Connect with us

South Asia

The Saga of Helpless and Hapless Kashmiri People

Published

on

Kashmiri people from the last seventy years since 1947 have been abandoned by the two rivals, now nuclear states – India and Pakistan. Indo-Pak rivalry is one of the main reasons that Kashmir remained unresolved since long time after the partition of India into two dominions – independent India and independent Pakistan.

The two newly independent states within short span of time got indulged in territorial clashes particular on Kashmir. Currently, there is hardly any day, where a civilian, security man and militant are not assassinated in Kashmir.   

When we scroll the dusty pages of reminiscent history of Kashmir, we come to know how hard it is for Kashmiris to live in a valley where there is no guarantee of life. Historically, Kashmir is a law and order problem for India while for Pakistan, it is a disputed territory, an unfinished business. For international community, it is one of the most dangerous area where chances of nuclear exchange are high between the two belligerent and trust deficit states.

Among the Kashmiris, there is a diversion of opinions, for some, it is just a futile and never-ending battle between India and Pakistan for rich resources available in the valley especially water. While some argued that Kashmiris should be given the ‘right to self-determination’ to choose either to accede with India or Pakistan as per the UN resolution. Interestingly, majority of people wants complete freedom from two states. Others demand restoration of state autonomy, and Ladakh division, where majority of people are Buddhists demand union territory status. In Jammu, Hindus determinately want to accede with India completely by abrogating Article 370 which provide special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

At the academic level, the countless study has been published across the globe for the settlement of unresolved Kashmir dispute. Most of pundit’s favour plebiscite to settle the dispute ones for all. Some academic think tanks argued that a meaningful and peaceful dialogue should be initiated between India and Pakistan as an immediate step to bring order and normalcy back in the valley and the ultimate solution is of course the referendum. However, some Indian analysts argued that Kashmir is just a law and order problem by which resistance movement should be dealt ruthlessly, that is why the large concentration of Indian security forces with special powers are visible in the valley to crush any resistance movement whether armed or civilian. While for some, it is just a redundancy problem in the valley, Indian government should provide maximum opportunities to the Kashmiris to thwart the resistance movement peacefully.

At the political level, Kashmir remained just a tool to win the confidence of the people for strengthen the domestic politics in both states – India and Pakistan. Both states with the help of the confidence building measures (Lahore Summit and Agra Declaration) tried their best to settle the unresolved Kashmir dispute but completely failed to settle it peacefully. The track II diplomacy also failed to settle the unresolved issue. Obviously, when two states failed to settle the Kashmir issue, Kashmiris left with one option to start resisting against Indian rule.

There is no doubt that India violated the state autonomy through 48 presidential orders that culminated into anger and anger changed into resistance movement in Kashmir against the foreign rule. Apart from the direct wars, during the Kashmir intifada in 1989, Pakistan supported Kashmir materially and diplomatically to resist against Indian rule. Several academic thinks tanks like Summit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur admitted that it is because of misrule by India in Kashmir that provided impetus to Pakistan to support Kashmir. Since 1989, Kashmir remained under severe turmoil where innocent lives have been crushed harshly.

There are different stories regarding the genocide of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus inside the valley. The Kashmiri pandits migration after Kashmir uprisings in 1989 is another important episode of the complicated Kashmir dispute. And, human rights violations inside the valley by Indian security forces is at its peak. There are many shameful and fatal episodes inside the valley where innocent Kashmiri women became victims of mass rape in the hands of Indian security forces. For instance, more than thirty innocent Kashmiri Muslim women were mercilessly raped in twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora in 1991 during the cordon and search operation by Indian security forces. The Indian security forces enjoy impunity inside the valley due to Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).   

After Kashmir uprisings, India tried to settle the unresolved Kashmir issue with nukes. Despite India possess nuclear warheads, it failed to deter Pakistan for escalating sub-conventional conflict in the region. The reason put forth is simple, Pakistan’s asymmetric escalation posture (first-use policy of nukes) against Indian conventional attack to Pakistan. I assume that India mistakenly provide opportunity to Pakistan to become more aggressive towards it by overtly detonating five nuclear devices in May 1998. Reciprocally, Pakistan tested six nuclear devices in the same month in retaliation. Subsequently, the Kargil skirmish of 1999 happened under the nuclear umbrella and experts argued that it is because of this instrumentality of wreaking havoc that Pakistan behaved more aggressively than before towards India.  

