Protesting Delhi's water diversion plan

Are we to understand that our authorities have had no feed-back from our premier Mission in New Delhi and from the peripheral capitals, especially Kathmandu, on the development of India's massive plan for irrigation and power generation, which has taken shape over the last decade or so, and is now poised for implementation! And that our admonition and advice on India's wisdom would be well received and create the kind of ambience we wish to have for a fruitful negotiation. And now no less a person than the President of India confirms in a nation-wide address on his country's 57th Independence Day the "project to tackle droughts and floods in river-basin states as well as give them water and power security" (The Daily Star, 16 Aug 2003). And for us to have advised India not to implement it and to say it would not be wise for India to move ahead with such project, is a palpably immature response. It does not only display an utter failure to have monitored the progress of this massive plan of India taking shape over the last 20 years or so, but also demonstrates a sheer lack of serious, organized and rational response to highlight the sense of our deepest concerns and apprehensions. President Abdul Kalam's narration of the objectives of this mega project sums up precisely the needs of Bangladesh and her 120 million hapless citizens as well facing a stark future. All the Indian droughts and floods will gradually be shifted to our lands. They will increasingly enjoy 'water and power security' across the border while Bangladesh goes on carrying the river silts with ever increasing intensity into the Bay of Bengal, with most of the common river's drying up much sooner than later. We should at least wake up to the harsh reality of a small nation with a giant neighbour that the latter's wisdom has always been, and will always be anchored in their own, exclusive self interest. It is only the political will, global support and diplomatic finesse that could underpin and advance our legitimate moral and lawful rights.

Secondly, the status of our serious concern at the Indian plan which is very much in an advanced stage should have warranted the use of a special envoy to Delhi, or at least, the deputation of our High Commissioner there to make the demarche at the highest possible official/diplomatic level directly. Acting Indian High Commissioner in Dhaka having been called at the DG-level is not certainly the appropriate conduit at this stage and a built-in signal of a very low priority will invariably seal the fate of our protest. A routine reply that the Indian authorities are looking at the contents for a response in due course, puts us in square number one. And like the concerned Minister, the nation will lament that our advice that it would 'not be wise' for them 'to do it' has been 'again no avail.'

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The authorities now have almost been pushed into some action, half-baked and apparently ill-informed and certainly, ill-prepared. That has been this nation's lot -- we do so little, so late and so badly.

In this context, some references to my article 'Water Resources Development-A Regional Rationale' that The Daily Star had published on April 7, 1997 will be revealing. "India has now got a huge door open for developing hydel power resources on the major rivers flowing out of Nepal as indicated earlier. Again, these large projects are expected to be located basically at the Nepal-India border as the rivers flow down into India, the lower riparian state. While India will naturally control the outflow because of her investment, her greater requirements and obviously because of her overwhelming presence in relation to Nepal's continuing national exercise would be to prise out as much return from these projects as possible. While power could be supplied upland, Nepal could start worrying about her increasingly diminishng share of irrigation waters for her own agricultural needs in upper reaches of these major rivers. Both the laws of gravity and India would be against and not necessarily in that order. In this context, Bangladesh as a lower riparian to India faces a different set of arguments as to why India's wide variety of needs outweigh the essential, life and death dependence of Bangladesh on waters from the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and other rivers."

I also commented more than six years ago that "Now even Brahmaputra's historic flow into the lowest riparian Bangladesh is facing a threat of being disturbed and reduced with the Tipaimukh barrage on the Indian side on the one hand and of sizeable diversion/withdrawals at the upper reaches in China to augment the flow of waters in the Arun river." In the same article, the following were among the specific recommendations: "It is necessary for Bangladesh to monitor such developments and assess their adverse impact on the quantum of water that finally crosses into Bangladesh. And obviously on such likely scenarios, Bangladesh has to develop her own strategy and approaches for negotiations to ensure up-holding of her long-term interests in this exceedingly vital field".

And let me also recall the following from one of the 60-odd reports, I had sent to the authorities from Nepal, that may be of interest: "India's master plan for positioning a series of projects of immense benefits to India -- hydropower, flood protection, navigation, is in readiness for India's entry into the 21st century, and of course, Nepal... admirably providing a carriage for such a journey into future" (07 February, 1994). It appears that Bangladesh is providing the other wheel for the $200b carriage that India is rolling out now.

It is deeply intriguing for us as concerned citizens to consider the possible reasons for such an atrophied stance of ours over a decade in defining our national strategy -- is it our sheer incompetence and abysmal ignorance? With a string of highly-rated water experts including knowledgeable senior bureaucrats (and many of them have been one way or another operating over the last two or more decades) it is perhaps not the explanation. The other obvious possibility of a sympathetic mole favoring a no-action approach with strategy of lowest possible resistance, (who are also active on pro-gas export front, on allowing adverse trade balance to grow to an incredibly high level and in other such sell-outs of national interests) is something our parliament and government should seriously investigate as a measure of urgency. One simple term of reference would suffice and that is -- why we do not have our strategy options worked out in respect of (i) the Ganges Treaty, (ii) the JRC matters/issues relating to common rivers and (iii) the withdrawal threats scenario/active plans of the upper riparian countries. WHY?

Meanwhile we should have taken the following actions in proper sequence: aa. Instruct our Ambassadors/High Commissioners in selected capitals to keep the host authorities informed of our position and concerns; bb. Brief the major political parties and leaders in the same vein, to help them to form a common national consensus with a view to sensitizing the people for peaceful expressions of the national rights and concerns, to help activate the government to achieve desired goals and cc. Brief similarly the Editors of major newspapers, magazines about our position and our basic approach for a peaceful process of resolution. Media has a critical and public opinion-forming role, in a judicious, responsible manner.

Simultaneously, an Expert Committee should be charged with the preparation of detailed position papers with alternative strategies for various probable scenarios. Facts and figures and solid, logical and rational arguments should be the basis for the presentation of our case both to India and to the world (especially all the relevant international and regional institutions and organizations), as the time comes. Secondly, we must select a small group who will have the knowledge and would be articulate in presenting the case in an impeccable manner and above all, who are prepared to take on the other side's points and arguments with confidence. The leader should not just be reading out prepared statements without the ability to expand, explain and respond on his own during formal as well as informal discussions with his counterpart. This would require him to be thoroughly conversant with the subject and capable of marshalling all arguments and rebuttals on his own steam. This Group should be sent to some crucial capitals and world bodies to make appropriate presentation of our case.

This issue, and indeed quite a few other subjects as well, requires the best of preparation, the best of briefing and the best of presentation.

We must launch a website on the problems we face -- facts, figures, relevant references, incontrovertible arguments, without hyperbole or naive comments -- a serious move for global information on a serious issue that we are compelled to face. Let the voice of a small country under duress be heard across the frontiers.

All these, I may emphasize, have to be done discreetly, over a short period of preparatory time, without unseemly media hype. The so-called intellectuals and elite members of the civil society have been displaying certain kind of polarization with the political changes in the country and are somewhat marked and dated. Political parties should be seen and heard in the public on the issues that the nation faces at its peril. The strategy is to keep all the appropriate channels open right from now on so that a cumulative wave of sympathy and support could be generated as and when necessary.

In my view, we have already been overtaken by events for reasons touched upon earlier. We should do everything possible in all fronts to prevent this from becoming a fait accompli, as was the case with Farakka. It will be naive to presume that India would easily agree to appreciate Bangladesh's lawful rights. We should redouble our efforts to find ways and means to ensure and safeguard our economy, ecology and the life and living of our people.

Syed Muhammad Hussain is former Secretary to govt. and ambassador.