What's new

Mamata suggests Dhaka to forget Teesta water

Well this thread is for BD guys and Indian guys , but let me predicate one thing here .
Subcontinent will see a major war with in 30 years time and the reason will going to be water .
You like it or not Atom Bomb of Population will explode in Subcontinent in 30 years time and water shortage will force BD to Attack India or Pakistan or even both.
Only time will tell which country start it first,
 
.
Whatever stupidity you wrote must make eminent sense to you. It makes none to me. Now get lost virgin boy. You are not wanted here.
Stupidity reflects from your sentence.. Why you are having so much issue with virgin.. how does this have anything here matters.. and you know better that even Modi feku can't pressurize me to get lost.. :p:
 
.
Well this thread is for BD guys and Indian guys , but let me predicate one thing here .
Subcontinent will see a major war with in 30 years time and the reason will going to be water .
You like it or not Atom Bomb of Population will explode in Subcontinent in 30 years time and water shortage will force BD to Attack India or Pakistan or even both.
Only time will tell which country start it first,

I don't believe population in Bangladesh is exploding. Rate of fertility (child born) per woman in Bangladesh has long been close to replacement rate (say 2.1 child born per woman). So population will not see significant increase. This rate is lower than both India and Pakistan.

We have taken steps to lower this even further - so, with education and increased income level, population will decrease quite a bit.

Bangladesh has no reason at all to attack Pakistan or even India....... ever. :-)

We get our fish and rice, we're happy. :-)
 
.
Can you show any evidence for your claim that there are strings attached to Indian loans? And if so, how are these any different from Chinese loans where money is given for projects executed by Chinese companies using Chinese raw materials? Do you have any idea as to how CPEC is developing?

It seems there is a huge disinformation industry in BD specifically targeted against India. Quite disturbing I must say.

No offense, but from our experience, Indian products and services have proved to be substandard. China, on the other hand, is a world leader in executing mega infrastructural projects.

You clearly live in fairy land. If you go to any Indian city you will see Bangladeshis crawling all over the place. I would know, being a Bengali I can make out the dialect.

The Indian government estimates upto 20 million Bangladeshis living in India, and even conservative estimates put the number at 15 million:

An analysis of population growth and demographic statistics for Bangladesh and India in the last four censuses of 2011, 2001, 1991, and 1981, however, suggests with reasonable certainty that their number exceeds 15 million.

http://carnegieindia.org/2016/06/29...india-toward-comprehensive-solution-pub-63931

But the sad part is that in your zeal to confront me, you are actually denying the existence of millions of your fellow countrymen. You do not even care whether they exist or not, depending on your convenience for the moment. With such an attitude, how can you be deluded that you have your own country's best interest in mind?

As for millions of Indians working in BD, well, I guess anything is possible.:lol::lol::lol:

Good, so when did you have the last census on the illegal Bangladeshis? Or your census data only shows estimates, not any actual figures? :lol:

Samir Guha Roy of the Indian Statistical Institute called the government estimates of illegal Bangladeshis "motivatedly exaggerated". After examining the population growth and demographic statistics, Roy instead states that a significant numbers of internal migration is sometimes falsely thought to be illegal immigrants.... Most of the Bengali speaking people deported from Maharashtra as illegal immigrants are originally Indian citizens from West Bengal.[5] According to Bonojit Hussain, 'illegal Bangladeshi' is a racist shorthand for the Bengali speaking Muslims in Assam.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshis_in_India

Any Indian militarization in Bay of Bengal has nothing to do with BD, it is squarely aimed at China. India has no dispute with BD that would require any military action. If you cannot understand that simple thing then no point continuing along this line.

Even though I don't see any PLAN warships stationed at Bay of Bengal, I believe you that the Indian naval bases in the BoB are targeted against China and nobody else. In this regard, I would also want you to believe that our military cooperation with China is not targeted against India but it is to ensure greater security and stability of the region.
 
.
Okay let us assume for a minute that the Teesta issue is settled to the satisfaction of Bangladesh. What happens then? Will BD stop flirting with China?

I ask this because I genuinely do not understand whether Bangladesh is taking care of its interests through increasing ties with China or just sending a message?
O Jo kehte hai na, " Kotai Agartula ar kothai khater tula " ?
 
Last edited:
.
No offense, but from our experience, Indian products and services have proved to be substandard. China, on the other hand, is a world leader in executing mega infrastructural projects.



