecting its national interest.
Source: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/06/22/news0724.htm
India consulted Dhaka, no law can stop Tipai dam: envoy
Dhaka, June 21 (bndews24.com)—Indian high commissioner Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty has said his country had consulted Bangladesh over the construction of the controversial Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river.
He says there is no international law that could stop India from implementing the Tipaimukh dam, perceived to wreak huge environmental disaster on Bangladesh.
The envoy has taken a swipe at the BNP-led alliance for opposing against the Bangladesh-India Ganges water-sharing treaty and anti-India comments, which he said were aimed at gaining "political mileage"
Chakravarty has trashed the allegation that India is depriving Bangladesh of due share of the Ganges waters as an "empty political slogan".
"Recently, there has been a lot of agitation on the question of the Tipaimukh dam. I would like to reiterate that it is a hydro-electric multi-purpose project to produce electricity," Chakravarty said at a seminar on South Asian connectivity at the Sonargaon Hotel on Sunday.
"It is also helpful to some extent for flood control. The project has no component of irrigation purpose,"
Bangladesh-India Friendship Society organised the seminar attended by foreign minister Dipu Moni as chief guest.
The high commissioner said the Bangladesh-India Joint Rivers Commission at its 1972 and 1978 meetings recoginsed the construction of a storage dam on the river Barak, which entered Bangladesh as Kushaira and Surma.
"So, to say that India has not consulted Bangladesh is really thorough lie and totally false."
"All of you should know that there is no international treaty. There is a UN convention on the non-navigation and uses of water resources made in the late 1990s," he said.
He said the convention, approved and ratified by 17 countries so far, needed signing and ratification by 35 countries to be made into an international law.
He sharply criticised people who said the Tipaimukh dam would cause environmental disasters in the greater Sylhet region in Bangladesh.
"It is unfortunate that there are some so-called water experts who make comments without considering some of the issues.
"(They) are basically attempting to poison the minds of friendly people of Bangladesh against India."
The high commissioner said both Bangladesh and India were getting due share of waters as per the Ganges water treaty singed by the previous Awami League government in 1996.
"Some people in the country are trying to derive political mileage over the water share of common rivers.
"During the 2001 general elections in Bangladesh, there were voices raised for the annulment of the treaty. However, after the elections those voices were not heard anymore.
"We were expecting that maybe we will receive a letter that the treaty would be annulled or at least reviewed. But that did not happen," he said.
Chakravarty, who did not name the main opposition BNP, said they realised that the treaty was good for both sides.
The BNP-Jaamat-e-Islami alliance in their election manifesto had said that the Ganges treaty would be reviewed.
The high commissioner also said the flow of the Ganges shrunk due to climate change, population increase, and high number of irrigation projects along the river.
"Unfortunately, criticism of India and India phobia have become an instrument for deriving political mileage for a particular section," the envoy observed.
Common river Barak carries seven to eight percent of Bangladesh's water supply. Hundreds of small rivers and water bodies are dependent on the river for water supply.
Environmentalists in Bangladesh fear that the drying up of the water bodies will lead to the unemployment of millions of people dependent on the water bodies.
He says there is no international law that could stop India from implementing the Tipaimukh dam, perceived to wreak huge environmental disaster on Bangladesh.
The envoy has taken a swipe at the BNP-led alliance for opposing against the Bangladesh-India Ganges water-sharing treaty and anti-India comments, which he said were aimed at gaining "political mileage"
Chakravarty has trashed the allegation that India is depriving Bangladesh of due share of the Ganges waters as an "empty political slogan".
"Recently, there has been a lot of agitation on the question of the Tipaimukh dam. I would like to reiterate that it is a hydro-electric multi-purpose project to produce electricity," Chakravarty said at a seminar on South Asian connectivity at the Sonargaon Hotel on Sunday.
"It is also helpful to some extent for flood control. The project has no component of irrigation purpose,"
Bangladesh-India Friendship Society organised the seminar attended by foreign minister Dipu Moni as chief guest.
The high commissioner said the Bangladesh-India Joint Rivers Commission at its 1972 and 1978 meetings recoginsed the construction of a storage dam on the river Barak, which entered Bangladesh as Kushaira and Surma.
"So, to say that India has not consulted Bangladesh is really thorough lie and totally false."
"All of you should know that there is no international treaty. There is a UN convention on the non-navigation and uses of water resources made in the late 1990s," he said.
He said the convention, approved and ratified by 17 countries so far, needed signing and ratification by 35 countries to be made into an international law.
He sharply criticised people who said the Tipaimukh dam would cause environmental disasters in the greater Sylhet region in Bangladesh.
"It is unfortunate that there are some so-called water experts who make comments without considering some of the issues.
"(They) are basically attempting to poison the minds of friendly people of Bangladesh against India."
