The complex network of transboundary rivers in South Asia highlights the interplay between power dynamics, environmental governance, and neoliberal policies, and how these factors result in detrimental consequences for the weaker party. The connection between India and Bangladesh serves as a clear example of this phenomenon. 

Bangladesh, located downstream of many significant rivers originating in India, has consistently suffered the consequences of India’s extensive construction of dams. The implementation of these projects, together with the adoption of neoliberal development techniques in Bangladesh, has intensified the vulnerability to floods, transforming natural calamities into instruments of political manipulation.

India’s Dam-Building Spree: A Downstream Disaster

India’s development plan has heavily relied on the construction of dams and barrages on transboundary rivers like the Ganges and Brahmaputra. Although these projects aim to enhance India’s water security and hydroelectric capacity, they have had significant adverse effects on Bangladesh. An exemplary instance is the Farakka Barrage, constructed unilaterally by India in 1975 on the Ganges River. The purpose of the barrage is to redirect water to the Hoogly River and support the port of Kolkata. However, this has resulted in a substantial decrease in water flow into Bangladesh during the dry season, causing drought-like conditions. On the other hand, the discharge of surplus water from Indian dams worsens floods in Bangladesh during the monsoon season.

Read More: Why is anti-India sentiment growing in Bangladesh?

This disparity in water management is indicative of a wider geopolitical phenomenon. India, the most quickly growing and water-scarce country in South Asia, holds significant political and economic leverage over its neighbours. In contrast, Bangladesh lacks the necessary influence to implement fair agreements for sharing water. Dr. Mohammad Anwar Hossen (Sociology Professor, University of Dhaka), in his important book “Water Policy and Governance in South Asia: Empowering Rural Communities” published by Routledge, explains, “India, as a downstream country, resists water projects of the upstream China, Nepal, or Bhutan. However, India as an upstream country does not follow this practice with its downstream Bangladesh.” This double standard underlines the imbalance of power that characterises the relationship between the two states, with Bangladesh facing the repercussions of India’s unilateral choices.

Neoliberalism in Bangladesh: Compounding the Crisis

Within Bangladesh, the effect of India’s water management is heightened by the country’s acceptance of neoliberal development strategies. These policies, defined by privatization, deregulation, and a focus on market-driven development, have led to the proliferation of infrastructure projects that frequently worsen environmental vulnerabilities. In the realm of flood control, neoliberalism has materialised in the development of embankments, highways, and other infrastructure projects that disturb natural drainage systems and heighten flood hazards.

Read More:: How Bangladesh Can End the Cycle of Violence with India
 

Moreover, neoliberal policies have fostered the spread of agriculture in flood-prone regions, resulting to the degradation of wetlands and the relocation of indigenous inhabitants. These projects, sometimes supported under the pretence of economic prosperity, have rendered Bangladesh more vulnerable to the floods worsened by India’s upstream water management. The outcome is a vicious cycle in which neoliberalism deepens the relationship between India’s dam-building and Bangladesh’s susceptibility to floods.

Neo-colonial Water Politics and Necropolitics

The power dynamics at play in the management of transboundary rivers between India and Bangladesh may be examined through the perspective of necropolitics, a notion established by the philosopher Achille Mbembe. Necropolitics refers to the authority of the state to decide who may live and who must die, frequently via the control of resources or the environment. In this sense, India’s influence over the water flow may be understood as a sort of necropolitics, as actions taken upstream directly impact the lives and livelihoods of millions in downstream Bangladesh.

Read More: Flowing Diplomacy: India Impassing Teesta Water Sharing Deal?
 

By unilaterally limiting the flow of rivers that are important to Bangladesh’s existence, India wields a type of neo-colonial dominance. The dams and barrages become weapons of dominance, where the capacity to generate or relieve misery is concentrated in the hands of the upstream country. Meanwhile, neoliberal programs inside Bangladesh, driven by the logic of profit above people, leave the country ill-equipped to handle the impact from these upstream choices. The outcome is a system where the most vulnerable communities are left to suffer the burden of environmental crises that are politically contrived.

Toward Equitable Water Sharing

To overcome these difficulties, it is vital that both countries advance towards a system of equitable water sharing, founded in international water rules and values of justice. Bilateral treaties must be renegotiated to guarantee that Bangladesh’s interests are effectively represented and safeguarded. Furthermore, inside Bangladesh, there has to be a transition away from neoliberal development methods that stress short-term economic advantages above long-term environmental sustainability and human security.

The floods that plague Bangladesh are not merely natural calamities; they are the outcome of a complex interaction of geopolitics, capitalism, and environmental governance. As long as India continues to exploit its upstream position without consideration for its downstream neighbour, and as long as Bangladesh pursues development plans that worsen its vulnerability, these floods will remain a painful and continuous reality. The time has come for a more fair and sustainable approach to water management in South Asia.

The writers are Master’s students at Department of Sociology, University of Dhaka.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of Tvista.