TIPAIMUKH: CHRONICLE OF DECEPTION (Bangladesh)
Mashooq Salehin
June 21, 2009
We are anxiously witnessing the snail-paced action of current government in protesting and presenting the adverse consequences of Tipaimukh project which Bangladesh would face pretty soon. Unfortunate to know that, Water Resource Minister of Sheikh Hasina Cabinet Mr. Ramesh C. Majumber in fact denied knowing about the project. Later he assured that, Bangladesh will measure the adverse effect of this dam while the dam would be in operation adding that Dhaka will ask to compensate India on basis of that measurement. Some other influential Minister including Mr. Faruque Khan known to be the member of the kitchen cabinet accused that, this issue is being used only to achieve political interest by their rivals. Several other ministers in fact claimed that, building a dam on Tipaimukh would not cause any adverse effect in lower riparian region. However, it is clearly evident from the opinion of experts that, construction of this "multipurpose dam" would not only destroy the ecology and environment of north-eastern part of Bangladesh, but also will pose a serious threat of earthquake generation because of its location in a high-risk earthquake zone in the Barak Valley.
Unfortunate are the people of this nation-state, victims of multifaceted conspiracy against this nation resulting mainly from the lack of patriotic leadership with quality of statesman. With a view to transform this country to a digitalized one, we are surprised to see the prominent leaders of Awami League (AL) appointed themselves voluntarily to heed India´s interest. In the short history of Bangladesh since independence, we never had witnessed such degradation of leadership, particularly from a ruling one. Government´s reluctant stand point in protesting the construction of Tipaimukh dam induces us to believe in her weird alliance with India. Yet, AL leaders and their associates are shamelessly claiming their dedication towards people, though we continue to feel deficit of such sensitivity from our leadership.
From our experience of Farakka Barrage, I believe we should have a clear understanding of the consequential effect of manipulation of river flow. Moreover, simultaneously we should notice the similarities between the strategies and negotiation technique of India over the Farakka and Tipaimukh project. From the very beginning of Farakka project India has been claiming that it would eventually bring good prosper for us. This may sound ridiculous to current generation, but that´s how our neighbor approached us to convince. India claimed that, the real problem of then East Pakistan was not the shortage of water, in fact it was the excess of water making this region too wet rather than too dry. Such perception was presented to support the idea of constructing Farakka Barrage in favor of the people of east Bengal without any pre-feasibility study of world´s largest dam on Ganges that included number of barrages and a link canal of about 300 miles connecting two mighty rivers of the region. The mastermind of the Farakka project, Dr. K.L. Rao explained how east Bengal would be benefitted:
"The reason is this. The Ganga that flows through East Bengal is known as Padma. The Teesta coming from North Bengal, also runs through East Bengal and is known as Jamuna. In the other area the Brahmaputra is known as Meghna. These three are vey voluminous rivers and it is the problem of East Bengal… for six months in the year the major portion of East Bengal remains submerged not in knee-deep water but ´double´ the height of a man."
Mr. Rao was pretty confident about his idea without appropriate concept and adequate knowledge about the geo-climatic condition of East Bengal. He failed to realize the nature of the largest delta on earth that requires huge amount of sediment every year for it´s on-going formation. Such misconception was not initiated by the expertise, rather it evolved from the aggressive political ideology of Indian think tank believed in Nehru´s doctrine comprised of a prevailing utopian India lying between Himalaya and Indian Ocean. The founder Prime Minister of India stated in his Discovery of India that, "the Ganga is above all the river of India" - later echoed by Mr. L.K. Rao with an intention to prove illegitimate claim over Ganga while speaking to the Parliament in 1968. Dr. Rao stated, "After all, Ganga river is an Indian river. It is entirely as Indian river". Such viewpoint regarding Ganga, which is an international river in various aspect is alarming since it denies the history, culture and heritage of the millions of people living on the bank of Ganga in Bangladesh (then east Pakistan) part. Like many other rivers, Ganga became the symbol and meaning of life to it´s inhabitants blessed with the stream and sediment. As we share the same air, sunlight, monsoon and many other natural resources of the climate of South Asia, Ganga and all the rivers flowing through this region should be shared by all irrespective of political and national barriers. The concern here associated with such viewpoint is alarming since such ideation generates wrong point to argument and in the process of policy formulation that victimizes ordinary people regardless of international boundary. As after three decades of building and commissioning Farakka, there are evidence-based research result coming out indicating adverse effects even on the climate and environment of West Bengal.