The high commissioner said both Bangladesh and India were getting due share of waters as per the Ganges water treaty singed by the previous Awami League government in 1996.
"Some people in the country are trying to derive political mileage over the water share of common rivers.
"During the 2001 general elections in Bangladesh, there were voices raised for the annulment of the treaty. However, after the elections those voices were not heard anymore.
"We were expecting that maybe we will receive a letter that the treaty would be annulled or at least reviewed. But that did not happen," he said.
Chakravarty, who did not name the main opposition BNP, said they realised that the treaty was good for both sides.
The BNP-Jaamat-e-Islami alliance in their election manifesto had said that the Ganges treaty would be reviewed.
The high commissioner also said the flow of the Ganges shrunk due to climate change, population increase, and high number of irrigation projects along the river.
"Unfortunately, criticism of India and India phobia have become an instrument for deriving political mileage for a particular section," the envoy observed.
Common river Barak carries seven to eight percent of Bangladesh's water supply. Hundreds of small rivers and water bodies are dependent on the river for water supply.
Environmentalists in Bangladesh fear that the drying up of the water bodies will lead to the unemployment of millions of people dependent on the water bodies.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Indian dam will create regional chaos
Habib Siddiqui
Anyone who has visited a hydroelectric power facility knows that there is tremendous ecological impact felt on either side of the dam. One side gets flooded while the other side only sees trickling water flowing downstream, unless sluice gates are opened periodically to release and control water flow. If the flow of water is managed solely by a hostile government such can create a devastating effect on the surrounding territories, especially those living in the downstream of the river. Such a unilateral decision to construct a dam is criminal when the river is international with its water flowing through multiple countries, i.e., not limited to the country of origin.
In the 1940s and ’50s many hydroelectric dams were built in the western world to produce cheap electricity. However, with time many developed countries have abandoned the process altogether and moved into more safer and environment-friendly alternatives. Nuclear technology has become one such alternative to address growing energy demand.
Unfortunately, as with almost any new technology these days, the western world has a monopoly in the nuclear technology also. Thus, while these countries know about the devastating effect of fossil fuels to our atmosphere and the grave ecological impact of hydroelectric power generation plants, they are not willing to transfer the much-needed environment-friendly nuclear technology to technologically weaker countries. Not only that as we have seen even when a developing country like Iran likes to pursue this technology to meet its growing energy needs, let alone ensuring a cleaner atmosphere, they are barred entry into the caste-ridden nuclear club. [See this author's article on "Letter from America - Obama, Israel and Iran" or "Will Obama Capitulate to Netanyahu" - for a discussion on why the USA , in particular, is against Iran 's pursuit of nuclear energy.]
Suspicion runs so deep among these paranoid nuclear-Brahmins that they think that one day the untouchable nomo-Sudras will take revenge upon them, let alone demand the same Brahmin status. And this they can’t allow by hook or crook. As a result of this tug of war, there has not been much progress to either technology transfer or lowering of the green-house effect. Consequently, more vulnerable countries like Bangladesh are forced to deal with devastating effect of global climate change. To these low lying countries, natural calamites like the Sidr and the Aila are now becoming regular yearly features to deal with! Experts tell us that by the middle of this century, Bangladesh will have 30 million people that will be uprooted from their homes in the coastal areas requiring relocation elsewhere. They will add to the misery of the country.
In the last several years, populous countries like India and China that have already joined the nuclear club, and yet feel that they are looked down as the nomo-Sudras by the traditional blue-eyed, white nuclear-Brahmins, have tried to extract some advantage in the form of technology transfer by promising reduction in carbon emission; but not always successfully. And as far as the real untouchables are concerned - countries that have failed to join the nuclear-club yet - there is not much that they can bargain for. They are simply ignored. And worse yet, their worst nightmares are the former nomo-Sudras like India .
Indian government’s desire to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh ’s overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farrakah Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them. The proposed dam is also unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions.[1]
The Indian government decision seems too short-sighted and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative.
India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India .[2] It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.
Anyone who has visited a hydroelectric power facility knows that there is tremendous ecological impact felt on either side of the dam. One side gets flooded while the other side only sees trickling water flowing downstream, unless sluice gates are opened periodically to release and control water flow. If the flow of water is managed solely by a hostile government such can create a devastating effect on the surrounding territories, especially those living in the downstream of the river. Such a unilateral decision to construct a dam is criminal when the river is international with its water flowing through multiple countries, i.e., not limited to the country of origin.
In the 1940s and ’50s many hydroelectric dams were built in the western world to produce cheap electricity. However, with time many developed countries have abandoned the process altogether and moved into more safer and environment-friendly alternatives. Nuclear technology has become one such alternative to address growing energy demand.