Currently, Kashmir is again boiling since Hizbul Mujahidin Commander, Burhan Wani was killed by the Indian security forces in summer 2016. Kashmiri youth wittingly joined the militancy to resist Indian rule with the tacit support from the general public inside the valley. Several times, Kashmiri people (men and women) without fearing about their life and career, rush towards the encounter areas to help the militants to escape. Along with the armed resistance, a new form of civil resistance movement is visible inside the valley.

The resistance movements in Kashmir have now shifted to more civilian resistance in the form of stone pelting, protests, write-ups, facebook posts, graffiti and songs. Those who did not participate in direct resistance movements in Kashmir do not mean that they are outside of movements. These people believe in praying, crying, cursing and wailing plaintively particularly Kashmiri women who are beating their chest and singing songs to show their resistance and express their anger towards a foreign rule. These types of resistance (civil) are more powerful than armed resistance to pressure civil society and international community to intervene.

Indian government states that the resistance movement especially those who pelt stones on Indian security forces were funded by Pakistan in Kashmir. The demonetization was implemented to stop stone pelting in Kashmir and Indian Prime Minister Office states that with the help of demonetization, “Stone-pelting incidents in Kashmir came down by 75% from the previous year”. It is interesting to note that the college boys and girls, school going kids joined the resistance movement in Kashmir this year and previous year to express their anger towards the foreign rule.

How it is justifiable for parents to allow their school going children to risk their lives for money to join the resistance movement in Kashmir. With the help of the UN banned pellet guns, hundreds got killed, thousand injured and hundreds blinded in the hands of Indian security forces with the tacit support of state police. The civil resistance movement is the result of the broken promises by Indian government towards the helpless and hapless Kashmiri people.

Finally, Indian government selected ex Intelligence Bureau chief Dineshwar Sharma as interlocutor and special representative to restore peace in the valley. Sharma was given task by Indian government to talk with all the stockholders including Hurriyat Conference in the valley as a dialogue process. After his visit, he argued that his trip to Kashmir was successful. However, without a meaningful dialogue process with Pakistan, all the peace initiatives from Indian side will be fruitless. Interestingly, Pakistan is party to the dispute is admitted by India itself.

India is reluctant to talk with Pakistan on Kashmir issue because of an issue of infiltration. India blamed Pakistan for spreading terror in the region by backing and funding the militants in Kashmir against Indian rule. On the other side, Pakistan loudly responded that until India will not offer a meaningful dialogue on Kashmir issue to Pakistan to settle it forever, sub-conventional conflicts and funding to militants in Kashmir will continue. Pakistan wants UN resolution through plebiscite to settle the dispute, however, India is worried about the majority of Muslim population in Jammu and Kashmir state, that is why India has rejected the UN resolution on Kashmir by claiming that India and Pakistan in historical Shimla agreement after 1971 war have affirmed to settle the Kashmir issue bilaterally.  

All the talks between India and Pakistan to settle the Kashmir issue was not initiated on the humanitarian grounds. Recently, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has rejected the option of independence of Kashmir. Similarly, Farooq Abdullah, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir argued that independent Kashmir is not an option, “internal autonomy is our right”. Vehemently, Farooq rejected the option to accede with Pakistan, however, argued that the other part of Kashmir clearly belongs to Pakistan. India should restore autonomy of the state, only then peace will return to the valley.

It is all about national interest, both states want to utilize the resources of the valley for future requirements and mainstream political parties in the valley have remained puppet in the hands of Indian government. It is over all centre (New Delhi) that is responsible for the turmoil in the valley due to poor governance, broken promises and violation of the state autonomy. Kashmiri people have been completely abandoned since 1947. One can easily imagine why confidence building measures have failed to settle the Kashmir issue. Also, the religious groups of both states have wittingly made this issue more complex by spewing venom in their speeches against each other. Kashmir should be separated from India-Pakistan rivalry and religious card has not ability to settle the dispute.

This is not mere hyperbole. Rather, this is a fact that both the states have indulged in attitudinarianism, egoism, and the Hindu-Muslim mentality. There is no case of religious rivalry inside the valley, all the sections of people live peacefully, the religious card is triggered by India and Pakistan to win the emotions of the people for their own interests. Experts explicitly argued that there are multiple agencies working inside the valley that thwarted the peaceful resolution of Kashmir.

The dispute over Kashmir is not just a matter of India-Pakistan; it is first about Kashmiri people. Both nuclear states should come forward in terms of peace rather than strategic terms to settle the Kashmir issue ones for all on humanitarian basis. There are thousands of unidentified graves in Kashmir and parents are desperately waiting for their sons who got missing since 1989 in Kashmir.

Rameez Raja is pursuing Ph. D at Department of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He specializes in India’s nuclear policy. His writings have previously appeared in Rising Kashmir, Café Dissensus Everyday, Kafila, South Asia Journal, Foreign Policy News, Modern Diplomacy, Pakistan Observer, Kashmir Observer, and Kashmir Monitor. Email ID: rameezrajaa23[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

India’s fury at Moeed Yousaf’s interview?

Amjed Jaaved

Published

on

In an interview with Indian media outlet The Wire, Moeed Yusuf , revealed that India had expressed a “desire for conversation” but said that Pakistan’s agreement to talks would be conditional (Talks with India only possible with Kashmir as third party, says SAPM Moeed Yusuf,  Dawn 14 Oct 2020) . India quickly denied any offier for talks. Moeed as also his interviewer were quickly dubbed anti-India  jihadi.

A leader becomes a traitor the moment he stops singing paeans for “secular democracy”. Take Sheikh Abdullah. Barkha Dutt recalls (This Unquiet Land, p. 154) `In a 1948 speech to the United Nations, Sheikh Abdullah … made a blistering defence of the accession to India. Sher-e-Kashmir (Lion of Kashmir) roared, :`I had thought all along that the world had got rid of  Hitlers…but what is happening in my poor country I am convinced that they have transmigrated their souls into Pakistan…I refuse to accept Pakistan as a party in the affairs of Jammu and Kashmir’

Dutt says, “Sheikh Abdullah [later] began to talk about possibility of independent Kashmir…Soon after he changed his stance he was jailed and dismissed from office and was not able to lead the state for another twenty years’.

While talking to Cyril Al Maeda in  an exclusive interview that appeared on 12th May, Pakistan’s  former prime minister Sharif had  said  `Militant organizations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai?’ During Kalbushan jhadav’strial, Indian counsel used the MNS statement ` to blame Pakistan for its alleged involvement in sponsoring terrorism in India’.

The factual position is that gullible  Sharif  had relied on statement  by  then serving ISI chief Shuja Pasha. Even Pasha’s statement was grossly misinterpreted. Pasha never asaid that it was ISI who in any way sponsored the Mumbai operation. Even the USA never trusted interrogation of David Headley who was `linked’  to the Mumbai incident. 

Let me quote   Mohammed Adobo  and   Etgar  Ugur  (eds.), Assessing the War on Terror, 2013, Lynne Reiner Publishers, Inc., Colorado 80301 (USA). Chapter V: Pakistan Perfidious Ally in the War on Terror, C. Christine Fair, p. 85)

According to Indian officials who interrogated him after his indictment, David Headley, an American involved in the Mumbai attacks conceded ISI involvement (Jason Burke, “ISI chief aided Mumbai terror attacks: Headley”, The Hindu October 19, 2010; Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt and Ginger Thomson, “US had  warnings on Plotter of Mumbai Attack”, New York Times, October 17, 2010). US officials have not endorsed this claim. Bt, according to some reports, the current director general of the ISI Shuja Pasha, acknowledged that the persons connected to the ISI were involved in attacks (Woodword, Obama’s Wars, pp 46-47). Documentary analysis shows secretive Mumbai trials were translucent (Davidson, Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence).

It is a documented fact that India is stroking insurgencies in neighbouring countries. Unlike Kashmir, Bangladesh was not a disputed state like Jammu And Kashmir State. It was an integral part of Pakistan. But, harboured, nurtured, trained and armed Bangladeshi ‘freedom fighters’… Some Indian diplomats and RAW cover officers have made startling revelations in their books about involvement in insurgencies or terrorism in neighbouring countries. . For instance, RK Yadav, and B. Raman (The Kaoboys of R&AW: Down Memory Lane) make no bones about India’s involvement in Bangladesh’s insurgency. They admitted that India’s then prime minister Indira Gandhi, Parliament, RAW and armed forces acted in tandem to dismember Pakistan. Raman recalls ‘Indian parliament passed resolution on March 31, 1971 to support insurgency. India Gandhi had then confided to Kao that if Mujib was prevented from ruling Pakistan, she would liberate East Pakistan from the clutches of the military junta. Kao, through one R&AW agent, got hijacked a plane Fokker Friendship Ganga of Indian Airlines from Srinagar to Lahore. India’s security czar Doval publicly claims that he acted as a spy under a pseudonym in Pakistan for 11 years. India’s then army chief, SAM Manekshaw confessed in video interview that India Gandhi ordered him to attack erstwhile East Pakistan. (YouTube: Indian Army Stories of the Indo-Pak War 1971 by Sam manekshaw).

United Nations’ view of `accession:  Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the puppet assembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions to forestall the `foreseeable accession’ by the puppet assembly. Security Council’s Resolution No 9 of March 30, 1951 and affirmative Resolution No 122 of March 24, 1957 outlaws accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state.

Under hypnotic spell of Indian propaganda, readers naively accept IHK’s `assembly’ and preceding `instrument of accession’ as fait accompli. No sir, they aren’t. Aware of India’s intention to get the ‘Instrument of Accession’ rubber-stamped by the sham assembly, the Security Council passed two resolutions to forestall the foreseeable` accession’ by the puppet assembly. Security Council’s Resolution No 9 of March 30, 1951 and confirmatory Resolution No 122 of March 24, 1957 outlaws accession or any other action to change status of the Jammu and Kashmir state.

`Accession instrument’ is a myth, unregistered with the UN. Alastair Lamb, in his book Incomplete Partition (Chapter VI: The accession Crisis, pp.  149-151) points out that Mountbatten wanted India not to intervene militarily without first getting `instrument of accession’ from maharajah Hari Singh.  Not doing so would amount to `intervening in the internal affairs of what was to all intents and purposes an independent State in the throes of civil conflict’.  But, India did not heed his advice. It marched its troops into Kashmir without maharajah‘s permission _ an act of aggression. Lamb says `timing of the alleged Instrument of Accession undoubtedly affected its legitimacy'(p.172, ibid). She adds `If in fact took place after the Indian intervention, then it could well be argued that it was either done under Indian duress or to regularise an Indian fait accompli’.

He argues that the maharajah was travelling by road to Jammu (a distance of over 350 km). How could he sign the instrument while being on the run for safety of his life? There is no evidence of any contact between him and the Indian emissaries on October 26, 1947. Actually, it was on October 27, 1947 that the maharajah was informed by MC Mahajan and VP Menon (who had flown into Srinagar) that an Instrument of Accession is being fabricated in New Delhi. Obviously, the maharajah could not have signed the instrument earlier than October 27, 1947. The instrument remains null and void, even if the maharajah had actually signed it. The reason, as pointed out by Alastair is that the `signatures’ were obtained under coercion. Under law, any undertaking secured through coercion or duress is null and void. She points out Indian troops had already arrived at and secured Srinagar airfield during the middle of October 1947. On October 26, 1947, a further airlift of thousands of Indian troops to Kashmir took place. She questions: “Would the maharajah have signed the Instrument of Accession, had the Indian troops not been on Kashmiri soil?” Isn’t it funny that, in the summer of 1995, the Indian authorities reported the original document as lost or stolen?

Lamb concludes (p. 191, ibid):`According to Wolpert, V. P. Menon returned to Delhi from Srinagar on the morning of 26 October with no signed Instrument of Accession.  Only after the Indian troops had started landing at Srinagar airfield on the morning of 27 October did V. P.   Menon and M. C. Mahajan set out from Delhi from Jammu. The Instrument of Accession, according to Wolpert, was only signed by Maharajah Sir Hari Singh after Indian troops had assumed control of the Jammu and Kashmir State’s summer capital,  Srinagar’.

It is time the Kashmiris woke up and grab the opportunity to correct their historical blunder. It is `Now or Never’. No more palliatives.

Conclusion: India is unqualified to become a permanent member of Security council as it has flouted international treaties. India is wedded to `might is right’ (Noam Chomsky, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs). It should be shunned as a rogue state and punished as a pariah states ( Tim Niblock, Pariah States and Sanctions in the Middle East).

Continue Reading

South Asia

Tripartite dialogue over Kashmir: Only Way out

Dr.Ghulam Nabi Fai

Published

on

Women walking past Indian security forces in Srinagar, summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Nimisha Jaiswal/IRIN

Dr. Moeed Yusuf, Special Advisor to Prime Minister of Pakistan on National Security and Strategic Policy disclosed in an interview with senior Indian journalist, Karan Thapar (October 13, 2020) that India sent us a message for a desire to a conversation. He added that Pakistan stands for conversation that moves us forward. He however emphasized that there are three parties to the dispute, Pakistan, India and there is a principal party, called Kashmiris.  The only thing that matters is the wishes of the people of Kashmir.

We whole heatedly welcome the articulation of Dr. Yusuf to include the Kashmiri leadership in the talks. The people of Kashmir will welcome any talks between India and Pakistan as long as the genuine leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir is the part of process of negotiations. They steadfastly maintain that tripartite talks are the only way to resolve the Kashmir issue that has dominated the South Asian region for over 73 years. They maintain this constructive position, despite the outrage caused and the indescribable suffering inflicted on them, by the barbarities of the Indian occupation forces.

The people of Kashmir want to emphasize that as the dispute involves three parties –Government of India, Government of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir who are the most directly affected – any attempt to strike a deal between two parties without the association of the third, will fail to yield a credible settlement. The contemporary history of South Asia is abundantly clear that bilateral efforts have never met with success. The agreement between India and pro-India Kashmiri leaders, like Sheikh Abdullah failed because they sought to bypass Pakistan. Similarly, the agreements between India and Pakistan, like Tashkent Declaration and Simla Agreement failed because they sought to by pass the Kashmiri leadership. All these attempts served only to prolong the dispute, leaving the basic issue unsettled and preserved the stalemate. Although the Simla Agreement of 1972 is irrelevant to the Kashmir dispute, yet it did visualize a ‘final settlement’, but failed for a concrete course of action toward determining Kashmir’s status by the will of its people.

No longer can the mere holding of talks between India and Pakistan defuse the situation. It is a matter of record that during the 72 years history of dispute, India has merely used the façade of talks to evade settlement and ease internal or external pressure. In 1962, when India was facing grave difficulties because of war it had launched against China, it agreed to a round of ministerial talks only to delude two eminent emissaries sent by the United States and the Great Britain. The six seemingly serious sessions were simply exercise in futility. After the end of the 1965 war, when the Security council had committed itself to address the underlying cause of the India – Pakistan conflict – which was none other than the Kashmir dispute – Indian secured the support of its ally, the former Soviet Union and the tacit acquiescence of others to help consign the dispute to limbo as far as the United Nations was concerned. Today, India is again in confrontation with China on one side and with Pakistan on the other. We earnestly hope that the Indian Government’s message to Pakistan ‘for a desire to have a conversation’ will not be one more step in that direction to sabotage the real intent of the talks through diversionary tactics.

Dr. Moeed Yusuf’s approach is based on pragmatism when he said that there can be no progress in talks if they are not accompanied by practical measures, like:

i. To release all political prisoners; ii. Reverse military siege in Kashmir, iii. Pull back the Domicile Law that changes the demography of Kashmir; iv. End human rights violations; and v. Stop Indian state terrorism.

In the past, India has not desisted from its human rights violations while announcing its intent to talk. India has to be told in an understandable language that peace cannot be held, nor continued as long as terror reigns over Kashmir and India remains at war with Kashmiris.

The people of Kashmir believe that the conversion of Line of Control (LoC) into an international border is a non-solution. Such an idea is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Kashmir. They fought against status quo and as Dr. Moeed Yusuf said ‘Line of Control is a problem and cannot become a solution.’

We hope that the Secretary General of the United Nations maintains and intensify his watch over the situation in Kashmir and not be lulled into the belief that India and Pakistan will initiate any meaningful dialogue over Kashmir unless there are some mediatory initiatives by an impartial third party. Third party could be the United Nations itself or a person of an international standing who could be delegated by the United Nations to bring all the three parties together.

The policy that aims at merely defusing the situation, whatever that may mean, and not encouraging a credible settlement has not paid in the past. It is likely to do even less now.

Continue Reading

South Asia

How the India-Bangladesh Cooperation can overcome challenges in the Agricultural Sector

Mozammil Ahmad

Published

on

The majority of South Asia is still an agrarian society depending on agriculture for livelihood and survival. Approximately, 60% people in India and Bangladesh are involved in agricultural activities to earn their livelihood. Out of them, over 87% and 70% of rural people in  Bangladesh and India respectively derive their income majorly from the agrarian sector. Therefore, it plays a crucial role in the economy of the developing countries.

Being the most prominent sector of the economy, bilateral cooperations in the agricultural sector can pave the way to overcome the current economic challenges in India and Bangladesh.

Challenges faced by India & Bangladesh in Agriculture

The coronavirus pandemic has affected the already agonized agriculture sectors in South Asia. With the spread of virus, disrupted labour and transportation during the lockdown, it is not an unknown fact that the agricultural sector has taken a hit.

Being neighbours and sharing one of the longest land borders with each other, India and Bangladesh faces similar kinds of challenges in agriculture. These are –

Coronavirus pandemic

Around the world, the coronavirus pandemic has taken a toll on economies. Both India and Bangladesh are no exception to this. India’s GDP shrank 23.9% in the second quarter of 2020 even though the gross value added (GVA) from agriculture, forestry & fishing grew by 3.4% at constant prices in April-June 2020. Meanwhile, the agricultural sector in Bangladesh saw a decline to 3.11% in FY 2020 from 3.92% in FY 2019. These were the impact of the countrywide lockdown placed to reduce the spread of the Covid-19. Both of the countries being agrarian in nature, 60% of total population derives their livelihood from agriculture. Hence, it remains one of the most hit sectors in both the countries.

With the lockdown and restrictions in movement of goods and transport services, farmers struggled to harvest and sell their winter crops, hence facing widespread losses.

Mass Exodus of Migrant Workers

The workers of India and Bangladesh have faced double effects of the pandemic with the mass exodus of migrant workers and their humanitarian struggles. Millions of workers were forced to go back to their native places in both the countries due to lockdown. Many Bangladeshi workers who used to work in India also returned under the dire situation.

In India, when the lockdown announced in March 2020 put the migrant workers from rural areas in harm’s way both physically and economically. With factories and transportation shut down, and no mode for survival, migrant workers took to take long walks to their homes.

Bangladesh also witnessed a similar mass exodus of migrant workers from urban areas of Dhaka, Chittagong, Narayanganj,etc. A large number of Bangladeshi migrant workers also returned from abroad. These workers have lost their source of income and cannot return until the crisis brought by the Covid 19 could be handled. Even though the government of Bangladesh introduced various initiatives to reintegrate the migrant workers into the workforce, however, the stigmatization of Covid-19 being brought by outsiders still remains in Bangladesh.

With the mass migration, there are labour issues due to which there is farm labour scarcity in some areas and excess in others. In Bangladesh, for instance, farm wages have been rising steadily in the past decade but with migrants returning to their villages, wages have gone down. In the Indian state of Punjab, farmers are ferrying migrants who have gone to their native places in Bihar, UP, Madhya Pradesh back to Punjab to work on paddy farms. Since paddy sowing depends heavily on manual labour, the shortage due to the earlier exodus has led to a rise in wages, which will impact farmer’s profit margins.

Cyclone Amphan

On 20 May 2020, one of the dangerous cyclones, Cyclone Amphan hit the Bay of Bengal, affecting both India and Bangladesh. With a wind speed of 210 km/hr,  it first hit the land of the Indian states of Odisha and West Bengal. In India, it affected more than 4 million people. Amphan hit particularly at the Sundarbans at the border of India-Bangladesh. Though the storm was weakened when it hit land in Bangladesh, it still impacted more than 55,600 homes and displaced over 100,000 people. Amphan was the most powerful cyclone ever to form in the Bay of Bengal, and though it weakened before making landfall, it caused widespread damage in both countries. Cyclone Amphan is considered to be the costliest disaster in the Bay of Bengal.

According to Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee, Amphan destroyed over 28 percent of the Sundarbans, damaging a significant portion of the area’s mangrove forests. In addition to causing livelihood and human ramifications of the cyclone, it has also impacted the agriculture in both India and Bangladesh. There will be a long lasting impact on coastal communities’ livelihood. The storm has surged and salinized large portions of cropland making it unusable for yielding crops in the coming years.

Monsoon Flooding

In June 2020, the monsoon flooding added additional woes to the agricultural sectors of both India and Bangladesh. Both of the countries are still facing the effects of the pandemic, the migration, cyclone and a flood on top of that, just adds to the complexities.

The monsoon floods affected eight states in India. Odisha and Madhya Pradesh were the most affected states of India. There were 17 and 19 deaths recorded so far in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh respectively. There have been over 10,382 houses and 168,904 hectares of crop area affected due to these floods.

The excessive rains in Bangladesh has opened widespread havoc impacting food insecurity, livelihood and disruption of agricultural production. Around 7.53 million people were exposed to moderate flooding causing 700,000 households requiring food security and agricultural livelihoods support. There have been severe losses of crops, poultry, livestock and fisheries in 92 percent of the total affected unions. It is estimated that 125,459 ha of agricultural land require rehabilitation.

Bilateral Cooperations for Mutual Benefits for India and Bangladesh

The ongoing crisis due to the coronavirus pandemic and the additional challenges both countries face due to monsoon floods, mass exodus of migrants, cyclones are common to both the countries. As  neighbouring countries with quite a close diplomatic relation and porous land border, the need for a bilateral cooperation could be stressed between India and Bangladesh.

In a webinar on ‘Regional Cooperation in Trade and Development of Agriculture: Perspectives from Bangladesh and India’, the executive director of South Asian Network on Economic Modeling (SANEM), Selim Raihan said that bilateral cooperation and political willingness were most important in improving the trade in agriculture. The economic shutdown is hampering movement of products between the two countries and affecting farmers of the countries. With the opening up of the land ports, reviving the marketplaces along the borders of Bangladesh and North East India, can strengthen business-to-business communication. Hence, the enhanced cooperation will help farmers of both countries to market their agricultural products. This kind of cooperation can benefit farmers of both countries, increase regional trade and assist in export earning.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Energy31 mins ago

Energy Research Platform Takes Central Stage under Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship

After the Ufa declaration in 2015, BRICS, an association of five major emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China...

Eastern Europe3 hours ago

War in the Caucasus: One more effort to shape a new world order

Fighting in the Caucasus between Azerbaijan and Armenia is about much more than deep-seated ethnic divisions and territorial disputes. It’s...

Europe5 hours ago

A Recipe For The War

Authors: Zlatko Hadžidedić, Adnan Idrizbegović* There is a widespreadview that Germany’s policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina has always been friendly. Also, that...

Southeast Asia7 hours ago

India-ASEAN relations under Vietnam Chairmanship of ASEAN

India has very recently come out with India-ASEAN Action Plan 2021-2025 alluding to the objectives for furthering its relationship with the...

Green Planet9 hours ago

COVID-19 has given a fillip to biodiversity

The COVID-19 outbreak caused many problems for the world, but in return gave the planet’s environment and biodiversity a chance...

EU Politics11 hours ago

EU interoperability gateway for contact tracing and warning apps

What is a coronavirus tracing and warning app? Most public health authorities in the EU have developed apps that support...

Reports13 hours ago

Half of Working Adults Fear for Their Jobs

In a new World Economic Forum-Ipsos survey of more than 12,000 working adults in 27 countries, more than half (54%)...

Trending