Good, so when did you have the last census on the illegal Bangladeshis? Or your census data only shows estimates, not any actual figures? :lol:

Samir Guha Roy of the Indian Statistical Institute called the government estimates of illegal Bangladeshis "motivatedly exaggerated". After examining the population growth and demographic statistics, Roy instead states that a significant numbers of internal migration is sometimes falsely thought to be illegal immigrants.... Most of the Bengali speaking people deported from Maharashtra as illegal immigrants are originally Indian citizens from West Bengal.[5] According to Bonojit Hussain, 'illegal Bangladeshi' is a racist shorthand for the Bengali speaking Muslims in Assam.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshis_in_India



Even though I don't see any PLAN warships stationed at Bay of Bengal, I believe you that the Indian naval bases in the BoB are targeted against China and nobody else. In this regard, I would also want you to believe that our military cooperation with China is not targeted against India but it is to ensure greater security and stability of the region.

From saying that Indian loans come with strings attached, when challenged on the claim you shift the goal post to Indian products being substandard. Now I am supposed to chase that argument. No discussion can take place like this.

I am sure you think you made a point but if I say X and you say Y in response without even referring to X, it makes no sense. So to conclude, you do not have any proof that Indian loans come with strings attached, and neither can you address the issue as to how different is it from the Chinese who give loans with one hand and take it away with another, and leave you with a bill for it.

As for the number of Bangladeshis, again, I gave a source with an approximate number. That is less than the claimed 20 million but still a substantial 15 million. In response, you give a quotation saying that the some other estimate is exaggerated - again, something that is not under discussion at all. You process information all wrong and simply look for anything to support your claim. I have you a number, you have my a quote. Apples and oranges. So once again, you cannot she'd light on the actual number of Bangladeshis in India.

What is "greater security and stability"? If you have no threat perception then how is it your task to ensure it? Needlessly poking your nose into other countries' territorial disputes will not bring any good results.
 
.
The Teesta flows into uncertainty, not towards Bangladesh.

M. Serajul Islam

last01.jpg
The Hon’ble Prime Minister’s just concluded state visit to India put to rest two major speculations that were hot topics in the media before she went to New Delhi, namely the proposed Bangladesh-India defence treaty and second, the Teesta deal. The Teesta deal has been shelved once again, this time with new elements of uncertainty making it unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
The defence treaty that India wanted badly did not see the light of day and was reduced to a US$ 500 million loan agreement to buy its arms and armaments due to opposition to it from the people of Bangladesh and important sections among them.
No water in Teesta: Mamata
Nevertheless, the Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh was excited about the huge achievements of the visit. He said in his media meeting after the Summit level talks that so many agreements, MOUs, etcetera were signed that it was difficult for him to keep count. He named 35 but was reminded by the Indian journalists that the number was less, 22 in fact. That prompted him to ask the Indian journalists to refer the issue of number to their side. He of course failed to tell what millions in Bangladesh were waiting to hear that was what had happened to the Teesta deal.
Mamata Banarjee answered that query. She made it clear that as long as she was the Chief Minister of West Bengal, there was little chance of the Teesta deal being delivered to Bangladesh. She said after the Treaty was once again shelved with the polite assurance from Prime Minister Narendra Modi that it would be delivered “soon”, that the Teesta River was the heart of her people and there was no question that they would allow their heart to be ripped apart. She also said that there was no water in the Teesta to share and offered waters of other rivers to Bangladesh. She also suggested new studies for augmenting the water of the Teesta River.
In explaining away their failure to sign the Teesta deal nonchalantly, the Indians, including both New Delhi and Kolkata, perhaps forgot that there were sensible people in Bangladesh (and abroad and even in India itself) for whom the way the Indians dismissed the deal to permanent uncertainty was a bluff, a betrayal, and therefore not acceptable. When Sheikh Hasina had assumed power in January 2009, she had extended to India what New Delhi wanted from Bangladesh since 1971, that it would allow, first a permanent transit from mainland India to the Seven Sisters and that its security concerns from its eastern borders would be forever gone.

