Developing nations’ appeals unheard at UN Summit on Global Economic Crisis

AlJazeera, June 26, 2009

More than 140 countries have agreed on a blueprint to respond to the global economic crisis.

The paper calls for the inclusion of developing countries in finding solutions to the financial meltdown.

But some say the 15-page document is short on specifics, and has been undercut by indifference from the world’s largest economies.

Al Jazeera’s Cath Turner reports from the United Nations.

Tengratila blow-out victims demand full compensation

The Daily Star, June 24, 2009

Tengratila Dabi Aday Bastobayon Parishad at a press conference yesterday demanded payment of arrear compensation from Canadian company Niko for the massive damage caused by the blow-out at Tengratila on June 24 of 2005.

The blow-out took place when the Canadian company was conducting a relief well drilling at the remote location in Doarabazar upazila in Sunamganj district to seal the original one, which on January 7 the same year had suffered a huge blow-out.

“We will continue pressing the Niko to clear the arrear compensation to the villagers around. We also demand resuming activities in the gas field and establishment of a 50 MW power plant near the gas field,” said joint convener of the parishad, Nurul Amin, who read out a statement at the press conference at Sylhet Press Club.

The two separate committees formed by the government after the incident mentioned loss worth Tk 746 crore including Tk 85 crore in environmental loss but things have remained unsettled yet. The company did not even pay the total amount of agreed compensation to 616 poor families, who were forced out of their homesteads for months, goes the statement.

The parishad will form a human chain in front of the central Shahid Minar at Chouhatta in Sylhet city today (Wednesday) to press the ‘legitimate’ demands.

The June 24 blow-out at Tengratila caused destruction to huge gas and trees and croplands in the surrounding areas during the following weeks.

Thousands of people had to leave their homesteads as the huge fireball leapt 150 feet over the gas field.

The raging flames took about two months to go down totally.

Still bubbles due to gas emission are marked on the water bodies around and fish in the ponds often die due to the gas leakage, a number of locals said.

Carnival of Resistance, 2010

Carnival of Resistance, June 2009

Event, space, moment, process!

An annual three day convergence of souls striving for nirvana!

When? How about January 2010?

Keywords: Lets see if you guess it right! ………………..feminism, capitalism, neo-liberalism, obamaism, consumerism, TNCs, corporate grooms and slaves (only if they knew!), text book marxism, love, phulbari, coffee, rivers, dating, climate change, new politics, sex, butterflies, jeans, commodity, palestine, coke, Subcommander Marcos, rain, facebook, war on terror, militarization of CHT, remittance, dejuice, LGBT, profit, exploitation, accumulation, rights, water, kalpana chakma, RMG, responsibilities, english medium, pleasure, China, private universities, Lalon, Israel, YouTube, madrasa, empathy, rock, folk, pants, Iraq, lungi, war crimes trial, saree, Tv, theater, protest, solidarity, patriarchy, sexism, racism, militarism, masculinity, yasmin, India, friendship, solidarity, KFC…………………….fill in the blanks!

City: Dhaka, this time. Next? Invite us to your cities (we have a bit of urban bias) and brinndabons!

Visuals and spectators: Ok, we are talking about film screening! Don’t only be an onlooker! How long do you want to keep on purchasing “pirated” DVDs? Make your own film and send to us (we don’t mind receiving grainy clips made by cell phone cams…take command of your gadgets).

Concert: Noise is political! Shouts and murmurs! Guitars and ektars! Be yourself, don’t just try to imitate bauls. Warning: MTV clones go somewhere else!

Theatre: Bodies, space, lights and shadows!

Exhibitionism (a little bit of it isn’t that bad): photo, cartoon, posters, subversive art, and effigies (should be fun to burn it afterward, if its George the Bush…we have to wait a couple of years before we can safely burn Obama effigies…hope is so infectious)!

Rally: Don’t worry, we won’t do it on a sunny day when the city is on boiling point. Its not our fault if you forget to bring your raincoats! Disclaimer: fossil fuel fumes emitted by Japanese cars may cause respiratory and other health complications.

Talk-shop: Come out of your cocoon! Leave your stage fright behind, talk, just talk! We will listen, promise!

Fellow conspirators: YOU, and, Leela, Solidarity Workshop, Lokoj Institute, Binirman Andolon, praxis books, Gramsci Institute, Leela School of Cultural Studies…who said we are a bunch of closed door geeks?

Just appear, reclaim your space!

Carnival of Resistance on Facebook

Tipaimukh Dam: a real concern for Bangladesh

NewAge, June 23, 2009

The role of the Bangladesh government in this matter is quite confusing. Despite the rising protests from all corners, the government seems to be undermining the threats posed by the construction of this dam, writes Nadim Jahangir*

BY CONSTRUCTING the Tipaimukh Dam India is only looking into its own interest. India wants to control the water flow to facilitate irrigation of the Cacher plain. India is not at all concerned with its consequences on Bangladesh. Constructing this dam, the cubic metres of water which will be stopped is not clearly stated by the Indian government. The Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh is giving new information on a regular basis regarding the Tipaimukh Dam. According to the high commissioner, Bangladeshi journalists are making much ado about nothing. Bangladeshi journalists are writing from their nationalist point of view. The saddest part of the whole issue is that India never bothered to discuss the matter of the Tipaimukh Dam with Bangladesh. The water resources minister has recently disclosed in the parliament that Tipaimukh Dam is not like the Farraka barrage. By constructing this dam India will not divert water of the river Barak. It seems both the Indian high commissioner and our water resource minister are of the same opinion.

Bangladesh would have to face serious consequences if this dam is constructed. Even the people of Manipur and Nagaland would also have to suffer. The Barak-Surma-Kushiara is an international river. Therefore, Bangladesh, being a lower riparian country, has the right to an equitable share of the water from the river and also a right to examine the details of the construction of this dam. No detailed plan of the dam has seemingly been provided to Bangladesh to appraise its full impact on Bangladesh. India, being an upper riparian country, has an obligation under international law to discuss the construction of such a massive infrastructure on the common river with lower riparian Bangladesh.
   P

rofessor Mustafizur Rahman Tarafdar, a water resources expert, in an article titled ‘Tipaimukh Dam: An alarming venture’, discussed the ill-effects of the Tipaimukh Dam. If this dam is eventually constructed as intended, Bangladesh would have to suffer the adverse effects. This dam would lead to hydrological drought and environmental degradation. The dam would cause the Surma and Kushiara to run dry during November to May which would eventually hamper agriculture, irrigation, navigation, shortage of supply of drinking water, etc. This shortage of water in these few months would decrease the boost of groundwater which over the years would lower the groundwater level, which in turn would affect all dug outs and shallow tube-wells. Agriculture, which is dependent on both surface as well as groundwater, would also be affected. Also, any interference in the normal flow of water in the Barak would have an adverse effect on the Surma in Bangladesh that, in turn, feeds the mighty Meghna that flows through Bangladesh. This dam would hamper the cultivation of early variety of boro in the northeast. Arable land will decrease and production of crops will fall, leading to an increase in poverty. Roughly 7 to 8 per cent of total water of Bangladesh is obtained from the Barak. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies fed by the Barak in the Sylhet region for fishing and agricultural activities. A dam-break is a catastrophic failure of a dam which results in the sudden draining of the reservoir and a severe flood wave that causes destruction and in many cases death downstream. If the Tipaimukh Dam were to break, impounding ‘billions’ of cubic metres of water, it will cause catastrophic floods because of its colossal structure.

