 |
||
|
||
|
||
The Telegraph of Calcutta (April 22) carried an interview with
Shri Inder Kumar Gujral In the course of this interview Shri Gujral
alleged that BJP was divided on Ganga Waters Agreement and that the
party had opposed it in Lok Sabha but supported it in Rajya Sabha.
This, just is not true. The BJP had questioned that agreement in
both Houses.
On April 23, Shri K.R. Malkani wrote to Shri Gujral:
"My attention has been drawn to your interview to Mw Telegraph'
(April 22). In the course of this interview you are reported to
have said that B.J.P was divided on the Ganga Waters Agreement with
Bangladesh. I quote: They had spoken in two voices when the
agreement with Dhaka was being finalised. In the Rajya Sabha, Mr.
K.R. Malkani had spoken out in support of what we were doing. But
in the Lok Sabha they took a different stand.'
Please find herewith a transcript of my remarks on the subject in
the Rajya Sabha on December, 12.
If these remarks can be construed as support for that agreement, 1
don't know what would constitute criticism."
And here is the text of Shri Malkani's comments on the subject in
the Rajya Sabha on Dec.12,1996..
"Madam Vice-Chairperson, the two sides have signed this agreement.
They seem to be very satisfied. I hope, when this agreement is put
into effect, the people would also be satisfied. Meanwhile, I have
a few points for clarification
Firstly, we are going to give 35,000 cusecs of water to Bangladesh.
This is more than we have ever before given to Bangladesh, after
the construction of the Farakka Barrage. Even under the 1977
agreement, we gave them 34,500 cusecs. Now, the water supply has
been decreasing. How have you managed to make more water available
now? This is one thing.
As has been made clear, Calcutta Port needs 40,000 cusecs. If you
commit yourself to 35,000 cusecs, if the supply falls, how do you
flush the Hooghly for Calcutta Port?
In this connection, the question arises: would it not have been far
better to have agreed to the sharing of water on percentage basis
than in absolute terms, it could be 50:50, 40:60, 60:40, depending
on the situation. But making a commitment to supply 35,000 cusecs
in the lean period, how far is it safe?
Secondly, the problem of water for India and Bangladesh is linked
with the Brahmaputra. The Government of India has repeatedly
suggested that there should be a link canal, connecting the Ganga
and the Brahmaputra. Did the Government of India moot this matter
with the Government of Bangladesh?
The hon. Minister, Mr. Gujral, was in Dhaka. Did he discuss it
there? Mr. Jyoti Basu was also there some time back. Did he discuss
it there? Was there any discussion on this subject here? I would
very much request the hon. Minister to make the position clear.
Before the new Government came to power in Bangladesh, there were
governments of a different kind there. Governments are involved in
these negotiations, but the Opposition is not involved in them, not
even informally. The position of Begum Hasina and other
governments was this. They want, and I quote:
"natural, historic, rightful share of Ganga waters."
Then, they add:
"The historic average has been 75.000 cusecs." They go on to say
that because we have not given them all this water, they have
suffered a loss of 60,000 crore takas, that is rupees. Will people
there not agitate on this issue? We have our anxieties here on
this side. This issue might come up there. What is going to
happen? (Time bell)
May I request for a minute or a minute and a half?
These are very serious matters. When we are dealing with major
international issues, particularly with our neighbours, I think it
is very important to have a consensus among the people. In India
also, the Government carried on the negotiations. There are
reports that even the West Bengal Government is not too happy with
it. Many friends from the Congress, which party is supporting the
Government from outside. Mr. Ghani Khan Choudhury. Mamata and
others are very unhappy with it. What is going to happen? Perhaps
they have given a call for hartal or 'black day' for today or
tomorrow. What happens? It is very important to have a consensus.
I wish that the Government of India had consulted major Opposition
parties in India. It is always necessary to consult people and
arrive at a consensus.
Nepal has set a very nice example. They signed an agreement with
India. When they carried on negotiations, they brought their
Opposition leaders here, and they signed the agreement. There was
an apprehension that the Nepali Parliament might not ratify the
agreement. The Opposition In Nepal was half inclined to oppose,
but then they realised their moral responsibility. They were a
party to the negotiations, and so the agreement on the Mahakali
Project went through very smoothly. I wish our Government here and
the Government of Bangladesh had taken this course.
Thank you very much, Madam."
|
||
|
||
|
||