Only take no give!
Sheikh Hasina delivered both at great political risks to end decades of bad relations with the country that had helped the emergence of Bangladesh as a sovereign nation. Her government unilaterally handed to India 7 ULFA terrorists that had a great impact in controlling the growing threat from the ULFA terrorists. It also took the necessary steps so that Bangladesh could provide to India, land transit.
Bangladesh did not seek reciprocity for its Prime Minister bold moves. Nevertheless, it was only natural that Bangladesh expected concessions from India on its critically needed water required from the commonly shared rivers. The positive attitude of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was reflected in the Joint Declaration that was signed during her state visit to India in January 2010 that raised hopes in Bangladesh that India would reciprocate, particularly in the issue of water.
Thus leading up to the Indian Prime Minister’s return visit to Dhaka in September 2011, Bangladesh continued to provide India more access to jointly build the infrastructure for land transit. Bangladesh also worked hand in glove with India on the latter’s security concerns. On its part, India not only began negotiations on the Teesta positively, it gave Bangladesh an offer that was unexpected. It promised to share the water of the Teesta 50/50 in the dry season after reserving 20% for navigability of the river. In all earlier negotiations, the best India had offered was a 28% of Teesta water in the dry season.
That offer only encouraged Bangladesh to negotiate with India with greater sincerity. Bangladesh was also greatly encouraged by the case the Indians had built about land transit; that land transit would make Bangladesh the connectivity hub of the region out of which so much money and economic resources would flow that Bangladesh would not even need to charge India any fee for using land transit facilities. In fact, one of the three top Bangladesh officials who had negotiated with India between 2009-2011 had said that it would be “uncivilized” for Bangladesh to ask any transit fees from India. Another had said compared to the financial/economic benefits that would accrue by becoming the connectivity hub, the charges for transit would be “peanuts.”

Teesta, an international river
Therefore India’s decision to withdraw the Teesta deal the night before the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Dhaka in September 2011 was seen as a betrayal even by many foreign policy analysts of India. The argument that Mamata Banarjee’s intransigence was responsible was a very lame excuse because the Indian side did not alert the Bangladesh side of the problem even up to the time the Indian’s withdrew the deal. In fact, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni insisted that the deal would be signed on schedule because she could not believe that the Indians would take the deal off the table at literally the 11th hour without any warning.
The Indians had blamed Mamata Banarjee arguing that in the Indian Constitution, water was a provincial subject and thus New Delhi was powerless when a state decided against New Delhi on a water issue. It was really not the case for unlike the US federation where the states formed the union and were given a great deal of power under the Constitution, in India’s quasi-federal Constitution, the Center was made more powerful deliberately because of the fragile nature of the Indian federation. Moreover, the Teesta deal involved an international river where Bangladesh had rights that India could not withhold because of the wishes of a state. The Indian constitution had given the states rights over waters of cross state boundary rivers but not over the international rivers and most definitely from meddling in foreign affairs.
Therefore, under the Centre’s constitutional right over foreign relations and international agreements and treaties, New Delhi could have easily overridden West Bengal’s argument of constitutional rights over waters of cross-state rivers that did not extend to international rivers. Furthermore, New Delhi had the power of the purse over the states that was a formidable weapon that New Delhi could have used to convince Mamata Banarjee that her obstinacy n relations.

Delhi didn’t even try
Nevertheless, even after India had failed to deliver the Teesta in 2011, Bangladesh remained committed to improvement of bilateral relations with India. After the initial disappointment, Bangladesh also offered India the use of the Chittagong and Mangla seaports for the economic development of the Seven Sisters. India’s gestures after its betrayal on the Teesta were financial incentives. It had given a $1 billion as soft loan before Manmohon Singh’s visit to Dhaka and pitched another soft loan of the same amount after its failure to deliver the Teesta. The two loans remained largely unspent and whatever was spent, had been to buy Indian goods for development of the land transit infrastructure leading to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s just concluded visit to New Delhi.
There were no visible signs that New Delhi had made any serious efforts leading to her latest visit to resolve the Teesta deadlock. In fact, it appeared from media reports that New Delhi expected that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina would herself convince Mamata Banarjee at the dinner to which the President of India had invited her! It was unbelievable that New Delhi would reciprocate with the Bangladesh Prime Minister who had taken great political risks to befriend India.
Quite expectedly nothing happened in the Sheikh Hasina-Mamata Banarjee meeting. Instead, the West Bengal Chief Minister introduced new elements of uncertainty that left serious analysts of Bangladesh-India relations without doubt that Bangladesh’s only chance of ever getting the Teesta deal would materialize only when New Delhi decided to seriously pressure Mamata Banarjee on the basis of its constitutional role in foreign affairs and its power over the states with the control of the purse instead of making lame excuses.