According to an article published by Dr. Soibam Ibotombi, teacher of earth sciences at Manipur University, the northeastern part of India is one of the highest earthquake-prone areas in the world due to its tectonic setting, i.e. subduction, as well as collision plate convergence. Analysis has revealed that hundreds of earthquakes have taken place in this region in the last 100-200 years. Study on the trends of earthquakes reveals that earthquakes mostly take place in regions which have experienced earthquakes in the past. The Tipaimukh Dam site has been chosen at the highest risk seismically hazardous zone. Inhabitants of Manipur also believe that this dam would prove to be a grave threat to the flora and fauna and endangered species like pythons, gibbons, herbal and medicinal plants, and for tribal land rights. They also fear that the dam would submerge as many as 90 villages within a 311 square-kilometre radius.

Renowned water expert Dr Ainun Nishat has recently observed that construction of Tipaimukh Dam will not bring any benefits to Bangladesh. Similar concern is also being raised by another water expert SI Khan. Both of them suggested that government should have a serious discussion with the Indian government. Till the end of the discussion, Bangladesh must request India to refrain from any sort of construction of the dam in the proposed site. According to these two experts, if the dam is constructed, 16 districts of greater Sylhet will be affected. The immense natural disaster that will take place would be irreversible. Even though the Indian government is saying once the dam is constructed, electricity will be generated and Bangladesh will benefit by importing the electricity. It does not make sense to make a certain part of Bangladesh a desert area solely for the purpose of importing electricity [Dainik Destiny, May 31].

The ever-increasing demand for freshwater has propelled the construction of dams and barrages on international rivers, and it is reported that 60 per cent of the world’s largest rivers have been interrupted by artificial structures. Many of them were built in agreement with riparian countries, and about 200 treaties are now in force for the management of common water resources.

According to a UNESCO study, freshwater is getting scarce. The study reveals that the average supply of water is expected to fall by one-third within 20 years. Nearly seven billion people could face water shortages by 2020, and global warming may cause severe water shortages in 50 countries. South Asia is one of the regions to be adversely affected, partly because of melting of the Himalayan glaciers due to global warming.

In 1896, the then US attorney general Judson Harmon propounded the ‘Harmon Doctrine’ which stated that Mexico was not entitled to the water from an international river, the Rio Grande. The doctrine emphasised territorial sovereignty over an international river. It means that, within its territory, a state can do whatever it wishes with the water of an international river, and does not need to bother about the consequences of its withdrawal on a lower riparian nation. But the US discarded and discredited it in 1906 when it concluded a treaty with Mexico relating to sharing of water of the Rio Grande. India also argued in favour of this doctrine in the mid-1970s with Bangladesh. India also made a treaty with Pakistan in 1960 called the Indus Water Treaty, which gives India exclusive use of all of the waters of the Eastern Rivers and their tributaries before the point where the rivers enter Pakistan.

A river flows as an indivisible unit, without knowing any political boundaries. If it is interfered with at the upper stream, the lower riparian country will be affected. That is why international law recognises the right of each riparian country to benefit from all the advantages deriving from river waters for the welfare and economic prosperity of its people. According to international law, it is illegal to construct any dam on an international river without consent from the other side. But India has violated it by starting the construction of Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak. News of this construction has been formally confirmed in a recent statement by Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty, the high commissioner of India to Bangladesh. He admitted that the Indian government has resumed the process of construction once again from the end of 2008. According to Chaktavarty, the dam would produce hydroelectricity and would not ‘harm’ Bangladesh in any way. It would only regulate the river’s flow. As it is a project aimed at producing hydroelectricity, no water would be withheld from Bangladesh. To produce electricity the water flow would have to be obstructed which means that there will be less flow of water to the riparian neighbouring country. Furthermore, he is stating that the water will not be used for irrigation purposes. But, once the water is obstructed the water flow will automatically decrease. Sadly, such assurances were given at the time of the construction of the Farakka Dam also but till date, Bangladesh is suffering the consequences.

Unilateral water diversion, or withdrawal of water from international or common rivers, has been the long-standing policy of India. India has seldom bothered to think about the impact of such policies on a lower riparian country, such as Bangladesh, in diverting water from common rivers.

Ever since India began constructing the Farakka Barrage on the India-Bangladesh border in 1972, 17 rivers in Bangladesh have already ‘died’ and another eight are on the verge of drying up due to reduced water flows. The navigable length of the river in south-eastern Bangladesh has also reduced due to low water volume. A number of tributaries have either dried up or have become too shallow for vessels to use. The low river flow has increased salinity which in turn has caused loss of vegetation. Industries in south-western Bangladesh face the problem of getting usable, saline-free water. The cost of Bangladesh’s direct losses due to Farakka is estimated at half a billion dollars a year. According to studies conducted by Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, about 80 rivers in Bangladesh have dried up within three decades after the Farakka Dam was built.

India is withdrawing waters of almost all the common rivers by building dams on the upstream, which will eventually cause Bangladesh to turn into a desert. The Padma River is drying up in Rajshahi after construction of Farakka Barrage. Twenty tributaries of the river have turned into streamlets.

The Tipaimukh Dam is not just a political issue but also a scientific one. The livelihoods of millions of people, who rely on the Meghna for freshwater, for their livelihoods, and for the overall food security of the region, are at stake. Bangladesh is already battling with water shortages due to global warming and consequent climate change. The Tipaimukh Dam would add to the environmental cataclysm already predicted by environmentalists.

The role of the Bangladesh government in this matter is quite confusing. Despite the rising protests from all corners, the government seems to be undermining the threats posed by the construction of this dam. Only recently the prime minister of Bangladesh has said the government intends to form a committee to evaluate all aspects regarding construction of the dam before making any decisions on this controversial project. It might be that the government is envisaging some benefits from the construction of this controversial dam, namely import of electricity. In April 2009, the Indian government had invited a Bangladeshi delegation to see the construction of the planned Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak.