From the early days of Farakka project, India had followed the strict policy of unilateral decision making – through conceptualization to commissioning the barrage. Indian government ignored the conventional customs and refused to abide by international laws including the "Barcelona Convention and Statue of 1921 on the Regime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern". India also showed no interest in the proposal from Pakistan to conduct a joint survey to evaluate the scheme in upper reaches of Ganga and Brahmaputra in 1954. Pakistan proposed at least three important joint ventures in between 1957-58 including securing the advisory and technical services of a UN body to assist in planning for cooperative development of eastern rivers and conducting examination by experts of the two countries before implementation of any project. However, India did not agree with any of the proposals, particularly with the idea of the arbitration of a ´third party´. Paternalistic and stubborn attitude of Indian government actually caused nothing but fruitless negotiation that comprised lingering letter exchange and providing deceitful information to Pakistan. It appears now that, India´s strategy was to kill time and to accomplish necessary tasks of pre-construction phase of Farakka Project. Government of India´s strategy also comprised of assuring counterpart with misleading gesture from the political and bureaucratic arena. As a matter of fact, Pakistan first came to know about this project not through any diplomatic source, rather from the reports on news papers appeared in the October 1951. Assuming the adverse effect on East Pakistan, Karachi government requested India in a letter dated 29th October 1951, to consult it before operating any such scheme. India replied this letter after five months claiming that the project was under preliminary investigation and Pakistan´s concern over the adverse effect was purely ´hypothetical´ as now Mr. Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, the High Commissioner of India in Dhaka claiming about Bangladesh´s concern over the Tipaimukh. However, Pakistan replied the letter on 8th May 1952 stating that large quantities of water diversion from the Ganga for irrigation in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh would cause great harm to highly agriculture-dependent East Pakistan. It took one year to reply this letter for India which stated that, the project was being investigated. Should we note here that, the first meeting of experts held after nine year long negotiation through letters in 1960. In the second meeting in January 1961, India informed her counterpart that construction of Farakka Barrage had started. No consent from Pakistan was taken before making that announcement. Such unilateral decision did not come up suddenly; rather it was the outcome of Delhi´s cool headed political technique of ignoring the protest of Pakistan who was in all respect a legitimate shareholder of Ganges water resources. In between the time period of 1960-68, a series of meeting was held between the expertises of two countries without gaining any substantial result. India´s intention of averting to reach a bilateral consensus is now easily understood from the debate over this issue in Lok Sabha session on 6th April in 1961 while questions were raised by the opposition bench to inquire the stand of Indian Government on the protest from Pakistan over Farakka issue. It was also demanded that the message should be make clear to Pakistan that this was a matter of ´unilateral´ action. In reply the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs Mr. S. A. Khan stated:
"It is true that in that note Pakistan Government has protested, but as I have said, we will continue with the project in spite of all protest."
While he was asked to explain reasoning behind continuation of negotiations if the construction of the project would go on, Mr. Khan replied: "It is good to talk things over in a general way." Such conceit notion actually was substantiated by leaders of the Parliament, as we learn that Mr. Nehru stated in the Lok Sabha on 19th August 1961:
"We have not allowed it to be stopped or suspended and we do not intend to stop it in anyway."
Thus, negotiation on discussion table remained fruitless as counterpart of Pakistan always sat with precondition that India would not take into account views and opinions of Pakistan regarding Farakka project. Consequently, an expertise team from Pakistan was allowed to see the project. While asked the reasoning behind allowing such visit of the Pakistani team Dr. K.L. Rao, then the Minister of Irrigation and Power explained the Lok Sabha that, they were allowed to see that India had already completed two-third of the project. Intention of Indian part was to convince Pakistan that, negotiation over continuation of construction of Farakka barrage would not produce any result as Mr. Rao told the Lok Sabha: "After seeing the project they are convinced that it is over."