Teesta vis-à-vis defence deal
There was very little reason of course for New Delhi to use those powers leading to the Bangladesh Prime Minister’s visit because it was aware ahead of the visit that the Bangladesh side would not sign the Defence Treaty. India had been trying for the Treaty for quite some time. The Indian Defence Minister had come to Dhaka in December with the Deputy Chiefs of the three defence services of India that was not just unfruitful; they had left with the impression that Bangladesh’s defence forces were not yet ready for it. And so were the majority of the people of Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, the failure to sign the Treaty was a big disappointment for India not in the context of its relations with Bangladesh but in the context of its strategic interests vis-à-vis China and the region. China had been making fast strides in building its economic and military strength and leaving India far behind. China had sent a strong message to India by sending its Defence Minister to Sri Lanka and Nepal where anti-Indian sentiments are on the rise.
India, therefore, needed the Defence Pact with Bangladesh badly to send a message to China about its role in South Asia. Furthermore, India also needed the Pact to ensure that should China decide to make the waters in the Seven Sisters muddy by encouraging the separatists there, it would have the land route through Bangladesh to deal with such an intention.
Therefore, India’s desire and failure to get the Defence Pact with Bangladesh had no doubt taken away even the slimmest chances of the Teesta Deal till Bangladesh was ready to sign the Pact. And Mamata Banarjee once again helped New Delhiby taking the blame upon herself and placed the last nail in the Teesta coffin when she suggested that new studies would be required to determine the quantum of water in the river!

Advani underlined Teesta’s importance
For Bangladesh, water was at the heart (and soul) of sustainable and friendly Bangladesh-India relations. For India, it was its security concern. The visit of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, notwithstanding all the departure from protocol and the flurry of agreements/MOUs etcetera signed during the visit, did not bring what was now indispensable for sustainable relations with its neighbours. At the reception in her honour by the India Foundation where former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani was present underlined unequivocally that water sharing was the key to sustainable Bangladesh-India relations and thus also underlined her frustrations with the visit.
Bangladesh’s needs from India for sharing of the waters of the common rivers was both legal under international law and convention and ecologically of absolutely the highest importance for it’s 160 million people’s livelihood and existence. It was based on those facts that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had shown the political will over the last 8 years while protecting the country’s sovereignty. India’s failure to give Bangladesh the Teesta deal was a betrayal given the political risks the Bangladesh Prime Minister took to encourage India to build mutually beneficial bilateral relations.
India’s proposal for the defence treaty to which it tied Bangladesh’s water needs was of a totally different nature. Bangladesh was under no threat of external aggression to warrant a defence treaty with India or for that matter with another country.On top of all that, an unnecessary defence treaty with India would have been seen by China, a long and trusted friend of Bangladesh and an adversary of India, as directed against it.
In what could only be underlined either as India’s insensitivity towards its neighbours or fall in their standard of conducting foreign relations, India made it appear like providing Bangladesh financial incentives was enough to appease both its the Government and its people. It was an expression of baniya mindset in the conduct of foreign relations.

Hasina shows maturity
On financial incentives, Bangladesh was well aware that India had offered $2 billion in financial incentives for its failure to fulfill its commitment on Teesta and that a major part of that incentive package had remained unutilized. And whatever part of it was spent was utilized for India’s benefit for buying Indian goods and services for the development of infrastructure to implement the land transit agreement.
Our Prime Minister showed grace and political wisdom in the face of India’s baniya mindset and insensitivity. In the reception hosted by the India Foundation that was attended among others by former Deputy Prime Minister of India, LK Advani, she did not complain about India’s failure to keep its commitment over Teesta once again. She simply underlined that the key to sustainable and mutually beneficial Bangladesh-India relations was embedded in just sharing of the waters of the common rivers, starting with the Teesta.
Without flagging explicitly, she left no Indian in doubt that India had not shown any interest to resolve the main issue that stood in the way of sustainable and mutually beneficial bilateral relations. In fact, New Delhi had made it now more difficult to resolve the Teesta Deal by allowing Mamata Banarjee have her absurd ways to take the upper hand from New Delhi on an issue that related to foreign affairs, a constitutional power in which a state had just no business to meddle.
The Prime Minister sent to New Delhi the message of her disappointment over her visit in a manner that only underlined her maturity as a political leader. She ordered her Party to cancel the civic reception for her upon her return home and underscore without uttering a word that India had betrayed her and the people of Bangladesh. In fact, in cancelling the proposed reception, she highlighted that she had quietly protected the country’s sovereignty by not succumbing to New Delhi’s pressure for the defence pact and answered the opposition’s accusation of selling Bangladesh’s interests to its big neighbour.