The Bangladesh government must take a stand to clarify its position on the Tipaimukh Dam, on the basis of scientific evidence and expert opinion and not on the basis of mere assurances of the Indian government. There is evidence of the reluctance of the Indian government to fulfil its commitments in the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty, in which Bangladesh in recent years has been receiving significantly less water than promised. The Indian government has not made any response even after repeated official protests by Bangladesh on the issue of water shortfalls. Therefore, it is imperative that the Bangladesh government re-examine the scientific evidence on the possible ill effects of the Tipaimukh Dam before it signals its approval.

*Dr Nadim Jahangir is associate professor, Independent University, Bangladesh

Peoples Voices: UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development

MEDIA ADVISORY

People Impacted by the Economic Crisis from Around the World Gather to Give Voice to the Forgotten, Marginalized

20 June 2009 – Responses to the current economic crisis have been inadequate and fail to fully address the myriad of related global crises, such as food security and climate change. An international coalition of ‘working’ people directly impacted by these crises, and civil society organizations, will meet in a public forum to deliver this message to world leaders in advance of a UN Conference on the economic crisis on 20 June from 1pm to 6pm at the historic Church of the Holy Trinity in New York.  Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, the current President of the UN General Assembly and the convener of the Conference, will deliver a keynote address.

“In the midst of the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression, we now have the opportunity and the responsibility to search for solutions that take into account the interests of all nations, the rich and the poor, the large and the small,” Mr. Brockmann has said.

The immediate impacts of the economic crisis on stock prices, private pension funds and access to lines of credit have been apparent and well-reported.  But the precise consequences of the financial meltdown for working men and women – across the globe – have been less obvious and have received far less attention.  Indeed, only recently has data been reported that describes the deep impact of the economic crisis on developing countries, who moreover played little role in the creation of the crisis, organizers say.

People’s Voices on the Crisis will give voice to those that have felt the impact of the crisis and whose stories have thus far received little attention.  The event will showcase the testimonies of grassroots activists from diverse regions of the world working with many of the world’s forgotten victims, who will give evidence on how the financial, as well as food, energy and climate change crises, are affecting their lives and their work.

“We believe that the current economic crisis is the result not merely of misinformation, lax regulation or simple hubris. Rather, it is the result of a deeply flawed system that perpetuates crises in food security, in the environment as well as in finance and economics,” says Roberto Bissio, Coordinator of Social Watch and one of the organizers.

The forum will also address a more hopeful future, as advocates will offer their proposals on overcoming the current crisis and in the process develop a new economic system that is built on the rights – and in the service – of all people.  The outcome of the Hearing will be a set of recommendations to be delivered to world leaders gathered at the UN Conference on the Economic Crisis that will begin the following Monday.

People’s Voices on the Crisis

Saturday, 20 June

Church of the Holy Trinity

316 E. 88th Street, New York, NY

For more information contact:

Jana Silverman∙Social Watch∙jsilverman@item.org.uy

Nicolas Luisani∙International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net)∙nlusiani@escr-net.org

Zak Bleicher∙UN-NGLS∙212.963.3117∙bleicher@un.org

Is West Undermining Summit on Financial Crisis?

By Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service, June 17, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 17 (IPS) – When a Western diplomat was asked whether his country would be represented by a head of state at next week’s U.N. summit meeting on the global financial crisis, his response was tinged with sarcasm and contempt.

We will send only our note takers,” he was quoted as saying.

In diplomatic jargon, “note takers” are equivalent to glorified stenographers who religiously take down everything said at a meeting but have no authority to intervene or take decisions.

The decision to hold a U.N. summit on the global economic crisis was taken by all 192 member states – by consensus – at an international conference on financing for development held in the Qatari capital of Doha last November.

The participants at next week’s summit were expected to be “at the highest political levels”, meaning heads of state and government.

But Western nations have apparently backed out of the decision which they themselves took in Doha.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Asian diplomat told IPS: “The Western states are trying to undermine the meeting by sending low-level representatives.”

“The reason is obvious,” he explained. “The West feels the General Assembly is not the appropriate forum to discuss the global financial crisis.”

“They think the crisis belongs to the World Bank, and more importantly, the International Monetary Fund (IMF),” he added.

Asked if there were any Western heads of state or heads of government scheduled to participate in the summit, Enrique Yeves, spokesman for the president of the General Assembly, told IPS: “None from the West.”

But there are around 30 heads of state and government (out of 192), mostly from developing nations, who have confirmed attendance, he added.

“We (will) have a strong presence of Latin America and the Caribbean – especially from the Caribbean, we have several heads of state and government coming,” Yeves said. “We’ll (also) have a good attendance, I’ve been told, from Africa and Asia.”

“And then, as they have already been said in public, the developed countries, especially the Europeans and the United States and some others, have indicated they might not be represented at the level of heads of state, but certainly at the level of ministers or whoever is the chief of delegation,” Yeves added.

The summit meeting of the General Assembly, due to take place Jun. 24-26, was originally scheduled for Jun. 1-3.

But delegates wanted more time to negotiate the draft outcome document that will be adopted at the meeting.

The negotiating process on the document has been painfully slow and is expected to continue till the eve of the summit next week.

After consultations with the various regional groups, the president of the General Assembly, Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, the organiser of the three-day summit, decided to postpone the meeting from the original date to next week.

Meanwhile, there have been several stories in the mainstream media, quoting Western diplomats as saying they are very unhappy with the left-wing agenda of D’Escoto, a former foreign minister in the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Asked about this, Yeves told reporters Monday: “But let me – because I have been quoted in some of these articles, as well – tell you what I find strange in the last two or three articles that we have seen, is that we keep hearing these anonymous sources quoting diplomats of the developed countries basically saying that the meeting is not a good idea.”

“It’s going to be a failure or that they don’t think it is going to accomplish anything or whatever,” Yeves said. “I would like to make two comments on this particular issue. The first one, it is very difficult to discuss anonymous sources because, you know, we don’t know who said what, and in what context.”

“However, the president (of the General Assembly) speaks for himself – or I speak for myself – on the record all the time, and our record is very clear.”

“And the second part that I wanted to say is on substance,” because the criticisms are strange, because the summit, and the entire process leading to the summit, have been approved by consensus by all 192 member states,” he said.

Farakka to Tipaimukh

Habib Siddiqui*, NewAge, June 14, 2009


IN RECENT days, Bangladesh seems to have woken up to the danger posed by construction of the Tipaimukh Dam in the neighbouring Manipur state of India. There are some in Bangladesh who have a habit of translating national issues of this kind into deplorable partisanship thereby fostering disunity when national unity is needed. In so doing they commit acts of treason.
   

Before delving into the Tipaimukh project, I would like to share some facts surrounding the Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project.
   

After Bangladesh’s independence, the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over 90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh team was headed by BM Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-16,000cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season. 
   

Unfortunately, soon after Sheikh Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MoU) by cheating and diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the attention of UN General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in 1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get its due share during all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first Khaleda Zia administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to 12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.
   