Invitation for a similar visit has been proposed by Mr. Shiv Shankar Menon, Secretary of external Affairs of Indian Government. He asked Dhaka government to send a delegation to Manipur State to look over the construction site of the proposed Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak River while the construction work has already been started. In his unprecedented surprise visit, Indian foreign secretary attempted to assure the press that Bangladesh´s fear of having adverse impact of the dam on the ecology of Bangladesh is baseless. Though foreign ministry of Bangladesh and Indian High Commission at Dhaka did not disclose the purpose of his visit, Mr. Menon expressed interest on commenting on the burning issues between Dhaka and Delhi. He said, "We don´t think it (dam) should have any downstream effect." Indian foreign secretary also emphasized on ´sitting together´ with a view to explain their ´plan´ and to know our ´fear´ and ´worry´ – which in his view is a ´normal way between friends´. May we remind Mr. Secretary that, such normal way persisted between Bangladesh and India over Farakka issue and knowing our fear, worry, misery and hunger actually did not help that much in sustaining our friendship. Adverse impact of Farakka is well known now, and sorry to mention here that, friendship could not prevent northern Bangladesh from desertification. As a matter of fact, such assurance from Indian state mechanism is nothing new, particularly in aspect of sharing water resources. From the early days of Farakka project, Indian authority had always provided us with such pledges. In 1961, then Prime Minister of Indian Mr. Nehru told in Lok Sabha:
"It is our view that there should be no real injury caused to Pakistan by this scheme… it is Pakistan´s fear and apprehension that they will be effected."
Such effort to convince shareholder of Ganges downstream continued even after emergence of Bangladesh. Commissioning of the barrage was accomplished under an ad-hoc agreement to test run the feeder canal of the barrage. Earlier in May 1974, Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh agreed in the summit to commission Farakka barrage by end of that year. In straight, India informed about commissioning of the Farakka within a certain period, thus Bangladesh was left with no option but accepting the offer. Such a goodwill and notion of friendship we observe from our neighbor with super-power title that the fledging nation could not reach its third birthday before facing such pressure.
India´s treacherous policy over disclosing the objective of Farakka barrage project from the very beginning is very similar to our current experience. India´s claim of building a hydroelectric project in Tipaimukh has a hidden transcript – because it is not only a ´Hydroelectric Dam´ it is a ´Multipurpose Dam´ project commissioning by India´s North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO). As we know the whole scheme also includes building of another big dam at Fulertal in Chachar, 100 kilometer off Bangladesh border in India for irrigation purposes. The barrage will be fed with water through canals. India´s state power has exemplified such venal practices earlier – as Government of India did not disclose the real purpose of the Farakka barrage. In order to hoax the real purpose of the irrigation, this project was placed under the "Transportation and Communication" division of the Third Five Year Plan. In 1961, the Government of India informed the Government of Pakistan that the Farakka barrage project was undertaken with a view to preserve the port of Calcutta. However, it sounds very interesting to find that, in 1968, almost after a decade of such statement, Dr. K.L. Rao, the then Irrigation Minister told Lok Sabha, while bashing the critics at the parliament:
"We should look to the destination of Bhagirathi to ensure that the canal and river lower down are ready to take up the water which can be used for Calcutta port. That is a very good suggestion, in fact, we are aware of that."
Mr. Rao also informed the Parliament that such work needs to be dealt with the Ministry of Transport and such effort would require fund. Discovering a good suggestion from the house through a democratic practice should be highly appreciated, but wasn´t it very late to conceptualize the ´flushing of Calcutta port´ with diverted water of Ganges after eight years of implementation of the project? However, we fail to realize the moral stand of a Government for providing with deceitful information to the neighboring country. Yet, we understand that Government of India preferred not to disclose the real purpose of the Farakka project to shun the objection of Pakistan to the idea of withdrawal of the water of the Ganges.
Despite that fact, in September 2005, the then Indian water resources minister of India and JRC co-chairperson Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi reassured Bangladesh that India would not implement any river management project that may adversely affect its neighbor. India, without any consent of Bangladesh completed all preparations to start the construction of Tipaimukh dam by 2006. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was scheduled to lay the foundation stone on 2nd December 2006 which was canceled later. Eventually, the construction work was postponed in March 2007 following severe protest from the people and environmentalists within Manipur and neighboring states of India.