Ball is in India’s court
The just concluded visit of the Bangladesh Prime Minister to India was a watershed. It made clear to New Delhi that its one-way conduct of relations without meeting Bangladesh’s critical needs and interests, particularly on water, was not acceptable anymore. In fact, it also exposed the limits of Indian influence in Bangladesh and it did that with its ill-considered proposal of the Defence Treaty. India found out that the people and the defence forces of Bangladesh were ready to go any length with a friendly India but not with India that did not care what happened to Bangladesh for its interests because the defence treaty would have served India’s interest 100% and led its most trusted friend China to believe that it was joining its adversary India, against it.
The Prime Minister of Bangladesh put the ball of sustainable Bangladesh-India relations in India’s court. It would now be up to India to show the political will of the Bangladesh Prime Minister to move relations forward that money would not help but trust in which India had failed.

The writer is a former career Ambassador
 
.
Water tortured
The romance between Bangladesh and India is star-crossed

It does not help that China is prowling around

20170415_blp911.jpg

Asia
Apr 14th 2017
ENGULFED by India, its giant neighbour to the west, north and east, Bangladesh can look small. But it is the world’s eighth most populous country, with one of its fastest-growing economies. And its location, between India and South-East Asia, with a long littoral on the Indian Ocean, puts it in the thick of things, geopolitically speaking.

China clearly sees some potential. Xi Jinping, its president, visited last year and pledged $15bn in loans. China is Bangladesh’s biggest trading partner—and arms make up a good chunk of that trade. Two Chinese submarines arrived on credit in March. Bangladesh is the third-biggest buyer of Chinese arms, after two other neighbours of India, Pakistan and Myanmar.

India is responding with a charm offensive of its own. When Bangladesh’s prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, made a four-day state visit to Delhi that concluded on April 10th, her Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, made sure she did not go back empty-handed. He offered $5bn in loans, including $1bn for a Russian-backed nuclear plant, Bangladesh’s first; and $500m to buy Indian arms. The two countries signed a defence agreement committing them to deeper co-operation. India promised more cross-border electricity and railway lines.

But there was no progress on what mattered most to Sheikh Hasina: a treaty on how to share the water of the 53 rivers that flow from India to Bangladesh. One river in particular, the Teesta, has become the focus of attention. Bangladesh wants the water split evenly, whereas the Indian state of West Bengal claims 55%. Mr Modi has promised to resolve the issue, but his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governs only one of the four states bordering Bangladesh. The chief minister of West Bengal refuses to let him bid away her state’s stake in the Teesta. Sheikh Hasina had made an urgent pitch in the Hindu, an Indian newspaper, arguing “friendship is a flowing river”. She went home shrugging: “We sought water, but got electricity.”

Even if the water of the Teesta was his to give, Mr Modi might find it awkward to become too chummy with Sheika Hasina. Stoking resentment against Muslims, and against illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in particular, has proved a successful electoral formula for the BJP. Sheikh Hasina, for her part, is ignoring the Bangladeshi army’s instinctive suspicion of India to sign the security pact. The opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has accused her of selling out, and promised to scrap it if it comes to power. The Teesta is another handy stick with which the BNP can beat the government. Geography has thrust India and Bangladesh together, but domestic politics still pushes them apart.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...g-around-romance-between-bangladesh-and-india
 
. .
সিকিমে বিদ্যুৎকেন্দ্রের জন্য আটকে রাখা হচ্ছে তিস্তার ৬০ শতাংশ পানি
60% of Teesta water blocked by Sikkim for Hydel Plants thereby reducing the flow of water to 100 cusec.

  1. Cusec is a measure of flow rate and is informal shorthand for "cubic feet per second" (28.317 litres per second).
তিস্তার জল নিয়ে বিরোধ এবার সিকিমে গড়িয়েছে। পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকার বার বারে সিকিমে তিস্তার উপর গড়ে ওঠা একাধিক জলবিদ্যুৎ প্রকল্পকে নিয়ে অভিযোগ করেছেন। তবে সম্প্রতি রাজ্য সরকার তিস্তার জল নিয়ে একটি রিপোর্ট ভারত সরকারের কাছে পাঠিয়েছে। এই রিপোর্টে বলা হয়েছে, সিকিমে বিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্রের জন্য তিস্তার ৬০ শতাংশ জল আটকে রাখার ফলে তিস্তায় পানি প্রবাহ ১০০ কিউমেকে নেমে এসেছে।
পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারের পূর্ত দপ্তরের প্রিন্সিপাল সেক্রেটারি ইন্দরবর পান্ডের নেতৃত্বাধীন কমিটির তৈরি করা এই রিপোর্ট হাতে পেয়ে কেন্দ্রীয সরকার নড়েচড়ে বসেছে। মমতা সরকারের অভিযোগকে মান্যতা দিয়েই শক্তি মন্ত্রক সংশ্লিষ্ট সংসদীয় কমিটিকে সিকিম সফরে গিয়ে তিস্তার উপর তৈরি হওয়া বিদ্যুৎ প্রকল্পের প্রভাব তিস্তার উপরে কতটা পড়ছে তা খতিয়ে দেখতে বলা হয়েছে। এজন্য আগামী ২৩ এপ্রিল সংসদীয় কমিটি সিকিম সফরে যাচ্ছেন বলে জানা গেছে।