After Sheikh Hasina was elected prime minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on December 12, 1996. The treaty addressed the heart of the conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season (January-May). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50 per cent).
   

The statement of IK Gujral, external affairs minister, in Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996 on the visit of prime minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: ‘[D]uring the critical period within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments. While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh would continue to receive 90 per cent of its share in accordance with the new formula. We would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.’
   

In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today, including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.
   

It is true though that India had not kept its side of the bargain since signing of the treaty. The Joint River Commission statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9, shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1,406 cusecs, in January 2002 to 1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.
   

India’s behaviour mimics those of Israel in dishonouring every treaty that the rogue state had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not it be ashamed of its iniquity?
   

Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long-term effects, which are already being felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water; (b) 30 million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.
   

Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.
   

As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People report (November 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, ‘Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperisation and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.’ 
   

So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary – the state of West Bengal – did not benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.
   Syful Islam mentions a study conducted by the ‘International Rivers’, a US-based NGO that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318 dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000MW of additional electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world’s most prolific dam-builders. India is committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone. 
   

If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.
   

Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140MW of power to fulfil the unrestricted demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all the central sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura comes to around 105MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation, this 390-metre-long, 163-metre-high dam would have an installed capacity of 1,500MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs 6,800 crore — an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s union minister for industries and Cachar’s representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007 mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra Board, a wing of the union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997. 
   

The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur state where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian government’s decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in north-east India is not only arrogant but also criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced and thereby worsening Bangladesh’s overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighbouring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them.
   

Our experience in the past 50 years has also taught us that humanity has brought more harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Manmade systems like hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, ‘They’re a guaranteed way of taking a farmer’s wisdom away from him. They’re a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute. Ecologically, they’re in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to earthquakes.’
   

What really concerned this writer the most is the stupidity of the Indian government’s decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet its electric demand. This decision seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonise people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner it would better serve the interest of its people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that it cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet its energy demand. 
   

Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people? 
   

As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to abandon the project now, especially after spending hundreds of crores of rupees in front end loading activities. 
   

While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavour, India today wouldn’t be building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realise that self-interest rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with our neighbours in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them. 
   

At this stage, what actions and programmes are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favour of alternative options for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonouring its agreements on Farakka with Bangladesh, can it be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only options Bangladesh has to redress its grievances? 
   

*Dr Habib Siddiqui is a peace and human rights activist, and chairman of the Board of Directors of Bangladesh Expatriate Council, USA. He writes from Pennsylvania. saeva@aol.com

Bangladesh: climate change as a burning political issue

NewAge, June 13, 2009

For a policy aimed at prevention can only be instituted at Bangladesh’s state level, if a massive effort is made towards mobilising popular forces from below. Instead of limiting oneself to demanding financial concessions from imperialist governments, a high target needs to be set towards limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, writes Peter Custers*


IN THIS brief essay, I propose to analyse the danger that Bangladesh in the future will be visited by a climate catastrophe, as also the way in which such a catastrophe can be averted. I will also discuss more elaborately why climate change is a political issue, and not a matter of Nature’s erratic behaviour or spontaneous conduct. Today’s climate change, as scientists have argued for long, is primarily the consequence of the choices which Great Britain and other rising European capitalist powers made when staging the 18th-century Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution entailed a technological transformation, leading to the factory-based system of industrial production. Technological changes in methods of production were accompanied by a shift from reliance on renewable sources of energy, such as wind and fuel wood, towards reliance on non-renewable energy sources, i.e. fossil fuels, starting with coal. More than two centuries of industrial production – in which coal, oil and gas have been employed as principal energy sources – have resulted in emissions of such large quantities of greenhouse gases to the world’s atmosphere, oceans and forests, as to make dramatic changes in the world’s climate virtually inevitable.
   
   

Bangladesh’s vulnerability
   

BANGLADESH threatens to be one of the first, and surely will be one of the major victims. For the country is extremely vulnerable to climate change – more so perhaps than most other nations on earth. Visits made by journalists and scientists to Greenland and the Antarctic region – regions located towards the world’s far northern and far southern poles where massive sheets of ice exist – in recent years have brought out that processes of the melting of ice there are well underway. Once these processes of melting will take on more massive forms, they inevitably will lead to higher water levels in all the world’s oceans. Some climate scientists warn that the increase may be five metres or more within the present century. Climate change, if allowed to continue, then will affect many of the world’s civilisations, civilisations which more often than not have been built in coastal zones, in river deltas and along the world’s main rivers. Even a relatively ‘modest’ rise in seawater levels, for instance of two metres, would threaten to inundate highly populated areas, such as the vast urban conglomerates of Dhaka, Kolkata, Tokyo and Shanghai.
   

However, Bangladesh’s vulnerability is more than average. It is larger for instance than that of deltaic regions belonging to the world’s global north. This is due amongst others to the fact that Bangladesh’s territory includes large rural regions which are both low lying and highly populated, such as the country’s south-western region. A two-metre rise in the level of water in the Bay of Bengal, as reports drafted under the United Nations system have warned, could result in reduction of Bangladesh’s land mass by as much as a quarter, necessitating the evacuation of 25 to 30 million people. Moreover, Bangladesh’s position is different from that of a northern deltaic country such as the Netherlands, which too is low lying and very flat. For whereas the Netherlands as central capitalist power has been able to exploit southern economies ever since colonial times, and in consequence has built up huge capital resources which it can harness towards protection of its own people, Bangladesh and other deltaic and low-lying countries in the global south do not possess the same capital wealth. Lack of proper capital resources is one – though not the only – factor that makes Bangladesh’s position highly vulnerable.
   

Moreover, the issue of climate change, as the geography of poverty in Bangladesh brings out, is also, partly, a class issue. Landlessness is a problem which, of course, exists throughout Bangladesh. As well known, the percentage of people belonging to the category of (functionally) landless peasants has been growing throughout the country ever since Bangladesh gained formal independence, in 1971. Yet the concentration of landlessness and of rural poverty is especially large in the south-western region. Here, the percentage of those who have to survive on less than $1 a day reportedly is the largest in comparative terms. This, of course, does not mean that other sections of the people living in the south-western region will not face added hardship, once water levels in the Bay of Bengal dramatically rises. Surely, those belonging to society’s middle sections – small peasants, shopkeepers, teachers, health workers, etc – risk being uprooted as well. Nevertheless, it is no exaggeration to say that the issue of climate change is a class question, for the poor and extremely poor simply lack the means to protect themselves, or to shift towards safe heavens in the north.
   
