Tipaimukh: Chronicle of deception Mashooq Salehin People are anxiously witnessing the snail-paced action of the Government in protesting and presenting the adverse consequences of India's Tipaimukh project which Bangladesh will have to face pretty soon. Unfortunately, Water Resource Minister of Sheikh Hasina's cabinet, Ramesh C. Majumder in fact denied knowing about the project. Later he assured that, Bangladesh would measure the adverse effect of this dam after the dam would be in operation. Majumder added that Dhaka would ask India to compensate on basis of that measurement. Commerce Minister Faruque Khan accused that this issue was being used only to achieve political interest by the Opposition. Earthquake and ecology Several other ministers spoke in the same manner adding that Tipaimukh would not cause any adverse effect in lower riparian region. But experts opine that construction of this "multipurpose dam" would not only destroy the ecology and environment of northeastern part of Bangladesh, but will also pose a serious threat of earthquake because of its location in a high-risk earthquake zone in the Barak Valley. The people of this nation-state are victims of many-sided conspiracy against this country resulting mainly from the lack of patriotic leadership. Government's reluctance In the history of Bangladesh since independence in 1971, we never witnessed such degradation of leadership, particularly from a ruling party. The Government's reluctance in protesting the construction of Tipaimukh dam shocks us. Yet, AL leaders and their associates are claiming their dedication towards people. From our experience of Farakka Barrage, I believe we should have a clear understanding of the consequential effect of diverting of river flow, as in the case of the Ganges River. 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 the Farakka project India has been claiming that it would eventually bring good prospect for us. It may sound ridiculous to present generation, but that's how our neighbour approached to convince us. Dr. K.L. Rao, mastermind of the Farakka project, explained how east Bengal would be benefited: "The reason is this. The Ganga that flows through East Bengal is known as the 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 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." "Entirely an Indian river" Dr. Rao failed to realise the nature of the largest delta on earth that requires huge amount of sediment every year for its on-going formation. Such misconception was not initiated by the expertise, rather it evolved from the aggressive political ideology of Indian think tank that believed in Nehru doctrine of a 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 L.K. Rao with an intention to prove illegitimate claim over Ganga while speaking to the Parliament in 1968. Dr. Rao stated, "After all, the Ganga is an Indian river. It is entirely an Indian river". Such viewpoint regarding the Ganga, which is an international river in various aspects is alarming since it denies the history, culture and heritage of the millions of people living on the bank of the Ganga in Bangladesh. Impact on West Bengal Like many other rivers, Ganga became the symbol and meaning of life to the inhabitants blessed with the stream and sediment on her both sides. As we share the same air, sunlight, monsoon and many other natural resources of the climate of South Asia, the 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 policy formulation imperils and victimizes the ordinary people regardless of international boundary. After three decades of building and commissioning of 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. Proposals: 1954 - 58 The Indian government ignored the conventions and rules, and refused to abide by international laws including the "Barcelona Convention and Statute 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 the Ganga and the Brahmaputra in 1954. Pakistan proposed at least three important joint ventures in between 1957 and 1958 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 to 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 exchange of letters 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. October 1951 As a matter of fact, Pakistan first came to know about this project from newspaper reports in 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 to this letter after five months claiming that the project was under preliminary investigation. However, Pakistan replied to 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 1960 and 1968, a series of meetings were held between the experts of the two countries without 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 S. A. Khan stated: "It is true that in that note Pakistan Government 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 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 to the Lok Sabha that they were allowed to see that India had already completed two-thirds of the project. Intention of the 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'. 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 apprehension that they will be affected." Such effort to convince the co-riparian 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 superpower title that the fledging nation could not reach its third birthday before facing such pressure. Tipaimukh Dam India's policy over disclosing the objective of Farakka barrage project from the very beginning is very similar to our present 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 Cachar, 100 kilometers 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 preserving 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." 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? Dasmunshi's assurance 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 cancelled later. Eventually, the construction work was postponed in March 2007 following severe protest from the people and environmentalists within Manipur and neighbouring 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 inconsistence. Violation of Article VI India's unilateral decision to implement 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. India's negative approach in negotiation and paternalistic standpoint demonstrate her intention to repudiate the needs and necessity of lower-riparian share-holder. 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-and-seek game of central government. Govt's weak foreign policy Unfortunately, the Bangladesh Government failed to express appropriate concern regarding the Tipaimukh issue. We are agonized to watch the chronicle of deception from Farakka through Tipaimukh. When an elected government apparently denies working for its own 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. |
__._,_.___