হাসিনার ভারত সফরের সময় তিস্তার পানি দেওয়া হবে না বলে পশ্চিমবঙ্গের মুখ্যমন্ত্রী যে মন্তব্য করেছিলেন তা নিয়ে প্রবল আলোড়ন তৈরি হয়েছে। মমতা তিস্তার বিকল্প হিসেবে অন্য নদীর জল বাংলাদেশকে দেবার প্রস্তাব করেছেন। তবে ভারত ও বাংলাদেশ কোনও পক্ষই মমতার প্রস্তাবকে আমলে নেয় নি। তবে দিল্লি থেকে ফিরে এসেই মমতা রাজ্য সরকারের তৈরি রিপোর্ট কেন্দ্রীয় সরকারের পাঠিয়ে জানিয়ে দিয়েছে তিস্তায় জল প্রবাহের বর্তমান অবস্থাটা কি পর্যায়ে রয়েছে। এই রিপোর্টে বলা হয়েছে, তিস্তায় এপ্রিল-মে মাসের শুখা মওসুমে বাংলাদেশ ও পশ্চিমবঙ্গের সেচের জন্য তিস্তায় প্রায় ১৬০০ কিউমেক(কিউবিক মিটার পার সেকেন্ড) জল থাকা প্রয়োজন। কিন্তু সেখানে বর্তমানে জল রয়েছে এর ১৬ শতাংশ কম। আর তাই এ বছরের উত্তরবঙ্গের সেচ এলাকাকে কমিয়ে ৫২ হাজার হেক্টরে নামিয়ে এনেছে পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকার।

তিস্তায় শুখা মওসুমে জল কম থাকার জন্য বিশেষজ্ঞরা সিকিমে তৈরি হওয়া ৮টি জলবিদ্যুৎ প্রকল্পকেই দায়ী করেছেন। পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারের রিপোর্টে বলা হয়েছে এই বিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্রগুলি প্রায় ৬০ শতাংশ জল ধরে রাখছে। আসলে জল আটতে রেখে পরে তা নদীতে ছেড়ে দেওয়ার ব্যবস্থা এই সব বিদ্যুৎ প্রকল্পে থাকলেও কোন সময় তা ছাড়া হবে তা নিয়ে কোনও সমন্বয় না থাকায় মাঝে মাঝেই তিস্তা জলশূন্য হয়ে পড়ছে।

একজন বিশেষজ্ঞ জানিয়েছেন, একসঙ্গে বা প্রায় কাছাকাছি সময়ে আটটি জলবিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্র যদি তাদের বিদ্যুৎ উৎপাদনের প্রয়োজনে জল সাময়িকভাবে হলেও আটকে রাখে তাহলে তিস্তায় জল প্রবাহ না থাকারই কথা। ঠিক সেটাই হওয়ার ফলে তিস্তায় জল সংকট তীব্র হচ্ছে।

পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারেরএক শীর্ষ আধিকারিক জানিয়েছেন, এতদিনে ভারত সরকার বিষয়টিতে মনোযোগ দিয়েছেন। আর তাই দ্রুত সংসদীয় কমিটিকে পাঠানো হচ্ছে সিকিমের জলবিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্রগুলি প্রত্যক্ষ করে এর প্রভাব সরজমিনে খতিয়ে দেখতে।

তিস্তা সিকিমের প্রায় ২৩ হাজার ১৫৯ ফুট উচ্চতায় অবস্থিত খানচুঙ ছো হিমবাহ থেকে তৈরি লেক থেকে বেরিয়ে ১৫১ কিলোমিটার সিকিমের মধ্য দিয়ে প্রবাহিত হয়ে কালিম্পংয়ের রংপোর কাছে পশ্চিমবঙ্গের সমতলে প্রবেশ করেছে। সিকিমে অবশ্য অনেক কটি ছোট নদী এসে মিশেছে এই তিস্তায়। পশ্চিমবঙ্গে ১৪২ কিলোমিটার প্রবাহিত হবার পর বাংলাদেশে প্রবেশ করে সেটি ব্রহ্মপুত্রে মিশেছে।