Unfortunately, as with almost any new technology these days, the western world has a monopoly in the nuclear technology also. Thus, while these countries know about the devastating effect of fossil fuels to our atmosphere and the grave ecological impact of hydroelectric power generation plants, they are not willing to transfer the much-needed environment-friendly nuclear technology to technologically weaker countries. Not only that as we have seen even when a developing country like Iran likes to pursue this technology to meet its growing energy needs, let alone ensuring a cleaner atmosphere, they are barred entry into the caste-ridden nuclear club. [See this author's article on "Letter from America - Obama, Israel and Iran" or "Will Obama Capitulate to Netanyahu" - for a discussion on why the USA , in particular, is against Iran 's pursuit of nuclear energy.]
Suspicion runs so deep among these paranoid nuclear-Brahmins that they think that one day the untouchable nomo-Sudras will take revenge upon them, let alone demand the same Brahmin status. And this they can’t allow by hook or crook. As a result of this tug of war, there has not been much progress to either technology transfer or lowering of the green-house effect. Consequently, more vulnerable countries like Bangladesh are forced to deal with devastating effect of global climate change. To these low lying countries, natural calamites like the Sidr and the Aila are now becoming regular yearly features to deal with! Experts tell us that by the middle of this century, Bangladesh will have 30 million people that will be uprooted from their homes in the coastal areas requiring relocation elsewhere. They will add to the misery of the country.
In the last several years, populous countries like India and China that have already joined the nuclear club, and yet feel that they are looked down as the nomo-Sudras by the traditional blue-eyed, white nuclear-Brahmins, have tried to extract some advantage in the form of technology transfer by promising reduction in carbon emission; but not always successfully. And as far as the real untouchables are concerned - countries that have failed to join the nuclear-club yet - there is not much that they can bargain for. They are simply ignored. And worse yet, their worst nightmares are the former nomo-Sudras like India .
Indian government’s desire to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh ’s overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farrakah Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them. The proposed dam is also unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions.[1]
The Indian government decision seems too short-sighted and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative.
India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India .[2] It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.
Tipaimukh project: all trust and no verification
Omar Khasru
This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction
work.
‘TRUST, but verify’, a translation of the Russian proverb ‘doveryai, no proveryai’, was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan, the two-term (1981-88) popular and admired American president, credited with the demolition of the mighty and once invincible Soviet socialist empire to effectively end the cold war with a thumping US triumph.
Reagan was fond of repeating the Russian adage during the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations with his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (1985-1991), and also the last head of state of the USSR (from 1988 until its collapse in 1991). Gorbachev proved to be a pliant and accommodating negotiating partner. The current absolute supremacy of the United States as the single dominant superpower is a testimony to that.
The overbearing and Orwellian big brother control freak neighbour, India, cannot be termed as an accommodating, amenable, gracious or even pleasant and responsive negotiating partner by any stretch of fertile and fancy imagination. But the persistent stance and approach of the current Sheikh Hasina government in bilateral dealings, and in resolving bitter and acrimonious disputes, oddly and inexplicably, have been obedient and acquiescent, with the implicit ‘your wish is my command’ submissive and deferential posture. What should be the primary and, perhaps, the sole steadfast and indisputable consideration, the best interest of the country, seems to have taken an insignificant backseat and put in the backburner.
There appears to be an unsavoury competition among assorted ministers and Awami League bigwigs to appease, support and go gaga over the attitude and utterances of Indian government representatives and mouthpieces regarding bilateral conflicts and impending significant and crucial strife, India’s unilateral and arbitrary decision to build a dam on the river Barak at Tipaimukh in Assam, 200 kilometres upstream of the Bangladesh border. There seems no concern or care for the adverse effect on this country, its ecology and environment, survival of animals and plants, water flow in the lean seasons and various other harmful impacts.
The appalling competition to please and praise India at the expense of vital national interests seems to be especially keen among the commerce minister, water resources minister, and shipping and inland transport minister. The alarming and puzzling one-upmanship contest seems to be heading for a photo finish, with other ministers and big shots chiming in. The latest to join the fray has been Abdur Razzak, the current chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on the water resources ministry, and former water resources minister during the earlier 1996-2001 Awami League regime.
This genuflecting deferential policy and posture towards India had started during the last interminable, illegal and unconstitutional caretaker regime. The then foreign affairs adviser claimed that he was launching an irreversible ‘friendship forever’ policy towards India, come what may. A landmark of the policy was the visit of the then army chief Moeen U Ahmed, the virtual and de facto chief of the military-dominated regime with a civilian façade, consisting of a group of subservient and inept advisers. His India trip and the Indian gift of white horses seemed to have provoked an extreme adoration for the neighbouring country with an implicit pledge to preserve and uphold India’s interests on a priority basis. The ostensible Indian backing of the caretaker regime and the apparent support for the army chief might have played a pivotal role in the policy formulation. This government seems to have inherited and carried on with this appeasement mindset.