   

Accumulation of CO2 in atmosphere
   

LET’S next return once more to the relationship between climate change and imperialist exploitation. Spokespersons of the previous, notorious American government of George W Bush, against all evidence, argued that the very existence of greenhouse gases in the world’s atmosphere is a natural phenomenon for which humans bear no responsibility. It is, therefore, important to hammer on the point that CO2 and other greenhouse gases under capitalism have turned into a (gaseous) form of waste. Although CO2 has been present in the world’s atmosphere since the beginning of planet earth and has mediated the world’s climate for hundreds of millions of years, it is the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouses as ‘by-product’ of industrial manufacturing and as side-effect of the use of fossil fuels in transports, which is the very cause of modern climate change. Greenhouse gases comprise a whole range of gases besides CO2. For instance: methane, emissions of which are a side-effect of modern agriculture; and water vapour, additional quantities of which are released in consequence of climate change itself. All greenhouse gases trap the rays of the sun’s light in the world’s atmosphere, intercepting sunlight and preventing it from being reflected back into outer space.
   

Further, greenhouse gases once deposited in the earth’s atmosphere continue to reside there for a smaller or greater length of time. This results in a process of accumulation, i.e. accumulation of waste in the air as an accompaniment of the accumulation of capital on earth. For instance, carbon dioxide remains present in the atmosphere for a period of more than one hundred years. The time of residence of methane, which has a large absorbing capacity, i.e. absorbing 20 times as much heat as does CO2, is relatively shorter. Yet here too accumulation takes place, for methane that is deposited in the world’s atmosphere stays around for as long as a decade. To this must be added the fact that the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions taking place every year does not remain constant or even. For the process of capitalist accumulation on a world scale itself results in emissions of ever larger quantities of greenhouse gases. Each year more CO2 is added to the quantity of CO2 that was deposited in the atmosphere in the preceding year. Both because of the long residing time of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and in consequence of the exponential growth in the amount of greenhouse gases that is emitted, the dangers they pose for humanity’s future are huge.
   

The question which may be discussed next is what quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is maximally permissible, before things do definitely go wrong. Here, truth requires us to admit that climate scientists are not all agreed on one figure. The method by which the size of gaseous depositions is quantified is through carbon dioxide equivalents. Scientists measuring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere further speak of parts in a million, i.e. parts of greenhouse gas in a million of molecules in the air. With regard to CO2, it is estimated that its presence in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the start of the Industrial Revolution, i.e. from 280ppm then to 385ppm by now. However, there is no unanimity of view as to what constitutes a safe limit. According to the IPCC for stance, 450ppm is a tolerable level. Yet some climate scientists, such as the respected American climate archaeologist James Hansen, argue that at 385ppm we have already transgressed the limit of what’s permissible: if we want to save planet earth from catastrophic climate change, CO2 levels need to be brought down to 350ppm at most. Surely, from a precautionary point of view it would be foolhardy to take unnecessary risks, and put the upper limit higher than is absolutely safe.
   

Moreover, climate scientists increasingly point at the danger that tipping points will be reached suddenly. The concept of tipping points being referred to in the world’s media refers to the fact that climate change could suddenly be accelerated through what are called ‘feedback’ effects, i.e. secondary processes of change which follow initial climate change. For climate change does not take place in a linear fashion.
   

Acceleration is for instance implied by the disappearance of the so-called albedo, which is the phenomenon whereby icecaps and icebergs reflect sunlight back into outer space. In as much as the melting of ice leads not only to a rise in oceanic water levels, but in the very same go also cancels out the albedo effect, the warming up of the earth’s atmosphere indeed tends to be speeded up by initial climate change itself. Nobody can predict with certainty when climate change will run out of control.
   Yet the concept of tipping points brings out the risks of a sudden deluge. Once climate change is accelerated in consequence of worldwide processes of the melting of ice and permafrost, the rise in the oceanic water levels could indeed be exceedingly fast.
   
   

Cyclones and climate change
   

PERHAPS this is the point in my discourse where the question of a potential relationship between climate change and cyclones can best be discussed. Bangladesh and its neighbour Myanmar over the last one year and a half have experienced three major cyclones. First, in November of 2007, cyclone Sidr struck, claiming over 10 thousand lives in Bangladesh’s south-west. Within roughly half a year from then, Myanmar experienced an even more devastating cyclone, one which probably caused over a hundred thousand deaths. Then recently again, the coastal regions of Bangladesh were hit by another cyclone, one which claimed fewer human lives, but which damaged coastal embankments and led to the displacement of half a million people. Cyclones are, of course, not a new phenomenon for Bangladesh. They have claimed much larger numbers of victims in the past, in 1970 and 1991, than on recent occasions. Yet the question that needs to be posed is whether the recent succession of cyclones has anything to do with the process of human-induced climate change. Might there perhaps be a connection between the frequency of cyclones and occurrence of climate change, or between the latter and the intensity of cyclones which strike the coastal regions in the Bay of Bengal?
   

Climate scientists don’t seem to agree yet on the answer to these crucial questions, and the evidence contained in reports that have been drafted is contradictory. And yet there is much reason to be alert. Research carried out on hurricane Katrina, which hit the US city of New Orleans in 2005, for instance, indicates that this cyclone reached its peak precisely when passing over an area of the Gulf of Mexico that was heated by an infusion of deep warm water hailing from the Caribbean. Scientists have also stated more than once that the very occurrence of cyclones is related to the warming up of the surface water of seas and oceans. Hence, the prevention of the further warming up of the earth and of the surface of the oceans is crucial, if we are to reduce the risk that devastating cyclones in the future will take place. Even if we can’t be hundred per cent sure as to the precise ways in which climate change and cyclone events interact, the risks associated with cyclones come on top of those deriving from a rise in water levels in oceans and seas.
   

Perhaps the most alarming implication of rises in water levels is that the impact of cyclones which strike from the Bay of Bengal is shifted farther north. First, a rise in water levels of just 1 or 2 metres will inevitably lead to the loss of low-lying coastal areas, of chars and islands which at present are being cultivated, and where millions of poor and landless families eke out a meagre living. Secondly, the inundation of vast tracts of low-lying land will shift the burden of effects created by cyclones towards the north. Whereas so far, these burdens were carried by people living in occupied chars and mainland areas belonging, for instance, to Patuakhali, Bakerganj and Barguna, after the inundation of Bangladesh’s south-western region the cyclones’ power of devastation will fall on Bangladeshi districts which in the past have been relatively carefree. The question which then needs to be posed is whether the nation can afford to take so many risks relating to climate change. Will the country allow the global north to play with Bangladesh’s future generations? Or do we need to agitate nationally and internationally, so as to avert the risk of a climate catastrophe?
   
   

Adaptation or prevention?
   

LET´S then briefly discuss what perspective we need for policymaking, for social change aimed at stemming climate change now. At the level of Bangladesh’s state bureaucracy certain awareness exists of the fact that the country in the future threatens to be victimised by climate change. Sections of the country’s national press and media and of nongovernmental organisations these last few years have been quite vocal as well. Yet in line with the country’s history of dependence on external financial support, much too much energy has so far gone into shopping for money, money aimed at implementation of so-called ‘adaptation measures’. Of course, coastal embankments and shelters aimed at protecting people living in coastal zones are essential. Yet the question that needs to be posed is how much can ultimately be achieved via adaptation measures alone. Will such measures suffice? Don’t we risk having to rebuild coastal embankments many times over? And what when climate change reaches the tipping points of which I have spoken above? Will adaptation measures still be adequate to cope with accelerated climate change, with rises in sea water levels of 2 metres or more? Is a different course of action, one straightforwardly aimed instead at prevention, at averting climate disaster, ultimately not to be preferred above measures which by themselves can only help to counter a part of the huge damages that threaten to occur?
   

Here is, then, where the responsibility of Bangladesh’s progressive forces comes into play. For a policy aimed at prevention can only be instituted at Bangladesh’s state level, if a massive effort is made towards mobilising popular forces from below. Instead of limiting oneself to demanding financial concessions from imperialist governments, a high target needs to be set towards limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Whereas the world’s governments are still haggling over targets such as a 20 or 50 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 or later, the people of Bangladesh have the right to demand that emissions be brought down speedily and by 90 per cent. Only a rapid transition towards a world economy which relies on renewable energy instead of fossil fuel resources will do. Such a transition is not only technically feasible, but is also feasible in an economic sense. Through the institution of Keynesian measures of state intervention, such as taxes and public investments privileging renewable energy, the given transition can well be staged. Yet it will not be achieved unless the world’s working class and the peasantry take the lead.
   

*Dr Peter Custers is a campaigner and theoretician based in Leiden, the Netherlands. Email: antimil@hotmail.com

‘It has to be solved by the Prime Minister now”

NewAge Extra, June 12-18, 2009

Dr Ainun Nishat country director of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), was also a JRC (honorary) member from 1981 to 1999

What will be the effect on Bangladesh if the Tipaimukh Dam project concentrates on hydroelectric power generation?

   As we don’t know the details about the project, we can only make assumptions about the effects. But one thing is for certain that the risk of flood will increase. And the water bodies in Sylhet will be overflowing even during the winter season. Most importantly, the average sea water level will rise. Surface irrigation will be in danger and cultivation and livelihoods in the area will be adversely affected.

   But to tell exactly how much it will affect us is very hard at this point. We will have to study the detailed data regarding this project and then reach a conclusion. Whatever we say now is a hypothetical understanding.

   What will be the consequences if India makes the barrage at Fulertala?

   If India makes a barrage at Fulertala (through which they will be able to manage water according to their need), and procure water from river Barak, the rivers Surma and Kushira will become virtually dry.

   But we do not know whether India will withdraw water or not; if they do withdraw, how much water will be withdrawn is directly linked to how much we will be affected.

   The dam has been resisted in India as well?

   The general people of Manipur (an Indian state) are protesting against the project. But this is because of their own interests, I am sure none of them are concerned about Bangladesh.

   They are protesting because they will be forced to leave their ancestral houses and their villages will go under water and so on. Moreover, in 1962, when the Kaptai Dam was being built, people of the Chittagang Hill Tracks also protested against the execution of the project. The people of Manipur will drown under water because of the Tipaimukh Dam project. And on the other hand, the people of Assam (another state in India) will be benefited.

   The planning of the Tipaimukh Dam project has been going on for many decades. What role has Bangladesh played so far?

   As far as I know, Bangladesh and India are still in the middle of a negotiation about the project, and till 1974, the foundation of the discussion was mutual understanding. After that, the discussion took a more confrontational turn, which has made things complicated. The people of our country are still not clear on what is going on due to the lack of information.

   What is the role of the Joint River Commission (JRC) in all of this?

   Look, JRC is a recommending body, they will recommend and the government will implement what they think best. Unfortunately, JRC is not functioning properly because of a lack of proper directives from the government. The decision has to come from the politicians. In the case of Tipaimukh Dam, the same thing is happening.

   How can this problem be solved?

   First of all, positive politics on the basis of mutual understanding will be the key to solving the problem. Discussions and negotiation at the ministerial level will not be enough. Prime Ministers, Sheikh Hasina and Manmohan Singh, have to solve this through discussions.

India’s Tipaimukh dam: another Farakka for Bangladesh in the offing?

NewAge Extra, June 12-18, 2009

Mohiuddin Alamgir reveals the implications and consequences awaiting Bangladesh and the Manipur state of India through the completion of the Tipaimukh Dam.

When completed in 1970 by India, the Farakka Barrage, around 18 kilometres upstream of Monohorpur, seemed a rather innocent venture by India at just ‘saving the Calcutta Port from silting’.

   The reality was felt by the Bangladeshis over the next few decades as the entire south-western region of Bangladesh was affected due to the dearth of water. The country also faced long term losses in the agricultural, fisheries, forestry, industry, navigation and other sectors.

   The barrage also caused some fatal damages over the years through floods, droughts, excessive salinity and depletion of groundwater. The then-Bangladesh government tried to solve the impending problem through bilateral talks immediately following the formation of the Indo-Bangladesh joint river commission (JRC) in 1972.

   After being assured in the 1974 summit between the two countries that the Farakka barrage would not be put into operation before an agreement was reached on sharing the dry season flow of the Ganges between the two countries, Bangladesh allowed India to test the feeder canal of the barrage in 1975.

   India commissioned the barrage and continued unilateral diversion of the Ganges flow, beyond the stipulated test period. The barrage had been operational without a water-sharing agreement till 1997, before the then-Awami League government finally managed to make the Indian government concede. In the meanwhile, Bangladesh’s economical activity and ecological health had been hugely affected.

   Bitter experience has taught that the historic friendly relations Bangladesh and India share through their experience in the war of independence in 1971 have not always translated into deeds. Farakka, enclaves, killing of innocent civilians by BSF, maritime and land border demarcation, smuggling, subversive activities by the intelligence wings, both nations harbouring each others’ high profile criminals, the river linking project have been a thorn on the side of the apparent ‘friendly’ relations.

   And now, the construction of Tipaimukh Dam threatens to affect north-eastern Bangladesh the way south-western Bangladesh had been affected by the Farakka. Despite India’s insistence that the dam has only been built to generate electricity and a lukewarm response from the government in power, in Bangladesh, citizens and environmentalists feel extremely concerned and many have vowed to resist the construction at all costs.

   The Indian government recently resumed construction of the Tipaimukh on the Barak River, just a kilometre north of Jakiganj in Sylhet, which resulted in the recent, renewed interest on its affects. The construction work was stalled in March 2007 in the face of protests within, (people of the Manipur state of India are slated to be worst-affected) and outside, India for not following international conventions about the international rivers. The completion of the dam in 2012 will virtually dry up the Surma and the Kushiara rivers, thus choking the north-eastern regions of Bangladesh, say experts.

   The Tipaimukh dam would also affect, while compounding the losses caused by Farakka, the country’s fisheries, agriculture, environment and water supply.

   Abul Maal Abdul Muhith, the finance minister of Bangladesh and also the founder president of the green non-government organisation Bangladesh Paribesh Andalan (BAPA) points out, ‘India will be worse hit than Bangladesh and so the general people of India are also against the project.’

   ‘The region of Sylhet will be adversely affected if the Tipaimukh project is completed and most dangerously, if they make a barrage at Fulertala and withdraw water from Barak River, the whole region will have to face scarcity of water,’ says Major (retd) Hafiz Uddin Khan, vice chairman, Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and former minister of water resources.

   ‘The free flowing Surma and Kushyara rivers will turn dry,’ he adds.

   Due to the protests from the Bangladesh side, Shiv Shankar Menon, the Indian foreign secretary visited Bangladesh last month. He requested Bangladesh to send a group of dignitaries who will visit the Tipaimukh area to observe the actual scenario of the controversial project, as the Indian government is thinking seriously about the implementation of the project.

   Given the current developments, it is rather understandable that the dam will be brought to reality. The overall implications and consequences brought about by the project may be even more fatal than we can perceive at the moment, as pointed out by experts.

   The project

   To be located 500 metres downstream from the flowing rivers of Barak and Tuivai rivers, the Tipaimukh dam lies on the south-western corner of the Manipur State of India. The rock filled structure, with a central impervious core, has a height of around 180 metres above the sea-level. Its reservoir will have a storage water capacity of 15,900 million cubic m with a

   maximum depth of 1,725.5 m.

   Although originally considered, to only contain the flood water in the Cachar plains of Assam, the emphasis of the dam was also later placed on hydroelectric power generation. The dam will have an installation capacity of 1500MW with only a firm generation of 412MW (less than 30 per cent of installed capacity).

   Tipaumukh Dam was first thought of in 1954 when the government of Assam requested its construction to the Central Water and Power Commission of India for ways to manage floods in the Barak river basin. The commission surveyed and rejected three sites by 1965 on two grounds. The sites were geologically unsafe and large-scale submergence of cultivable land made it economically unviable.

   The North-Eastern Council of India intervened and after discussion with Assam, Manipur and Mizoram, the states through which the river flows, the Central Water Commission began investigations in 1977. In 1984, it identified a new site. The dam, it was then estimated, would cost Rs 1,078 crore. The project was shelved as it did not have the requisite environmental and management plans.

   In 1995, the Brahmaputra Board, responsible for managing the water of Brahmaputra and Barak river basins in India, carried out studies and revised the plan totalling the estimated cost to Rs 2,899 crore.

   People of Manipur began to take notice as the completion of the dam would immediately result in their eviction from the area where they had lived for the past hundred years. In order to appease them, environment minister Kamal Nath assured that resettlement issues would be taken care of and nothing would be done in haste, in 1995. In 1995, chief minister Rishang Keishing made a statement declaring that the state cabinet did not approve of the dam.

   In 1998, the Manipur assembly passed a resolution not to implement the project. However, in 1999, the central government handed over the project to North-Eastern Electronic Power Co-operation (NEEPCO) under circumstances, which many social organisations allege are questionable. They claim that during a spell of the president’s rule, imposed in 2001, the governor approved the project.

   Then in 2003, the Public Investments Board and the Central Electricity Authority of India cleared the project by which the costs had been revised to Rs 5,163.86 crore by NEEPCO.

   Currently, the information fed to the Indian public details that the project is to be built primarily for flood control and power generation. Irrigation and other benefits will be spin-offs. Flood control will benefit some plain areas in Assam.

   However, Manipur and Mizoram, are likely to bear the brunt of submergence. But they are to equally share, as the central government stipulates to the Manipur government, 12 per cent of the power from the project, free of charge while the rest will be taken by NEEPCO.

   Bangladesh in peril

   Adverse effects of the Tipaimukh dam, including environmental deprivation, economic crisis and drought, will be rather irreversible as pointed out by the education, primary and mass education minister Nurul Islam Nahid. ‘If India withdraws water from the Barak river, the free-flowing Surma and Kushiara rivers will dry up,’ he mentions.

   Abdul Karim Kim, an organiser of the Sylhet Paribesh Andolon feels that besides other parts of Bangladesh, Sylhet will be gravely affected. ‘The dam’s completion will disrupt agriculture, irrigation, drinking water supply, and navigation and ground water levels. Sylhet will face the same consequences faced by the south western regions of Bangladesh.’

   He explains that Surma-Kushiara, and its 60 branch and distributaries support agriculture, irrigation, navigation, drinking water supply, fisheries, wildlife in numerous haors and low lying areas in the entire Sylhet division and some peripheral areas of Dhaka division. The river system also supports internal navigation, wildlife in haors, industries like fertiliser, electricity, gas etc.

   ‘Around five crore people of Sylhet and Dhaka division will face problems as Surma and Kushiara will lose five feet water in the rainy season. Environmental degradation will take place massively, severely affecting weather and climate, turning a wet cooler environment into a hot uncomfortable cauldron,’ he says.

   ‘Within 15 years, after starting the project and withdrawing water from the Barak, there will be no water in the rivers,’ informs MA Matin, general secretary, BAPA.

   ‘Scarcity of water will cause siltation on river beds,’ says Engineer Muhammad Hilaluddin, chief director of Angikar Bangladesh. He explains that when high rainfall will occur in the catchments area of the dam, enormous quantity of sediment-laden flood water will be released. He adds, ‘this will cause a severity of flood in the Surma and Kushiara channels, already raised for low flow. This will further raise the water level causing floods in adjoining additional areas.’

   Also, navigation in river channels in the Meghna will be affected due to depletion of water flow and consequent sedimentation and severity of flooding during the monsoon season. Surface irrigation will also be in danger. The Meghna-Padma river will have lower flow, accentuating saline backwater intrusion in the Padma channel.

   ‘The total agricultural sector of around 20 districts, directly and indirectly, will be affected,’ says Professor Anu Muhammad from the economics department in Jahangirnagar University. He adds, ‘The Barak-Surma-Kushiara-Meghna river system stretches about 946 km. Around 669 km of this is in the Bangladesh portion. If India withdraws water, the fate of this whole river system will be threatened.’

   Many scientists, engineers and green activists feel that the completion of the Tipaimukh dam will increase the frequency of earthquakes in the adjoining region of both India and Bangladesh. ‘The north-east region of India is one of the six major seismically active zones of the world that includes north-east India and suburbs, and Bangladesh. The huge reservoir of the dam will create pressure on the ground of this region which is already a high alert zone for earthquakes,’ shares Hilal.

