Breaking Diplomatic Protocol
Tipaimukh Dam and Indian Envoy's Audacious Remarks
By Dr. K. M. A. Malik
The diplomatic heads of foreign embassies in Dhaka, particularly those of India, USA, EU, have often taken advantage of a weak political establishment of Bangladesh and indulged in activities unbecoming of proper diplomatic conventions and norms. They have taken partisan positions in respect of internal politics, favouring one political party against another, fomenting dissension and discord, and aggravating political crises. This they have done in the name of 'friendship' to Bangladesh, but in reality the policy reflected a neo-colonial attitude on the part of powerful nations towards a relatively weak third world country struggling to protect its independence and to improve the socio-economic conditions of its people.
Bangladesh seems to be a country where the foreign diplomats feel free to make public comments on each and every topic, without any consideration for the honour, dignity and sovereignty of the host country. The US and EU diplomats are relatively sophisticated not to use very crude words, although their purpose is to control the overall political direction of the country. But the diplomats from New Delhi who represent a new imperialist power in South Asia do not mince words about what Bangladesh should or should not do. The latest comments by Mr. Pinak R. Chakravarty, Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka, in a meeting of the so-called Bangladesh-India Friendship Society, is only an additional example of the policy of contempt the Indian rulers hold for Bangladesh.
So what are the comments by Mr Chakravarty that are unacceptable to the people of Bangladesh? According to The Bangladesh Today (June 23, 2009) the Indian High Commissioner said that there is no international law to stop the Tipaimukh Dam project [1]. Obviously, this is an expression of extreme arrogance and reflects the attitude of a bully. Whether there is any specific international written law, signed by both Bangladesh and India, is not the main point. The point to consider is: does an upper riparian country has the monopoly over the water of a river that obstructs or reduces its flow into the lower riparian country to injure the latter's legitimate interests.
There are hundreds of examples all over the world where the water flows as well as the quality of water in international rivers have been jointly negotiated and agreed upon by the parties concerned so as not to derive unilateral advantages for one country and loss for another country. Why India has not bothered to involve Bangladesh in serious negotiations before any of its projects in international rivers? The answer probably lies in the mindset of New Delhi rulers who think that Bangladesh is not an independent country and that India's bigger size, greater economic, military and diplomatic might empower them to do whatever they wish to do to the much smaller and weaker neighbour. This type of policy is clearly unfair, immoral, and inconsistent with international norms and can be pursued only by a rogue power.
According to the news item in The Bangladesh Today referred to above, 'Mr. Chakravarty 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.'
The Indian envoy raises several interrelated points here. He dismisses those academics, researchers, journalists and policy makers who are talking and complaining about India's unfair water policy towards Bangladesh as ignorant, and also alleges that they are 'attempting to poison the friendly people of Bangladesh' against India. Such comments are not only untrue, these are also designed to discredit any attempt by Bangladeshi citizens (and also many Indian researchers and analysts) who oppose India's water aggression against Bangladesh, a process starting from 1975. Mr. Chakravarty (upper class Bengali Brahmin) thinks that the Bangladeshi people are still as ignorant as they were in 1947 and that the only 'knowledgeable Bangladeshis' are those who gather around the Indian table for crumbs.
Who are the people opposing the Tipaimukh Dam as well as India's other projects for unilateral withdrawal/diversion of waters from international rivers? Their list includes well known Professors like Muzaffar Ahmed, Emajuddin Ahmed, Moniruzzaman Miah, Mahbubullah, Aynun Nishat, Asif Nazrul, Jasim U Ahmed and Badrul Imam, journalists and columnists like Serajur Rahman, Farhad Mazhar, Mahmudur Rahman, Sadek Khan, Nurul Kabir, Mostafa Kamal Majumder and Rizwan Siddiqi, former secretaries having negotiating experience with Indian counterparts like Asafoddoulah and Shamsher M Chowdhury as well as prominent water experts like Dr. S. I. Khan and Tauhidul Anwar Khan. They have written numerous articles and participated in dozens of seminars and discussion meetings on the India-Bangladesh water issues and drawn attention to the implications and dangers of India's water policy [2]. Mr. Chakravarty may not like what these people say, but it is a serious insult to our national prestige when a second grade foreign diplomat violates all diplomatic norms and practices and has the audacity to call them ignorant, and accuses them of trying to poison the minds of common people.