It was during the tenure of Razzak as the water resources minister in the previous Awami administration that the latest Farakka Barrage Ganges water sharing agreement was signed with plenty of fanfare and hoopla. The rest is history. Bangladesh has never received its legitimate share of water because the water sharing accord was fatally flawed. It lacked a viable, acceptable and unbiased method of resolving India’s unwillingness to release sufficient water during the lean season or put into practice significant portion of the deal.
Razzak was asked back then how, in the absence of any provision for impartial third party arbitration, the two countries would solve the inevitable disagreements and difference of opinion regarding the quantity of water that would flow past the deadly and detrimental Farakka barrage. His glib answer was that he would pick up his VIP telephone and call the Water Resources Minister of India and the row would automatically and magically be solved through mutual conciliation with symbiotic benefits. That unfortunately proved to be cheap talk and pointless blather. Razzak might have called his Indian counterpart on many other things but there is no record that he ever called regarding the chronic shortfall in the agreed amount of water for Bangladesh during the dry season. Even if he did, there is no evidence that India took any compensating measure to alleviate the situation.
Sheikh Hasina, the usually garrulous and strongly opinionated prime minister, has decided largely to keep her mouth shut regarding Tipaimukh. Her only significant comment has been that her regime will decide after the tour of the project site by a parliamentary committee and the resultant recommendations. Some of her ministers and henchmen are matching and even surpassing callous and insensitive comments of Indian High Commissioner, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, in denouncing the detractors of the project. Others in the top echelon of the ruling alliance are mostly acting like Gandhi’s three monkeys with the ‘say no evil, hear no evil and see no evil’ viewpoint. This is weird, shocking and puzzling because vital national interests are at stake here.
Now Razzak, as the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on water resources ministry, is about to lead a fact finding delegation of parliamentarians and experts to Tipaimukh to inspect the controversial project and assess the possible effects on Bangladesh. But his mind seems all made up already and we will be waiting for the last nail on the coffin. He has joined in the chorus with the commerce minister and the others in denouncing the critics of the Tipaimukh project. This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction work. Razzak had failed the country back then in the Farakka water sharing treaty and he seems all set to fail the country again.
The problem with the upcoming trip is that India so far is yet to handover vital information and documents, feasibility study, pros and cons and other relevant information regarding Tipaimukh project to Bangladesh. There is no clear indication that it will provide the important documents or facts any time soon or ever. So the delegation will be acting and making recommendations based mainly on Indian assurances, promises and rose coloured glasses added to the predetermined ideas and programmed opinions, most of which already seem favourably disposed towards the project.
This is a clear case of proverbial ‘fox guarding the chicken coop.’ It is no wonder that the New Age editorially commented on June 18, 2009 that Tipaimukh team had lost its credibility before inspection. As the editorial points out, there seems to be complete trust in Indian assurance that it would not divert water from the dam, the dam would not harm Bangladesh and that Bangladesh stands to be benefited. This country really should be wary and suspicious of such Indian pledges, especially in the light of past bitter experiences in Farakka and elsewhere. The government big shots seem all trust and, unlike Ronald Reagan, no urge to verify.
The first Awami League regime after independence had granted the permission to India to start the Farakka Barrage on an ‘experimental basis.’ The current Awami League regime seems all set and primed to grant the go-ahead to Tipaimukh project with potential to cause extreme and lasting harm to the Northeastern third of the country just as Farakka did to the Northwestern third. Once fertile Ganges delta now is unable to produce a third of the grains each year. The untold ecological damage and economic harm to the people are evident for all to see. Most experts feel that Tipaimukh project, if completed, will offer a parallel set of impacts and experiences, despite hollow and vacuous ‘assurances’ from India, and brazen cronyism and toadyism by government ministers and party functionaries to the contrary.
Let me end with a quote from the dearly departed Ronald Reagan, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.’
Source: http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jun/21/oped.html#1
This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction
work.
‘TRUST, but verify’, a translation of the Russian proverb ‘doveryai, no proveryai’, was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan, the two-term (1981-88) popular and admired American president, credited with the demolition of the mighty and once invincible Soviet socialist empire to effectively end the cold war with a thumping US triumph.
Reagan was fond of repeating the Russian adage during the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations with his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (1985-1991), and also the last head of state of the USSR (from 1988 until its collapse in 1991). Gorbachev proved to be a pliant and accommodating negotiating partner. The current absolute supremacy of the United States as the single dominant superpower is a testimony to that.
The overbearing and Orwellian big brother control freak neighbour, India, cannot be termed as an accommodating, amenable, gracious or even pleasant and responsive negotiating partner by any stretch of fertile and fancy imagination. But the persistent stance and approach of the current Sheikh Hasina government in bilateral dealings, and in resolving bitter and acrimonious disputes, oddly and inexplicably, have been obedient and acquiescent, with the implicit ‘your wish is my command’ submissive and deferential posture. What should be the primary and, perhaps, the sole steadfast and indisputable consideration, the best interest of the country, seems to have taken an insignificant backseat and put in the backburner.