Protest of concerned Bangladeshi citizen against the Tipaimukh Dam is in fact result of India´s fallacious policy-stand on common-shared river courses – which are in many aspects proved to be contradictory and inconsistent. India´s unilateral planning and going ahead with the Tipaimukh Project is a clear violation of Article VI of the treaty between India and Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga of 1996. The plan is also a direct violation of the current Berlin Rules on International Water Resources (2004) which asserts the right of every individual to equally access water to sustain life without discrimination and without harming the ecology, even in times of war, regardless of the location of water and whether or not a water resource is shared. Environmentalists from different forums in their opinions expressed concerns that such project will not bring any worthy change to the whole region except many negative impacts like increasing of salinity, erosion of river bank, desertification of arable lands and many more. However, Government of India did not count these factors since we are informed that Project of Tipaimukh Barrage has received the ´go-ahead´ signal from Delhi.
However, it is evident that India is very aware of its geographical advantageous position to fulfill her purpose of spreading hegemony and crafting vassal territories. India´s negative approach in negotiation and paternalistic standpoint demonstrate her intention to repudiate the needs and necessity of lower-riparian share-holder. What India fails to realize is that the policy stand with a view to hold grip over this region would not only alienate her but also would turn the victimized people of Bangladesh and alike more resistant and generate ´anti-India´ mind-set which may foment destabilization of South Asia and make the security condition more vulnerable.
Dealing with a super-power neighbor on sharing common rivers will be onerous particularly when the state machine of such super-power has the trend of taking strategy of foisting their counterpart, and their own people as well. Should we mention the example of Narmada Project, which drew a huge controversy even within India? Despite displacement of millions of people due to submergence of agricultural and habitat land, Indian think tank did not pay attention to the protest. We have witnessed violation of human rights during the evacuation and hide-n-seek game of central government of India with a view to decipher the real objectives. It is more difficult for a suffering nation who experiences suzerein rule despite having its own sovereign government. Unfortunately, government of Bangladesh failed to express appropriate concern regarding the Tipaimukh issue. However, there are historical reasons to believe that, it was not the failure of the Government rather it is the outcome of feeble foreign policy of the government toward India that inherits loyalty and subjugation due to dependence of Awami League led expatriate government of Bangladesh on India Government in 1971. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib himself was caught by the double edge sword while dealing with India over Farakka issue.
We are agonized to watch the chronicle of deception from Farakka through Tipaimukh. When an elected government apparently denies working for her nation´s interest, the only hope is left for the nation is the effort of its patriot millions with sense of nationalism.
References:
1.Begum, Khurshida (1987). Tension Over the Farakka Barrage: A techno-political tangle in South Asia. University Press Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2.Lok Sabha Debate, 5th, 6th, 13th, 14th, Session, 1961 – 1968.
3.The Daily New Age: 13th, 14th April 2009.
4.The treaty between India and Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga 1996.
5.Berlin International Water Rule, 2004
Unfortunate are the people of this nation-state, victims of multifaceted conspiracy against this nation resulting mainly from the lack of patriotic leadership with quality of statesman. With a view to transform this country to a digitalized one, we are surprised to see the prominent leaders of Awami League (AL) appointed themselves voluntarily to heed India´s interest. In the short history of Bangladesh since independence, we never had witnessed such degradation of leadership, particularly from a ruling one. Government´s reluctant stand point in protesting the construction of Tipaimukh dam induces us to believe in her weird alliance with India. Yet, AL leaders and their associates are shamelessly claiming their dedication towards people, though we continue to feel deficit of such sensitivity from our leadership.
From our experience of Farakka Barrage, I believe we should have a clear understanding of the consequential effect of manipulation of river flow. Moreover, simultaneously we should notice the similarities between the strategies and negotiation technique of India over the Farakka and Tipaimukh project. From the very beginning of Farakka project India has been claiming that it would eventually bring good prosper for us. This may sound ridiculous to current generation, but that´s how our neighbor approached us to convince. India claimed that, the real problem of then East Pakistan was not the shortage of water, in fact it was the excess of water making this region too wet rather than too dry. Such perception was presented to support the idea of constructing Farakka Barrage in favor of the people of east Bengal without any pre-feasibility study of world´s largest dam on Ganges that included number of barrages and a link canal of about 300 miles connecting two mighty rivers of the region. The mastermind of the Farakka project, Dr. K.L. Rao explained how east Bengal would be benefitted:
"The reason is this. The Ganga that flows through East Bengal is known as Padma. The Teesta coming from North Bengal, also runs through East Bengal and is known as Jamuna. In the other area the Brahmaputra is known as Meghna. These three are vey voluminous rivers and it is the problem of East Bengal… for six months in the year the major portion of East Bengal remains submerged not in knee-deep water but ´double´ the height of a man."