কিন্তু গত এক দশকে সিকিম ও পশ্চিমবঙ্গে ছোট বড় অসংখ্য জলবিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্র গড়ে তোলার পরিকল্পনা নেওয়া হয়েছে। এগুলির অনেক কটিই ইতিমধ্যে চালু হয়ে গিয়েছে। এছাড়া উজানে ক্যানেল কেটে জল সরিয়ে নেওয়া হয়েছে সেচ প্রকল্পের জন্য।

২০১৩ সালে প্রকাশিত এশিয়া ফাউন্ডেশনের এক রিপোর্টে বলা হয়েছে, ৫ হাজার মেগাওয়াট বিদ্যুৎ উৎপাদনের জন্য প্রায় ৩০টি জলবিদ্যুৎ প্রকল্পের পরিকল্পনা করা হয়েছে। সিকিমে তৈরি হয়েছে ৮টি এই ধরণের বিদ্যুৎ প্রকল্প। এজন্য তৈরি করা হয়েছে বিশাল বিশাল বাঁধ। সেখানে জল আটকে ক্যানেলের মধ্য দিয়ে নিয়ে যাওয়া হয়েছে বিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্রে। পরে তা আবার নদীতে ছেড়ে দেওয়া হচ্ছে। পশ্চিমবঙ্গের দার্জিলিংয়েও তৈরি হচ্ছে দুটি বাঁধ। তবে জলবিদ্যুৎ কেন্দ্রের জন্য জল ব্যবহারে যে ৫ শতাংশ করে জল নষ্ট হয়ে যায় সে কথা বিশেষজ্ঞরাই জানিয়েছেন। তাছাড়া সাময়িকভাবে হলেও তিস্তার জল আটকে রাখার ফলে তিস্তার জলে টান পড়ছে।

পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারের রিপোর্টে বলা হয়েছে, পশ্চিমবঙ্গের গজলডোবা এবং বাংলাদেশের লালমনিরহাটের দোয়ানিতে যে দুটি বাঁধ তৈরি করা হয়েছে তার উদ্দেশ্যই ছিল জল ধরে রেখে সেচের জন্য ব্যবহার করা। এজন্য পশ্চিমবঙ্গের ৯.২ লাখ হেক্টর এবং বাংলাদেশে ৭.৫ হেক্টর এলাকায় কৃষিকাজে (বোরো চাষের জন্য) তিস্তার জল ব্যবহারের কথা বলা হয়েছিল। কিন্তু বাংলাদেশে বা ভারতে কোথাও পরিকল্পিতভাবে জল ধরে রাখা হয় না বলে অভিযোগ করা হয়েছে। পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারের সাম্প্রতিক রিপোর্টে পরিষ্কারই বলা হয়েছে , পরিকল্পিতভাবে শুখা মওসুমের কথা মাথায় রেখে জল রাখা হয় নি। ফলে তিস্তার ব্যরেজগুলি এখন প্রায় জল শূন্য।

বিশেষজ্ঞদের মতে, গজলডোবায় যে তিস্তা প্রকল্প গড়ে তোলা হয়েছিল তার উদ্দেশ্য ছিল কৃষিকাজের জন্য জলের ব্যবহার করা। কিন্তু্ এজন্য প্রকল্পে বড় ধরণের কোনও জলাধার তৈরি করা হয় নি। ফলে বর্ষার সময়ের অতিরিক্ত জলকে সঞ্চয় রাখতে না পেরে তা ছেড়ে দিতে হয়। গজল ডোবা নিয়ে মূল পরিকল্পনাতেই যে ভুল ছিল সেটিই রাজ্য সরকারের রিপোর্টে স্পষ্ট করা হয়েছে। এখন পশ্চিমবঙ্গ সরকারের কাছে কাঁটা হয়ে উঠেছে এটি।