There appears to be an unsavoury competition among assorted ministers and Awami League bigwigs to appease, support and go gaga over the attitude and utterances of Indian government representatives and mouthpieces regarding bilateral conflicts and impending significant and crucial strife, India’s unilateral and arbitrary decision to build a dam on the river Barak at Tipaimukh in Assam, 200 kilometres upstream of the Bangladesh border. There seems no concern or care for the adverse effect on this country, its ecology and environment, survival of animals and plants, water flow in the lean seasons and various other harmful impacts.
The appalling competition to please and praise India at the expense of vital national interests seems to be especially keen among the commerce minister, water resources minister, and shipping and inland transport minister. The alarming and puzzling one-upmanship contest seems to be heading for a photo finish, with other ministers and big shots chiming in. The latest to join the fray has been Abdur Razzak, the current chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on the water resources ministry, and former water resources minister during the earlier 1996-2001 Awami League regime.
This genuflecting deferential policy and posture towards India had started during the last interminable, illegal and unconstitutional caretaker regime. The then foreign affairs adviser claimed that he was launching an irreversible ‘friendship forever’ policy towards India, come what may. A landmark of the policy was the visit of the then army chief Moeen U Ahmed, the virtual and de facto chief of the military-dominated regime with a civilian façade, consisting of a group of subservient and inept advisers. His India trip and the Indian gift of white horses seemed to have provoked an extreme adoration for the neighbouring country with an implicit pledge to preserve and uphold India’s interests on a priority basis. The ostensible Indian backing of the caretaker regime and the apparent support for the army chief might have played a pivotal role in the policy formulation. This government seems to have inherited and carried on with this appeasement mindset.
It was during the tenure of Razzak as the water resources minister in the previous Awami administration that the latest Farakka Barrage Ganges water sharing agreement was signed with plenty of fanfare and hoopla. The rest is history. Bangladesh has never received its legitimate share of water because the water sharing accord was fatally flawed. It lacked a viable, acceptable and unbiased method of resolving India’s unwillingness to release sufficient water during the lean season or put into practice significant portion of the deal.
Razzak was asked back then how, in the absence of any provision for impartial third party arbitration, the two countries would solve the inevitable disagreements and difference of opinion regarding the quantity of water that would flow past the deadly and detrimental Farakka barrage. His glib answer was that he would pick up his VIP telephone and call the Water Resources Minister of India and the row would automatically and magically be solved through mutual conciliation with symbiotic benefits. That unfortunately proved to be cheap talk and pointless blather. Razzak might have called his Indian counterpart on many other things but there is no record that he ever called regarding the chronic shortfall in the agreed amount of water for Bangladesh during the dry season. Even if he did, there is no evidence that India took any compensating measure to alleviate the situation.
Sheikh Hasina, the usually garrulous and strongly opinionated prime minister, has decided largely to keep her mouth shut regarding Tipaimukh. Her only significant comment has been that her regime will decide after the tour of the project site by a parliamentary committee and the resultant recommendations. Some of her ministers and henchmen are matching and even surpassing callous and insensitive comments of Indian High Commissioner, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, in denouncing the detractors of the project. Others in the top echelon of the ruling alliance are mostly acting like Gandhi’s three monkeys with the ‘say no evil, hear no evil and see no evil’ viewpoint. This is weird, shocking and puzzling because vital national interests are at stake here.
Now Razzak, as the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on water resources ministry, is about to lead a fact finding delegation of parliamentarians and experts to Tipaimukh to inspect the controversial project and assess the possible effects on Bangladesh. But his mind seems all made up already and we will be waiting for the last nail on the coffin. He has joined in the chorus with the commerce minister and the others in denouncing the critics of the Tipaimukh project. This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction work. Razzak had failed the country back then in the Farakka water sharing treaty and he seems all set to fail the country again.
The problem with the upcoming trip is that India so far is yet to handover vital information and documents, feasibility study, pros and cons and other relevant information regarding Tipaimukh project to Bangladesh. There is no clear indication that it will provide the important documents or facts any time soon or ever. So the delegation will be acting and making recommendations based mainly on Indian assurances, promises and rose coloured glasses added to the predetermined ideas and programmed opinions, most of which already seem favourably disposed towards the project.
This is a clear case of proverbial ‘fox guarding the chicken coop.’ It is no wonder that the New Age editorially commented on June 18, 2009 that Tipaimukh team had lost its credibility before inspection. As the editorial points out, there seems to be complete trust in Indian assurance that it would not divert water from the dam, the dam would not harm Bangladesh and that Bangladesh stands to be benefited. This country really should be wary and suspicious of such Indian pledges, especially in the light of past bitter experiences in Farakka and elsewhere. The government big shots seem all trust and, unlike Ronald Reagan, no urge to verify.
The first Awami League regime after independence had granted the permission to India to start the Farakka Barrage on an ‘experimental basis.’ The current Awami League regime seems all set and primed to grant the go-ahead to Tipaimukh project with potential to cause extreme and lasting harm to the Northeastern third of the country just as Farakka did to the Northwestern third. Once fertile Ganges delta now is unable to produce a third of the grains each year. The untold ecological damage and economic harm to the people are evident for all to see. Most experts feel that Tipaimukh project, if completed, will offer a parallel set of impacts and experiences, despite hollow and vacuous ‘assurances’ from India, and brazen cronyism and toadyism by government ministers and party functionaries to the contrary.
Let me end with a quote from the dearly departed Ronald Reagan, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.’
Source: http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jun/21/oped.html#1
Tipaimukh project: all trust and no verification
This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction
work, writes Omar Khasru
‘TRUST, but verify’, a translation of the Russian proverb ‘doveryai, no proveryai’, was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan, the two-term (1981-88) popular and admired American president, credited with the demolition of the mighty and once invincible Soviet socialist empire to effectively end the cold war with a thumping US triumph.
Reagan was fond of repeating the Russian adage during the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations with his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (1985-1991), and also the last head of state of the USSR (from 1988 until its collapse in 1991). Gorbachev proved to be a pliant and accommodating negotiating partner. The current absolute supremacy of the United States as the single dominant superpower is a testimony to that.
The overbearing and Orwellian big brother control freak neighbour, India, cannot be termed as an accommodating, amenable, gracious or even pleasant and responsive negotiating partner by any stretch of fertile and fancy imagination. But the persistent stance and approach of the current Sheikh Hasina government in bilateral dealings, and in resolving bitter and acrimonious disputes, oddly and inexplicably, have been obedient and acquiescent, with the implicit ‘your wish is my command’ submissive and deferential posture. What should be the primary and, perhaps, the sole steadfast and indisputable consideration, the best interest of the country, seems to have taken an insignificant backseat and put in the backburner.
There appears to be an unsavoury competition among assorted ministers and Awami League bigwigs to appease, support and go gaga over the attitude and utterances of Indian government representatives and mouthpieces regarding bilateral conflicts and impending significant and crucial strife, India’s unilateral and arbitrary decision to build a dam on the river Barak at Tipaimukh in Assam, 200 kilometres upstream of the Bangladesh border. There seems no concern or care for the adverse effect on this country, its ecology and environment, survival of animals and plants, water flow in the lean seasons and various other harmful impacts.
The appalling competition to please and praise India at the expense of vital national interests seems to be especially keen among the commerce minister, water resources minister, and shipping and inland transport minister. The alarming and puzzling one-upmanship contest seems to be heading for a photo finish, with other ministers and big shots chiming in. The latest to join the fray has been Abdur Razzak, the current chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on the water resources ministry, and former water resources minister during the earlier 1996-2001 Awami League regime.
This genuflecting deferential policy and posture towards India had started during the last interminable, illegal and unconstitutional caretaker regime. The then foreign affairs adviser claimed that he was launching an irreversible ‘friendship forever’ policy towards India, come what may. A landmark of the policy was the visit of the then army chief Moeen U Ahmed, the virtual and de facto chief of the military-dominated regime with a civilian façade, consisting of a group of subservient and inept advisers. His India trip and the Indian gift of white horses seemed to have provoked an extreme adoration for the neighbouring country with an implicit pledge to preserve and uphold India’s interests on a priority basis. The ostensible Indian backing of the caretaker regime and the apparent support for the army chief might have played a pivotal role in the policy formulation. This government seems to have inherited and carried on with this appeasement mindset.
It was during the tenure of Razzak as the water resources minister in the previous Awami administration that the latest Farakka Barrage Ganges water sharing agreement was signed with plenty of fanfare and hoopla. The rest is history. Bangladesh has never received its legitimate share of water because the water sharing accord was fatally flawed. It lacked a viable, acceptable and unbiased method of resolving India’s unwillingness to release sufficient water during the lean season or put into practice significant portion of the deal.
Razzak was asked back then how, in the absence of any provision for impartial third party arbitration, the two countries would solve the inevitable disagreements and difference of opinion regarding the quantity of water that would flow past the deadly and detrimental Farakka barrage. His glib answer was that he would pick up his VIP telephone and call the Water Resources Minister of India and the row would automatically and magically be solved through mutual conciliation with symbiotic benefits. That unfortunately proved to be cheap talk and pointless blather. Razzak might have called his Indian counterpart on many other things but there is no record that he ever called regarding the chronic shortfall in the agreed amount of water for Bangladesh during the dry season. Even if he did, there is no evidence that India took any compensating measure to alleviate the situation.
Sheikh Hasina, the usually garrulous and strongly opinionated prime minister, has decided largely to keep her mouth shut regarding Tipaimukh. Her only significant comment has been that her regime will decide after the tour of the project site by a parliamentary committee and the resultant recommendations. Some of her ministers and henchmen are matching and even surpassing callous and insensitive comments of Indian High Commissioner, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, in denouncing the detractors of the project. Others in the top echelon of the ruling alliance are mostly acting like Gandhi’s three monkeys with the ‘say no evil, hear no evil and see no evil’ viewpoint. This is weird, shocking and puzzling because vital national interests are at stake here.
Now Razzak, as the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on water resources ministry, is about to lead a fact finding delegation of parliamentarians and experts to Tipaimukh to inspect the controversial project and assess the possible effects on Bangladesh. But his mind seems all made up already and we will be waiting for the last nail on the coffin. He has joined in the chorus with the commerce minister and the others in denouncing the critics of the Tipaimukh project. This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction work. Razzak had failed the country back then in the Farakka water sharing treaty and he seems all set to fail the country again.
The problem with the upcoming trip is that India so far is yet to handover vital information and documents, feasibility study, pros and cons and other relevant information regarding Tipaimukh project to Bangladesh. There is no clear indication that it will provide the important documents or facts any time soon or ever. So the delegation will be acting and making recommendations based mainly on Indian assurances, promises and rose coloured glasses added to the predetermined ideas and programmed opinions, most of which already seem favourably disposed towards the project.
This is a clear case of proverbial ‘fox guarding the chicken coop.’ It is no wonder that the New Age editorially commented on June 18, 2009 that Tipaimukh team had lost its credibility before inspection. As the editorial points out, there seems to be complete trust in Indian assurance that it would not divert water from the dam, the dam would not harm Bangladesh and that Bangladesh stands to be benefited. This country really should be wary and suspicious of such Indian pledges, especially in the light of past bitter experiences in Farakka and elsewhere. The government big shots seem all trust and, unlike Ronald Reagan, no urge to verify.
The first Awami League regime after independence had granted the permission to India to start the Farakka Barrage on an ‘experimental basis.’ The current Awami League regime seems all set and primed to grant the go-ahead to Tipaimukh project with potential to cause extreme and lasting harm to the Northeastern third of the country just as Farakka did to the Northwestern third. Once fertile Ganges delta now is unable to produce a third of the grains each year. The untold ecological damage and economic harm to the people are evident for all to see. Most experts feel that Tipaimukh project, if completed, will offer a parallel set of impacts and experiences, despite hollow and vacuous ‘assurances’ from India, and brazen cronyism and toadyism by government ministers and party functionaries to the contrary.
Let me end with a quote from the dearly departed Ronald Reagan, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.’
http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jun/21/oped.html#1
work, writes Omar Khasru
‘TRUST, but verify’, a translation of the Russian proverb ‘doveryai, no proveryai’, was a signature phrase of Ronald Reagan, the two-term (1981-88) popular and admired American president, credited with the demolition of the mighty and once invincible Soviet socialist empire to effectively end the cold war with a thumping US triumph.
Reagan was fond of repeating the Russian adage during the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations with his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (1985-1991), and also the last head of state of the USSR (from 1988 until its collapse in 1991). Gorbachev proved to be a pliant and accommodating negotiating partner. The current absolute supremacy of the United States as the single dominant superpower is a testimony to that.
The overbearing and Orwellian big brother control freak neighbour, India, cannot be termed as an accommodating, amenable, gracious or even pleasant and responsive negotiating partner by any stretch of fertile and fancy imagination. But the persistent stance and approach of the current Sheikh Hasina government in bilateral dealings, and in resolving bitter and acrimonious disputes, oddly and inexplicably, have been obedient and acquiescent, with the implicit ‘your wish is my command’ submissive and deferential posture. What should be the primary and, perhaps, the sole steadfast and indisputable consideration, the best interest of the country, seems to have taken an insignificant backseat and put in the backburner.
There appears to be an unsavoury competition among assorted ministers and Awami League bigwigs to appease, support and go gaga over the attitude and utterances of Indian government representatives and mouthpieces regarding bilateral conflicts and impending significant and crucial strife, India’s unilateral and arbitrary decision to build a dam on the river Barak at Tipaimukh in Assam, 200 kilometres upstream of the Bangladesh border. There seems no concern or care for the adverse effect on this country, its ecology and environment, survival of animals and plants, water flow in the lean seasons and various other harmful impacts.
The appalling competition to please and praise India at the expense of vital national interests seems to be especially keen among the commerce minister, water resources minister, and shipping and inland transport minister. The alarming and puzzling one-upmanship contest seems to be heading for a photo finish, with other ministers and big shots chiming in. The latest to join the fray has been Abdur Razzak, the current chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on the water resources ministry, and former water resources minister during the earlier 1996-2001 Awami League regime.
This genuflecting deferential policy and posture towards India had started during the last interminable, illegal and unconstitutional caretaker regime. The then foreign affairs adviser claimed that he was launching an irreversible ‘friendship forever’ policy towards India, come what may. A landmark of the policy was the visit of the then army chief Moeen U Ahmed, the virtual and de facto chief of the military-dominated regime with a civilian façade, consisting of a group of subservient and inept advisers. His India trip and the Indian gift of white horses seemed to have provoked an extreme adoration for the neighbouring country with an implicit pledge to preserve and uphold India’s interests on a priority basis. The ostensible Indian backing of the caretaker regime and the apparent support for the army chief might have played a pivotal role in the policy formulation. This government seems to have inherited and carried on with this appeasement mindset.
It was during the tenure of Razzak as the water resources minister in the previous Awami administration that the latest Farakka Barrage Ganges water sharing agreement was signed with plenty of fanfare and hoopla. The rest is history. Bangladesh has never received its legitimate share of water because the water sharing accord was fatally flawed. It lacked a viable, acceptable and unbiased method of resolving India’s unwillingness to release sufficient water during the lean season or put into practice significant portion of the deal.
Razzak was asked back then how, in the absence of any provision for impartial third party arbitration, the two countries would solve the inevitable disagreements and difference of opinion regarding the quantity of water that would flow past the deadly and detrimental Farakka barrage. His glib answer was that he would pick up his VIP telephone and call the Water Resources Minister of India and the row would automatically and magically be solved through mutual conciliation with symbiotic benefits. That unfortunately proved to be cheap talk and pointless blather. Razzak might have called his Indian counterpart on many other things but there is no record that he ever called regarding the chronic shortfall in the agreed amount of water for Bangladesh during the dry season. Even if he did, there is no evidence that India took any compensating measure to alleviate the situation.
Sheikh Hasina, the usually garrulous and strongly opinionated prime minister, has decided largely to keep her mouth shut regarding Tipaimukh. Her only significant comment has been that her regime will decide after the tour of the project site by a parliamentary committee and the resultant recommendations. Some of her ministers and henchmen are matching and even surpassing callous and insensitive comments of Indian High Commissioner, Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, in denouncing the detractors of the project. Others in the top echelon of the ruling alliance are mostly acting like Gandhi’s three monkeys with the ‘say no evil, hear no evil and see no evil’ viewpoint. This is weird, shocking and puzzling because vital national interests are at stake here.
Now Razzak, as the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on water resources ministry, is about to lead a fact finding delegation of parliamentarians and experts to Tipaimukh to inspect the controversial project and assess the possible effects on Bangladesh. But his mind seems all made up already and we will be waiting for the last nail on the coffin. He has joined in the chorus with the commerce minister and the others in denouncing the critics of the Tipaimukh project. This committee, largely devoid of opposition members of the parliament, seems all set to enjoy official Indian hospitality, do a bit of sightseeing and perhaps some shopping and come back and grant legitimacy to this project so that India can commence and proceed with the construction work. Razzak had failed the country back then in the Farakka water sharing treaty and he seems all set to fail the country again.
The problem with the upcoming trip is that India so far is yet to handover vital information and documents, feasibility study, pros and cons and other relevant information regarding Tipaimukh project to Bangladesh. There is no clear indication that it will provide the important documents or facts any time soon or ever. So the delegation will be acting and making recommendations based mainly on Indian assurances, promises and rose coloured glasses added to the predetermined ideas and programmed opinions, most of which already seem favourably disposed towards the project.
This is a clear case of proverbial ‘fox guarding the chicken coop.’ It is no wonder that the New Age editorially commented on June 18, 2009 that Tipaimukh team had lost its credibility before inspection. As the editorial points out, there seems to be complete trust in Indian assurance that it would not divert water from the dam, the dam would not harm Bangladesh and that Bangladesh stands to be benefited. This country really should be wary and suspicious of such Indian pledges, especially in the light of past bitter experiences in Farakka and elsewhere. The government big shots seem all trust and, unlike Ronald Reagan, no urge to verify.
The first Awami League regime after independence had granted the permission to India to start the Farakka Barrage on an ‘experimental basis.’ The current Awami League regime seems all set and primed to grant the go-ahead to Tipaimukh project with potential to cause extreme and lasting harm to the Northeastern third of the country just as Farakka did to the Northwestern third. Once fertile Ganges delta now is unable to produce a third of the grains each year. The untold ecological damage and economic harm to the people are evident for all to see. Most experts feel that Tipaimukh project, if completed, will offer a parallel set of impacts and experiences, despite hollow and vacuous ‘assurances’ from India, and brazen cronyism and toadyism by government ministers and party functionaries to the contrary.
Let me end with a quote from the dearly departed Ronald Reagan, ‘Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.’
http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jun/21/oped.html#1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)