For the last few months, millions of people across the country including Dhaka, Sylhet, Rajshahi, Khulna and Chittagong, as well as thousands of overseas Bangladeshis are protesting against India's water policy. Protests have been organized in London, New York, Paris, Madrid, Rome and elsewhere by various political and community groups. These people are not inherently anti-Indian but seriously concerned about the disaster that the Tipaimukh Dam and India's other river projects would bring to Bangladesh. They do not belong to one particular political grouping to derive 'political mileage' as alleged by the Indian envoy. On the contrary, they have different political opinions (right, centre and left). All of them have witnessed the disastrous effects of the Farakka Barrage and, therefore, seriously concerned about the effects of the Tipaimukh Dam.
The protests against the Farakka Barrage have been going on for years and by now everybody (even most pro-Indian Awami League supporters, except few quislings) know that the Barrage has caused irreparable damage to the river Padma and all of its branches by drying them up, causing silting, increasing salinity, lowering the ground water levels, damaging agriculture, ecology and environment in the whole region south of the Padma. The Bangladeshi 'Friends of India' should have organized the meeting not in a five-star hotel in Dhaka but on the dried up river bed of the Padma so that Mr. Chakravarty could see that the devastation caused by Farakka is not hypothetical but real. He could have perhaps then realised why the Farakka victims have no reason to be 'friendly' with India.
Pinak's audacious remarks about the people who oppose India's water aggression against Bangladesh as well as his criticism of the opposition BNP party have been widely condemned [3], with justifications. He has definitely exceeded the limits of diplomatic courtesy and decency, but the leaders of the current pro-India government are conspicuously silent. They seem to be too willing to implement the Indian agenda rather than upholding the most vital national interest of the Bangladeshi people [4]. Prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed and her party leaders always claim that they are the only people to stand firm against all foreign aggressive powers but in reality they have failed miserably to defend the legitimate interests of the Bangladeshi people, especially against the big bully next door.
During the first term of Sheikh Hasina's premiership (1996-2001), the government resisted many of India's demands on Bangladesh (corridor, use of Chittagong port, the Tata proposal, tri-nation gas pipeline, marginalizing the defence forces, etc] but the current government is behaving in an extremely subservient manner. Many ministers in Sheikh Hasina's present government (Dipu Moni, Faruk Khan, Abul Hussain and Ramesh C. Sen among others) have been speaking in a way that raises doubt about their competence and/or allegiance towards a truly sovereign Bangladesh state [4]. They are too eager to implement India's different covert and overt agenda at the expense of vital national interests of Bangladesh.
The Indian envoy made the false and audacious remarks in the presence of foreign minister Dipu Moni and several other Awami League stalwarts. But, unfortunately, none of them contradicted the envoy. This and other incidents do suggest that the current Bangladesh government is most probably run by the Indian officials headed by Pinak R. Chakravarty and guided by New Delhi's South Bloc. How long this situation would be tolerated by the people of Bangladesh remains to be seen.
References and notes:
[1] http://www.thebangladeshtoday.com/leading%20news.htm.
[2] There are hundreds of reports and essays written by prominent authors and published in print and internet media. For a brief and thoughtful analysis of India's Water Aggression against Bangladesh, one may refer to a book by Dr. M. T. Hussain "India's Farakka Barrage – Cold Blooded Murder of Bangladesh", Al Hilal Publishers Ltd, London, 1996 and an essay by Barrister MBI Munshi "Water Scarcity and the Threat of Water Wars in South Asia – A Bangladeshh Perspective" (http://deshcalling.blogspot.com/June 09, 2009. Many Indian authors have also written investigative reports that highlight the ill-effects of big dams and barrages.
[3] http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/06/23/news0828.htm.
[4] For a partial record of these ministers' subservience to Indian Embassy in Dhaka, see an article by Serajur Rahman (http://www.dailynayadiganta.com/2009/06/09/default.asp).
[Cardiff, UK, 24 June 2009]