তবে তিস্তা চুক্তি নিয়ে যতই আশার কথা বলা হোক না কেন, সমাধানে পৌঁছানো ক্রমিই দূরের বিষয় হয়ে দাঁড়াচ্ছে। তিস্তায় জলপ্রবাহ বাড়াতে ভারত সরকার নদী সংযোগ প্রকল্পকেই গুরুত্ব দিচ্ছে বলে কেন্দ্রীয জলসম্পদ মন্ত্রক সুত্রে জানা গেছে, মানস ও সঙ্কোষের মতো নদীগুলির সঙ্গে তিস্তার সংযুক্তিকরণের একটি প্রস্তাব বিবেচনায় রয়েছে।
কিন্তু এই প্রকল্প একদিকে যেমন সময় সাপেক্ষ তেমনি এর পরিবেশগত প্রভাব ভয়ঙ্কর হয়ে ওঠার সম্ভাবনা রযেছে। পরিবেশবিদরা মনে করছেন, এই সংযুক্তিকরণের পথে সরকার এগিয়ে গেলে সার্বিক পরিবেশে বিপর্যয় ঘটবে। নদীগুলির স্বাস্থ্যহানি হবে। অববাহিকার মানুষজনের জীবন জীবিকার উপরও তা প্রতিকূল প্রভাব ফেলবে।

Teesta has no water to be shared, says Mamata Banerjee in north Bengal
Water of other rivers can be shared with Bangladesh, said the Bengal chief minister repeating her stand in Delhi on April 8.

KOLKATA Updated: Apr 29, 2017 19:57 IST
default_author.png
Read: Mamata’s new Teesta twist could muddy waters for Indo-Bangla ties
  • With this public comment, the Bengal chief minister has ruled out sharing waters of the river that the Sheikh Hasina regime in Dhaka is desperately seeking from India.

    _08290f44-29aa-11e7-a28f-c563b2540923.jpg

    The Bangladesh prime minister is banking on Narendra Modi to push through the Teesta Water sharing agreement. (HT Photo)
    Her stand may not please the Narendra Modi government that assured Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of a solution to the water sharing question “soon”.

    On April 8, the issue was discussed between the two prime ministers at Hyderabad House in Delhi.

    Read: Teesta water deal: One issue where Mamata loses nothing by sitting tight

    At a joint press conference Narendra Modi said the agreement was crucial for bilateral ties and expressed hope that the Bengal chief minister will eventually support it. “I know that her (Mamata Banerjee’s) feelings for Bangladesh are as warm as my own. I assure you and the people of Bangladesh of our commitment and continuing efforts (with regard to finalising the treaty),” he said. Modi added that he “firmly” believed that an early solution to the issue “can and will” be found.

    The Teesta water sharing issue has been a vexed question for quite some years. In 2011, the Bengal chief minister put former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a post by pulling out from his delegation to visit to Dhaka over the Teesta water-sharing deal, scuttling the agreement.

    Incidentally, it is important for Sheikh Hasina to get an agreement on sharing Teesta waters as she is under pressure at home to deliver on this front.

    On Tuesday, Mamata Banerjee, too, said that she wants cordial ties between the two countries.
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolka...orth-bengal/story-lZqRX793yTXyNNivEceGaJ.html
 
.
Fair enough. But it has got nothing to do with UNSC. China has several times the problem with its neighbors. Doesn't affect anything for them.

Have to disagree with you on this point.

I always hear Indian members saying this, that China's disputes with our neighbors are worse than India's. I think they have been desensitized to the bloodshed that is occurring regularly on their borders to make such a claim (just yesterday there were reports of soldiers having their heads cut off and their bodies mutilated, not to mention the constant cross border mortar shelling and in many cases, the open threats of nuclear war).

As troubled as China's diplomatic relations are in the South China Sea, nobody there actually uses live ammunition, or mortar shells. Certainly no beheadings or body mutilations. The worst thing that will happen in the South China Sea is someone will get sprayed with a water hose.
 
.
Have to disagree with you on this point.

I always hear Indian members saying this, that China's disputes with our neighbors are worse than India's. I think they have been desensitized to the bloodshed that is occurring regularly on their borders to make such a claim (just yesterday there were reports of soldiers having their heads cut off and their bodies mutilated, not to mention the constant cross border mortar shelling and in many cases, the open threats of nuclear war).

As troubled as China's diplomatic relations are in the South China Sea, nobody there actually uses live ammunition, or mortar shells. Certainly no beheadings or body mutilations. The worst thing that will happen in the South China Sea is someone will get sprayed with a water hose.

Well, we have your best friends to thank for that. Maybe you should sensitize them about the futility of violence as a means to solving disputes.

Apart from Pakistan, all other disputes are contained and compartmentalized precisely as China's disputes are - occasional sound bites, some media jingoism and otherwise business as usual.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom