India's mega water offensive

India's assessment of 'excess water' is myopically Indian, and therefore, totally exclusionary to the water requirements of Bangladesh. We ask, if this is not water xenophobia, what is? Previously, we heard of the multiple detrimental effect of interfering with the historical flow of the Ganges in relation to the Farakka barrage question. But now, what India seems up to is nothing less than changing the courses of major rivers, rather redrawing the hydrological map of the international river water basins in this region.

The implications are dreadful. If the water flow in the upper reaches is whittled down by 10 to 20 per cent, it will have a devastating effect on the climate, ecology, geomorphology, bio-diversity and navigational activities in the lower riparian Bangladesh. The lower basins will dry up as the subterranean water table fell drastically. Concomitantly, it will be like the adverse impact of Farakka multiplied or extrapolated.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The grandiose plan has taken hold of a segment of the Indian thought-process. So much so that even expert warnings within India about the dire consequences of changing the historical courses of rivers are being overlooked. India has moved ahead with the plan to a somewhat frightful extent. Disposing of a writ about the 43-year timeframe for implementing the plan, a three-member Indian Supreme Court bench led by the chief justice said, "We do expect that the programme when drawn up would try and ensure that the link projects are completed within a reasonable time of not more than ten years." The Indian government has cashed in on it. Former central minister for power and now a Lok Sabha member, RSS leader Suresh Pravu has been appointed chairman of the high-power commission constituted for implementing the mega project.

India's unilateralism with trans-border rivers deals a body-blow to bilateral ethics, transgresses SAARC spirit and undermines standard international practices. Bangladesh feels wronged for not being consulted despite the availability of the instrumentalities of the Joint Rivers Commission and the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty, not to mention the routine bilateral diplomatic channels. Indeed, as a JRC member maintained, India's unilateral move to inter-link the transboundary rivers contravened Article 9 of the Indo-Bangla Ganges Water-sharing Treaty, which provides for giving due share of common river water to the co-riparian.

The totally self-serving nature of India's water plan is patently deplorable. But can that fact put Bangladesh diplomats' failure to monitor a scenario that has been unfolding for quite a while in any better light? The Indian National Water Development Agency (NWDA) laid out the plan at least three years ago, not to mention the run-up and spade-work phases going further back. Was any warning signal received from our missions in the next-door neighbouring countries? If the answer is in the positive, what stance was taken by the foreign office, including taking the issue to the parliament? Writing letters seeking details of a seemingly unfolding plan or sending protest notes in the wake of media reports or summoning an acting high commissioner of India are by and large routine reactive steps. These are not the stuffs of which truly pre-emptive diplomacy is made.

Needless to say, we must not accept the Indian plan as a fait accompli. We must oppose it tooth and nail to dissuade India from the path of exclusivity in terms of water management. Basically, the JRC which is mandated to meet thrice a year but has not met in the last two years at all, ought to go into an immediate session in order to clear the air about the sharing of the common river waters. If necessary, we may not hesitate to represent our case at the world capitals so that international financing of such a unilateral Indian plan is eschewed. The best approach, however, will be to convince India with our belief that the so-called dividends Delhi is aiming to obtain from its master plan are all achievable through a regional plan for collective water management. Moreover, the heavy political cost that India would have had to unquestionably pay otherwise would be avoided if she took the regional approach.