Mr. Rao was pretty confident about his idea without appropriate concept and adequate knowledge about the geo-climatic condition of East Bengal. He failed to realize the nature of the largest delta on earth that requires huge amount of sediment every year for it´s on-going formation. Such misconception was not initiated by the expertise, rather it evolved from the aggressive political ideology of Indian think tank believed in Nehru´s doctrine comprised of a prevailing utopian India lying between Himalaya and Indian Ocean. The founder Prime Minister of India stated in his Discovery of India that, "the Ganga is above all the river of India" - later echoed by Mr. L.K. Rao with an intention to prove illegitimate claim over Ganga while speaking to the Parliament in 1968. Dr. Rao stated, "After all, Ganga river is an Indian river. It is entirely as Indian river". Such viewpoint regarding Ganga, which is an international river in various aspect is alarming since it denies the history, culture and heritage of the millions of people living on the bank of Ganga in Bangladesh (then east Pakistan) part. Like many other rivers, Ganga became the symbol and meaning of life to it´s inhabitants blessed with the stream and sediment. As we share the same air, sunlight, monsoon and many other natural resources of the climate of South Asia, Ganga and all the rivers flowing through this region should be shared by all irrespective of political and national barriers. The concern here associated with such viewpoint is alarming since such ideation generates wrong point to argument and in the process of policy formulation that victimizes ordinary people regardless of international boundary. As after three decades of building and commissioning Farakka, there are evidence-based research result coming out indicating adverse effects even on the climate and environment of West Bengal.
From the early days of Farakka project, India had followed the strict policy of unilateral decision making – through conceptualization to commissioning the barrage. Indian government ignored the conventional customs and refused to abide by international laws including the "Barcelona Convention and Statue of 1921 on the Regime of Navigable Waterways of International Concern". India also showed no interest in the proposal from Pakistan to conduct a joint survey to evaluate the scheme in upper reaches of Ganga and Brahmaputra in 1954. Pakistan proposed at least three important joint ventures in between 1957-58 including securing the advisory and technical services of a UN body to assist in planning for cooperative development of eastern rivers and conducting examination by experts of the two countries before implementation of any project. However, India did not agree with any of the proposals, particularly with the idea of the arbitration of a ´third party´. Paternalistic and stubborn attitude of Indian government actually caused nothing but fruitless negotiation that comprised lingering letter exchange and providing deceitful information to Pakistan. It appears now that, India´s strategy was to kill time and to accomplish necessary tasks of pre-construction phase of Farakka Project. Government of India´s strategy also comprised of assuring counterpart with misleading gesture from the political and bureaucratic arena. As a matter of fact, Pakistan first came to know about this project not through any diplomatic source, rather from the reports on news papers appeared in the October 1951. Assuming the adverse effect on East Pakistan, Karachi government requested India in a letter dated 29th October 1951, to consult it before operating any such scheme. India replied this letter after five months claiming that the project was under preliminary investigation and Pakistan´s concern over the adverse effect was purely ´hypothetical´ as now Mr. Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, the High Commissioner of India in Dhaka claiming about Bangladesh´s concern over the Tipaimukh. However, Pakistan replied the letter on 8th May 1952 stating that large quantities of water diversion from the Ganga for irrigation in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh would cause great harm to highly agriculture-dependent East Pakistan. It took one year to reply this letter for India which stated that, the project was being investigated. Should we note here that, the first meeting of experts held after nine year long negotiation through letters in 1960. In the second meeting in January 1961, India informed her counterpart that construction of Farakka Barrage had started. No consent from Pakistan was taken before making that announcement. Such unilateral decision did not come up suddenly; rather it was the outcome of Delhi´s cool headed political technique of ignoring the protest of Pakistan who was in all respect a legitimate shareholder of Ganges water resources. In between the time period of 1960-68, a series of meeting was held between the expertises of two countries without gaining any substantial result. India´s intention of averting to reach a bilateral consensus is now easily understood from the debate over this issue in Lok Sabha session on 6th April in 1961 while questions were raised by the opposition bench to inquire the stand of Indian Government on the protest from Pakistan over Farakka issue. It was also demanded that the message should be make clear to Pakistan that this was a matter of ´unilateral´ action. In reply the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs Mr. S. A. Khan stated:
"It is true that in that note Pakistan Government has protested, but as I have said, we will continue with the project in spite of all protest."