   Protest in India

   The people of Manipur state protested from the very beginning of the dam’s conception as they are to sacrifice the most. The unanimous verdict of the peoples’ affirmation was that the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project is not for the people, by the people or of the people of the Manipur.

   As has been pointed out by the intellectuals and experts of the state, the 900 km long Ahu (Barak River) is a constant source of the socio-political, economic and cultural sustenance for the indigenous Zeliangrong and the many indigenous and non-indigenous communities, who live along its course in India and Bangladesh. These cultures have grown up along these rivers over the past few centuries.

   The mega-dam proposed at Tipaimukh (Ruonglevaisuo to the Hmar people) will smother this particular source of life for them while also affecting their culture, anthropology, ecology and economy. As per estimates of the authorities, the project will also totally affect 311 sq km area of the state. More than 40,000 people will be rendered landless as 16 villages at the Barak Valley will be submerged while around 90 villages will be adversely affected.

   As such, academicians, politicians, students and civil society organisations have formed the Action Committee against Tipaimukh Project (ACTIP) to oppose the project which will further deepen the cracks in Manipur’s already fissured society. The construction of the dam will also benefit some groups at the cost of others.

   Matin says ‘more than 20 social and political organisations, representing the largest communities, ethnic groups and political interests are protesting against the dam. We have a good understanding with them.’ The leaders of the groups believe that the unviable project design will also drive a wedge between communities that live in a state of unremitting conflict between themselves and with the state.

   He points out, ‘the Indian government is playing hide and seek with their people as they are, not only making hydro electric power plant to produce electricity, but also planning to make a barrage at Fulertala, located slightly upstream of the river Barak.’ He mentions that the original plan is to supply water to the areas of Rajasthan and other states from the Barak river, around 900 kilometres away from the Manipur state.

   ‘This is actually a good strategy by the Indian government as although around 180 MW of power has been offered to the Manipur state, it needs only 150 MW of power. The rest will be distributed to the other states,’ informs Hilal.

   ‘Besides these, the Indian government has already initiated works in the seven north eastern states, widely known as seven sisters of India, for 24 irrigation projects or dams,’ says Baki Billah, a member of the Communist Party of Bangladesh. He adds, ‘200 more are at the planning level. The construction of these dams or projects will also affect Bangladesh as these will eventually choke around 54 rivers in Bangladesh.’

   Abul Mal Abdul Muhith expresses his doubts about the project, when he says, ‘the Indian government claims that the dam is simply a project to help the power problem of their country. How can we trust this after the bitter experience we have had with the Farakka barrage. Furthermore, when even the ordinary Indians are protesting against the project, it is worth contemplating how much it may affect Bangladesh.’

   International river convention

   The Tipaimukh Dam project was en- tirely developed and approved without informing the government of Bangladesh or involving its people in any meaningful exercise to assess the downstream impacts of the dam.

   Since the river Barak is an international river, Bangladesh as a lower riparian country should have an equitable share of water. Moreover an access to the design details of the project, planning and design etc also is a right of the country.

   ‘We do not know what is going on there,’ says Mir Sajjad Hossain, member of Joint River Commission (JRC). He adds, ‘we came to know from our sources that India is planning a hydroelectric plant. India has not sent any official documents about the proposal.’ Ministers Abul Mal Muhith and Nurul Islam Nahid reiterated the same point.

   ‘The Indian government was asked to give data about the Tipaimukh Dam twice during the JRC meeting- in 2003 and in 2005, but they did not provide us with the data,’ said Hafiz.

   As such, this is clearly a gross violation of co-riparian rights of Bangladesh. India has disregarded some major provisions of the 1997 UN Watercourse Convention on the Article 5(1) Equitable Utilization, (7) No Harm Principle, (9) Exchange of Information.

   ‘India is taking the privilege of being a big country,’ says Professor Nazrul Islam, chairman of the University Grants Commission and a renowned environmentalist of the country. He adds, ‘Bangladesh can do nothing but complain to the international communities.’

   JRC and going international

   ‘JRC is a dead horse and good for nothing. They should be renamed Jhuliye Rakha Committee (Hanging on a matter),’ says Matin. He adds, ‘we were told that the Bangladeshi part of the committee could not produce satisfactory data due to their Indian counterparts non-cooperation in the JRC meeting.’

   Nazrul Islam feels that the solution to the problem is through mutual understanding between Bangladesh and India and a more efficient role of the JRC. ‘Our government and JRC can request India to postpone or, better yet, stop the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam if possible. This can be done through bilateral diplomacy or through UN intervention,’ he says.

   ‘JRC should soon start negotiation on equitable sharing of water, according to our entitlement as a lower riparian of the international river Barak-Surma-Kushiara, through international forums and the UN,’ suggests Anu.

   ‘Unilateral withdrawal would be a gross violation of the UN Convention that regulates the use of water of international rivers/water courses. This should be done as soon as possible. Any delay in negotiation might end up in a pathetic situation, causing irreversible environmental, economic and hydrological chaos,’ urges Matin.

   Muhith feels that data exchange between the two countries’ governments will help at solving the issue. ‘Bangladesh needs to have the design, survey data, drawings, maps etc. prepared by the dam authority in order to verify the adverse effects and also to initiate mitigation measures for the lower riparian Bangladesh.’

   ‘We are waiting for the official invitation from the Indian government that Shiv Shankar Menon, Indian foreign secretary, told us about during the visit,’ says Mir Sajjad.

   ‘Bangladesh will obviously respond to the invitation and will take the right decision through mutual co-operation, through which the general public of both countries will be benefited,’ hopes Nahid, the education minister and a member of parliament from Sylhet.

   The Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Pinak Ranjan Chakrabarti, while talking to the media recently said that although India will have sole control over water flow at the proposed dam site, it will not hold it back.

   ‘The flow of river water and flood control will remain in the hands of India’, he told reporters after a courtesy call on communications minister Syed Abul Hossain at the ministry.

   ‘Tipaimukh Dam is a hydro-electric project that will generate electricity from the flow of water, and then will release the water back,’ he added.

   Prime minister Sheikh Hasina said on May 27 that her government would form an all-party committee to report on the pros and cons of the proposed Tipaimukh barrage in India, before taking a decision on the disputed project.

   ‘We have to send a technical committee rather than a parliamentary committee to find out what is actually going on,’ says Hafiz.

   ‘The nation has to fight together to protest this project,’ he adds.

   Choking north-eastern Bangladesh
   * India has resumed construction of the Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak River which will virtually dry up the Surma and the Kushiara rivers, thus choking the north-eastern regions of Bangladesh
   * The construction will disrupt agriculture, irrigation, drinking water supply, navigation and ground water levels. Sylhet will be worst hit
   * Tipaimukh to be used only for hydroelectric power generation, say India
   * The people of the India state of Manipur to be affected the most
   * The parliamentary committee on water resources and technical experts to visit Tipaimukh