While he was asked to explain reasoning behind continuation of negotiations if the construction of the project would go on, Mr. Khan replied: "It is good to talk things over in a general way." Such conceit notion actually was substantiated by leaders of the Parliament, as we learn that Mr. Nehru stated in the Lok Sabha on 19th August 1961:
"We have not allowed it to be stopped or suspended and we do not intend to stop it in anyway."
Thus, negotiation on discussion table remained fruitless as counterpart of Pakistan always sat with precondition that India would not take into account views and opinions of Pakistan regarding Farakka project. Consequently, an expertise team from Pakistan was allowed to see the project. While asked the reasoning behind allowing such visit of the Pakistani team Dr. K.L. Rao, then the Minister of Irrigation and Power explained the Lok Sabha that, they were allowed to see that India had already completed two-third of the project. Intention of Indian part was to convince Pakistan that, negotiation over continuation of construction of Farakka barrage would not produce any result as Mr. Rao told the Lok Sabha: "After seeing the project they are convinced that it is over."
Invitation for a similar visit has been proposed by Mr. Shiv Shankar Menon, Secretary of external Affairs of Indian Government. He asked Dhaka government to send a delegation to Manipur State to look over the construction site of the proposed Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak River while the construction work has already been started. In his unprecedented surprise visit, Indian foreign secretary attempted to assure the press that Bangladesh´s fear of having adverse impact of the dam on the ecology of Bangladesh is baseless. Though foreign ministry of Bangladesh and Indian High Commission at Dhaka did not disclose the purpose of his visit, Mr. Menon expressed interest on commenting on the burning issues between Dhaka and Delhi. He said, "We don´t think it (dam) should have any downstream effect." Indian foreign secretary also emphasized on ´sitting together´ with a view to explain their ´plan´ and to know our ´fear´ and ´worry´ – which in his view is a ´normal way between friends´. May we remind Mr. Secretary that, such normal way persisted between Bangladesh and India over Farakka issue and knowing our fear, worry, misery and hunger actually did not help that much in sustaining our friendship. Adverse impact of Farakka is well known now, and sorry to mention here that, friendship could not prevent northern Bangladesh from desertification. As a matter of fact, such assurance from Indian state mechanism is nothing new, particularly in aspect of sharing water resources. From the early days of Farakka project, Indian authority had always provided us with such pledges. In 1961, then Prime Minister of Indian Mr. Nehru told in Lok Sabha:
"It is our view that there should be no real injury caused to Pakistan by this scheme… it is Pakistan´s fear and apprehension that they will be effected."
Such effort to convince shareholder of Ganges downstream continued even after emergence of Bangladesh. Commissioning of the barrage was accomplished under an ad-hoc agreement to test run the feeder canal of the barrage. Earlier in May 1974, Prime Ministers of India and Bangladesh agreed in the summit to commission Farakka barrage by end of that year. In straight, India informed about commissioning of the Farakka within a certain period, thus Bangladesh was left with no option but accepting the offer. Such a goodwill and notion of friendship we observe from our neighbor with super-power title that the fledging nation could not reach its third birthday before facing such pressure.
India´s treacherous policy over disclosing the objective of Farakka barrage project from the very beginning is very similar to our current experience. India´s claim of building a hydroelectric project in Tipaimukh has a hidden transcript – because it is not only a ´Hydroelectric Dam´ it is a ´Multipurpose Dam´ project commissioning by India´s North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO). As we know the whole scheme also includes building of another big dam at Fulertal in Chachar, 100 kilometer off Bangladesh border in India for irrigation purposes. The barrage will be fed with water through canals. India´s state power has exemplified such venal practices earlier – as Government of India did not disclose the real purpose of the Farakka barrage. In order to hoax the real purpose of the irrigation, this project was placed under the "Transportation and Communication" division of the Third Five Year Plan. In 1961, the Government of India informed the Government of Pakistan that the Farakka barrage project was undertaken with a view to preserve the port of Calcutta. However, it sounds very interesting to find that, in 1968, almost after a decade of such statement, Dr. K.L. Rao, the then Irrigation Minister told Lok Sabha, while bashing the critics at the parliament:
"We should look to the destination of Bhagirathi to ensure that the canal and river lower down are ready to take up the water which can be used for Calcutta port. That is a very good suggestion, in fact, we are aware of that."
Mr. Rao also informed the Parliament that such work needs to be dealt with the Ministry of Transport and such effort would require fund. Discovering a good suggestion from the house through a democratic practice should be highly appreciated, but wasn´t it very late to conceptualize the ´flushing of Calcutta port´ with diverted water of Ganges after eight years of implementation of the project? However, we fail to realize the moral stand of a Government for providing with deceitful information to the neighboring country. Yet, we understand that Government of India preferred not to disclose the real purpose of the Farakka project to shun the objection of Pakistan to the idea of withdrawal of the water of the Ganges.
Despite that fact, in September 2005, the then Indian water resources minister of India and JRC co-chairperson Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi reassured Bangladesh that India would not implement any river management project that may adversely affect its neighbor. India, without any consent of Bangladesh completed all preparations to start the construction of Tipaimukh dam by 2006. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was scheduled to lay the foundation stone on 2nd December 2006 which was canceled later. Eventually, the construction work was postponed in March 2007 following severe protest from the people and environmentalists within Manipur and neighboring states of India.
Protest of concerned Bangladeshi citizen against the Tipaimukh Dam is in fact result of India´s fallacious policy-stand on common-shared river courses – which are in many aspects proved to be contradictory and inconsistent. India´s unilateral planning and going ahead with the Tipaimukh Project is a clear violation of Article VI of the treaty between India and Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga of 1996. The plan is also a direct violation of the current Berlin Rules on International Water Resources (2004) which asserts the right of every individual to equally access water to sustain life without discrimination and without harming the ecology, even in times of war, regardless of the location of water and whether or not a water resource is shared. Environmentalists from different forums in their opinions expressed concerns that such project will not bring any worthy change to the whole region except many negative impacts like increasing of salinity, erosion of river bank, desertification of arable lands and many more. However, Government of India did not count these factors since we are informed that Project of Tipaimukh Barrage has received the ´go-ahead´ signal from Delhi.
However, it is evident that India is very aware of its geographical advantageous position to fulfill her purpose of spreading hegemony and crafting vassal territories. India´s negative approach in negotiation and paternalistic standpoint demonstrate her intention to repudiate the needs and necessity of lower-riparian share-holder. What India fails to realize is that the policy stand with a view to hold grip over this region would not only alienate her but also would turn the victimized people of Bangladesh and alike more resistant and generate ´anti-India´ mind-set which may foment destabilization of South Asia and make the security condition more vulnerable.
Dealing with a super-power neighbor on sharing common rivers will be onerous particularly when the state machine of such super-power has the trend of taking strategy of foisting their counterpart, and their own people as well. Should we mention the example of Narmada Project, which drew a huge controversy even within India? Despite displacement of millions of people due to submergence of agricultural and habitat land, Indian think tank did not pay attention to the protest. We have witnessed violation of human rights during the evacuation and hide-n-seek game of central government of India with a view to decipher the real objectives. It is more difficult for a suffering nation who experiences suzerein rule despite having its own sovereign government. Unfortunately, government of Bangladesh failed to express appropriate concern regarding the Tipaimukh issue. However, there are historical reasons to believe that, it was not the failure of the Government rather it is the outcome of feeble foreign policy of the government toward India that inherits loyalty and subjugation due to dependence of Awami League led expatriate government of Bangladesh on India Government in 1971. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib himself was caught by the double edge sword while dealing with India over Farakka issue.
We are agonized to watch the chronicle of deception from Farakka through Tipaimukh. When an elected government apparently denies working for her nation´s interest, the only hope is left for the nation is the effort of its patriot millions with sense of nationalism.
References:
1.Begum, Khurshida (1987). Tension Over the Farakka Barrage: A techno-political tangle in South Asia. University Press Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2.Lok Sabha Debate, 5th, 6th, 13th, 14th, Session, 1961 – 1968.
3.The Daily New Age: 13th, 14th April 2009.
4.The treaty between India and Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga 1996.
5.Berlin International Water Rule, 2004
Print
Email
